Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

[[:|WP:VPA
WP:VP/A]]

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Wikipedia article for Sandra Bernhard plagiarized in Newspaper

"Key to Philadelphia," a Philly, PA based free newspaper has blatantly plagiarized the Wikipedia article on Sandra Bernhard. I have contacted their editior via phone and emailed him the text and links. It is hugely evident that the "journalist" who wrote the article for them used the wiki-article as the source for most of his tidbits and "facts", and he copied one paragraph almost verbatim. What tipped me off is that he used a misquote from the article from The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck: the article quotes her as saying "Don't you honey me, HONEY!" when in fact she said "First of all, honey yourself." Is there someone for Wikipedia who this should be reported to, or is it 100% acceptable for news outlets to copy Wiki text word for word? Midnightguinea 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Commons that Wikipedia is released under allows this to some extent which is why you have to agree to give up all individual rights to material that you put on wikipedia.

perfectblue 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL but Wikipedia's content is licensed under the GFDL, which means anything published here can be published anywhere (including for profit) but only so long as the original source is credited AND it is republished under the GFDL (a ~~similar~~ copyleft license). This is fairly different from "give up all individual rights ..." (which sounds more like public domain). In addition to Wikipedia's copyright terms, you still own authorship rights to anything you write here and you can republish under whatever terms you'd like as an individual author. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details about Wikipedia's copyright policy and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for what to do about content reuse outside the terms of the GFDL. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (amended Rick Block (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It means content can be redistributed if the GFDL and copyright notice are maintained and the content remains licensed under the GFDL (including derivative works); other copyleft licenses are not acceptable. Superm401 - Talk 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be astonished if the Wikimedia Foundation had ever sued for a case of plagarism, as this was, and no, there isn't anyone or anyplace here at Wikipedia that I can think of to whom it would be worth reporting. On the other had, I commend Midnightguinea for having contacted the editor; this is simply bad journalism as well as a (minor) insult to Wikipedia. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have standing to sue. Only original authors due. However, for our process for systemic copying, please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. It seems this case was dealt with well, though. Superm401 - Talk 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to contact another editor?

There is an article I'm interested in researching and expanding: Kit Carson. Another editor had conflicts, and seemed to have left, but asked to be contacted if someone was interested in hearing more of what he had to say. I would like to do that, but can't seem to find out how that would occur. Is this possible or not? Richiar 07:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you have tried their Talk Page? Fiddle Faddle 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is some sort of strange address on the users talk page, I don't understand how to interpret it. I'll send you an elaborated response.Richiar 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:User talk and Wikipedia:email. Superm401 - Talk 12:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange formatting issue

Can anyone figure out why the second and third paragraphs of Long Island Rail Road are being bunched together? Thank you. --NE2 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I see a second paragraph starting at "In addition to commuter trains", and that appears to correspond with the source. Superm401 - Talk 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to be a problem with a comment tag. I've added in a few spaces that seems to have fixed the problem. Tra (Talk) 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually an issue with a ^{[citation needed]} succeeded by a link. It very strangely doesn't work in user space or Wikipedia space. See This page is for testing a bug that only seems to happen in mainspace. for a demonstration. --NE2 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced Editors wanted at Wikipedia Drawing Board

I have recently joined the Wikipedia community. I use Wikipedia all the time now to look up general knowledge and even have it as my homepage. A month or so ago, I found out about a certain religious group and decided to look them up here, but to my surprise there was no article on them yet. I negotiated the pages on how to request a new article, and since I had information to help start the article, I was directed to the Wikipedia Drawing Board. I made my request there with relevant information on the topic, and one editor had made a suggestion to verify the notability of the organization. I gave published articles on the organization for notability concerns but have not had any other editors comment on the feasibility of the article. In fact, I don't think that many experienced editors monitor the Drawing Board to help these new requestors/contributors. In looking at the Community Portal, I didn't see anything advising editors to monitor the Drawing Board to help newcomers to Wikipedia. I have already posted a request for experienced editors to help the Drawing Board on its discussion page. If experienced editors could be informed of their requested help in maintaining and monitoring the Drawing Board, then I think this will greatly aid Wikipedia in the creation of new quality content. Please let me know of any way to address this issue on my talk page. - cgilbert 14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest. I don't see the purpose of this page. You can create the article on your own, and should if you have sources and think the topic is notable. Be bold!. Superm401 - Talk 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the matter of overlap with Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to overlap with Wikipedia:Requested articles, that page itself states right above the contents, "If you want to do more than just request an article and would like to discuss and plan its creation go to the drawing board." Following that link is how I first arrived at the drawing board and came to be a proponent for its use. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to create my own article

Hey guys how do I create my own article? Thanks Wiki101— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki101 (talk • contribs)

Well, the short answer is; go to the page you want to create and start typing. When you're done hit the "Save Page" button. The longer answer is to first read How to write a great article and the applicable notability guideline to make sure you should create the article you want to create, then follow the instructions to create it, remembering to cite your sources. Wikipedia:Citation templates has some useful fill-in-the-blank type things that make that easier. If you've got further questions, ask on my talk page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very long answer is do all of the above ... but also read up on WP:Reliable Sources, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and a host of other policies and guidelines... you will need to have these memorized (especially the fine print) so you can defend your article in various RfCs, AfD debates, and POV pushing attacks on the article's talk page. Have fun. Blueboar 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:How_to_start_a_page. Superm401 - Talk 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of a blog as an external link on a set of articles

User:Rwrrblog has added an external link to The Real World/Road Rules Blog on just about every article that falls under this subject, see Special:Contributions/Rwrrblog. Though the blog is filled with some useful information, a lot of the information is not verified. There is a lot of advertising on the blog. Also the manner in which the user added the links appears to be linkspamming. Can anyone advise me on how to proceed with this? I will be happy to go and revert all the changes with a nicely worded warning to the user, if that is in fact the best way to proceed. Thanks in advance. --Mattarata 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the name "Rwrrblog" and then spamming that url on over 75 articles, I would call it spam/advertising. It's well known that folks introduce items into Wikipedia to try and increase exposure, there are even "companies" people can pay to do this. I wouldn't go alone on my opinion, but I think it's spam. WP:SPAM. --MECU≈talk 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted and warned. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just needed some consensus. --Mattarata 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what if my AMA becomes inactive?

My AMA was a great help in moving the editing process along on a contentious page. We subsequently ran into another stalemate, and I need my AMA's advice on how best to proceed. He was a very active user, but since December 18, he has about four edits, spaced weeks apart, and hasn't responded to my requests for help for five weeks. I'd prefer to wait for him since he's done the tedious work of informing himself on the issues involved, but presumably he has outside concerns right now keeping him away from his regular WP participation. What's the maximum reasonable time to wait before getting a new AMA? And how exactly do I do that? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your AMA indicated the advocation process had run its course per following comment, 3rd Jan. [1]. You indicated agreement shortly after, 4th Jan. [2]. Full disclosure, I am involved in this debate myself. Steve block Talk 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above response is from the party whose behavior caused me (and continues to cause me) to seek the assistance of an AMA in the first place. He is not informed as to the email exchanges I had with my AMA before my AMA's longtime regular participation ceased about five weeks ago. The AMA has left the case open, and I would be thankful to anyone who could advise, in light of the AMA's sudden inactivity, as to a reasonable length of time to wait, and how to get a new AMA if that becomes necessary. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am the AMA in question, I did indicate that the AMA process has been as useful as it can be in this instance and another method of deciding the conflict on the article will need to be considered. •Elomis• 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is a good intro for citing Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which discusses alternatives. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had thought the issue was settled, but if this does have to go to arbitration then so be it. Third parties have been brought in, comments have been requested and a consensus was established on the talk page. Steve block Talk 16:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The AMA indicated that mediation was the next step, which I agreed with. Because of my unfamiliarity with that process, I was expecting my AMA to assist me with mediation, and any later processes, so I've been awaiting his return, per the advice at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which said: "While you can request the assistance of an advocate at any stage, please seriously consider use of a member advocate in the later stages of dispute resolution." Before proceeding, though, I was hoping my AMA would advise on what aspects of the case are the strongest and worth pursuing. There have been developments since the last time my AMA communicated with me, but I don't want to waste time pushing a case if, in the AMA's opinion, its foundations aren't as solid as I think. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Arbitration is the next step. Mediation appears to me to be a dead duck since given the discussion so far I don't see that our views are reconcilable. Steve block Talk 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That said, it would be more pertinent and useful to all on Wikipedia if you aired your thoughts here rather than in an email. That may change the nature of the debate and the options open. Steve block Talk 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance and experiences for learning about wikipedia categories

Wikipedia Categories.
If have not found an accessible (in the sense of easy to follow or scan) means to understand the categories in existence for say, American History, American Politics, and the like. What are people's experiences on understanding what categories exist for particular, but a still fairly general topic? Thanks. -- Yellowdesk 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Wikipedia's entire category system confusing and messy. I try to avoid working with categories, generally thinking someone for whom it makes sense will fix it. When I do work with categories I find Wikipedia:Categorical index is generally a good and helpful place to start. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an area that I spend much time with, but perhaps Wikipedia:Categorization would also be useful to you. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

I suggested a long long time ago that Petersfield, Hampshire be moved to Petersfield. The latter is a disambig page that points to the former, as well as two redlinked pages, which are not linked to by any other pages.

Google searches all point to the town in Hampshire also, and so I'd suggest a move of that to the Petersfield page, and the disambig move to a Petersfield (disambig) page.

Does anyone have the time, inclination and authority to do this? Grunners 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests like this are better posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so admins with experience in evaluating such things can take a look. - Banyan Tree 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism

Require the support of an Admin to stem the vandalism from IP 209.202.75.50 on articles Copper Sunrise and Bryan Buchan and they have recently moved to other topics. --HJKeats 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

209.202.75.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has already been blocked. In the future, please warn vandals with the standard talk page warnings and then report vandals who don't desist at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. - Banyan Tree 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ksyrie

User:Ksyrie is making changes to Macau, Hong Kong, List of countries by continent, and List of countries‎ without discussion and consensus. I reverted him twice on each article and he has made his changes again (3 time total). On List of countries by continent he has made the changes 4 times as he was revert by another user. Can an admin look into this/warn User:Ksyrie that a consensus needs to occur before a change is made -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, under WP:BOLD, an editor does not need to seek consesus before making a change. However, common sense tells us that if such a change is reverted, and the editor who made the change disagrees with the revert, he/she should go to the talk page and discuss the issue. At that point consensus is needed. It's a nit-pick... but an important one. I only bring it up because new editors come here and are influenced by what we say. We should be accurate. Blueboar 13:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Help:Reverting, Do not revert good faith edits. I take that to mean that if the edit is about a point that could be disputed, then per WP:AGF, the edit should be modified or discussed (on the talk page). (On the other hand, if someone is (say) revising an article to place Canada in South America, that's vandalism, not a good faith edit.) And as Blueboar said, and I'll emphasize: An editor is free to edit articles without posting notice of intent to edit or trying to achieve consensus first. There are obvious exceptions - if something is being worked out on a discussion page, then an edit of the article can disrupt that process. But, in general, Wikipedia was built upon editors who just went and edited. See Wikipedia:Editing policy#Boldness.

If the matter does come down to a dispute over what is right for the contents of the article, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 14:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NASA logo

This appears to have been lifted wholesale from here, however, it is my understanding that since NASA is a US government agency it might not strictly be a copyvio. This aside, it seems distinctly not on to simply lift texts wholesale. Thoughts? Chris cheese whine 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The work of U.S. federal employees carried out in the course of their official duties is public domain, per the message on {{PD-USGov}}. The work of "Steven J. Dick, NASA Chief Historian" definitely applies. Wholesale copying is not illegal, but it's considered good manners to acknowledge the source. If you want, you can add a note, either to the bottom of the article, like {{1911}}, or to the talk page acknowledging the source. - Banyan Tree 14:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an explicit notice of the source. Superm401 - Talk 08:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True as that may be, I'm not really sure that the fact that we can implies that we should simply lift text from elsewhere. Wouldn't this somewhat hurt the 'Pedia's credibility ("Hey, they'll copy from anyone if they can ...")? Chris cheese whine 03:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal stuff

I'm working on a portal at the moment, and I have a question: Is it acceptable to copy and paste the lead paragraph of a selected article into a "selected article" section of the portal, like the main page does with FAs? Or should I write a separate paragraph to go into the section? Thanks, P TO 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure if "notable" - assistance requested

Hello,

My name is Troy Rutter and I am cited in an article on Babylon 5, and am a member of the Screen Actor's Guild, and published a book available on Amazon.com. I believe I am therefore able to create an article off of the Babylon 5 article for myself as an individual, but I do not want to violate a "notability" rule in doing so.

The B5 article is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5%27s_use_of_the_Internet

Maybe my hesitancy is that it also seems egotistical. So my question is: Can I create a personal entry for me using the citation already given in an existing article, and then build that article out with the necessary bio information about myself and the book, etc? Or do I have to wait for somebody to create a page FOR me, before I can contribute to its updating.

Or, should I not do anything of the sort. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trutter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You shouldn't do anything of the sort. WP:AUTO explains why. And by the way, your hesitancy is commendable and is something we see all too little of around here when it comes to this kind of article. Best regards, --Tkynerd 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, I apologize for not finding the WP:AUTO article before posting my question. I looked but should have looked harder. Thanks again. --trutter

No problem -- I often have trouble finding particular help articles that I know about; if you don't know exactly what you're looking for, it's even harder. --Tkynerd 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think you're notable, though, feel free to suggest the article on Talk:Babylon 5; just leave the decision and any editing of the article to others. Superm401 - Talk 06:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always helpful to provide sources of information. You can use WP:CITE if you really want to be helpful, or just list the information needed (publication, author, date, article title). You probably have a clippings file that could save a Wikipedia editor a lot of work. If you have links to websites, definitely include those when/where you suggest the article - it will make it lot more attractive to an editor (who then doesn't have to find sources him/herself). -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the history be split?

I've been working on improving Long Island Rail Road to featured status. It was suggested on the talk page that the history section be split into a new article, because "probably some readers who want to know what the railroad is, rather than what it was, are having trouble with it." However, I feel that the LIRR basically is its history; a lot more happened in the building up of the system than recently. In addition, I've heard the complaint that featured articles are often on very obscure subjects, and the more relevant subjects are ignored. If the history is split, I will probably not work on improving the main article, helping to fulfill this prophecy. What do you think? --NE2 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Wikipedia:Peer review/Long Island Rail Road. - Banyan Tree 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Is Link Farm

I stopped watching Kickball a long time ago because I was sick and tired of constantly fighting link spammers. I checked back recently and somebody took the valid section of Adult Kickball and created a new article with it called Adult Kickball. Not per se wrong but it made an already short article into two shorter stubs. But check that new page out and you'll see it's only real purpose is as a total link farm, advertising adult kickball leagues all around the United States! Unless I'm wrong, that is totally against WP policy. If somebody went over there and wiped out all the link spam it'll just restart the 50th edit war just like it did on the original kickball article. So what's the right thing to do? I'd personally rather just post this notice and let somebody else take care of this because its so frustrating, but my suggestion would be to return the Adult Leagues section back to being a section on the main article (because Adult Kickball doesn't really deserve it's own article) and speedy delete Adult Kickball because the only reason somebody split it off was to abuse it for advertising links. Otherwise there's not enough content for an independent article. Fife Club 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've remerged and redirected to kickball. There's certainly enough content for an article, but it seems to have been split at least partially to escape a debate about the spam. That is one of the worst reasons I've seen for a split, in that the result was to maintain and expand the web directory. If it gets recreated, put the split article up at AFD and let the community weigh in on the quality of the new article and if a merge is appropriate. - Banyan Tree 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to use a template as a signature

Can I use an active template as a signature (without the SUBST: argument)? I am using the following command in the preferences to sign articles: {{SUBST:User:Iradigalesc/Signature}} and I want to use the template {{User:Iradigalesc/Signature}} to update my signatures at the same time I update the page User:Iradigalesc/Signature. The problem is than when I type {{User:Iradigalesc/Signature}} in the preferences, the program adds automatically the SUBST: argument.

Thanks! --Iradigalesc (discussion · +) 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any official policy on this, but I think what you're trying to do is frowned upon. By not SUBSTing the template, it must be reloaded every time any page containing your signature is loaded. That means a lot more strain on the Wikipedia servers. If just a few people with signatures on several pages did this, it could cause significant performance problems. That is probably why the SUBST argument is automatically added. So basically, once you sign a page with any given signature, that's the one that'll stay. If you want to change it, it will only change for subsequent signings.

By the way, you don't need a separate page for your signature. You can set it in your user preferences. Just make sure the Raw signature box is checked, and put the HTML/Wiki markup in the signature box.

—P^urple ^RA^IN 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Georgia articles not referenced in English

I was stub sorting and found three related articles on a child homicide case in the Republic of Georgia which don't appear to have English sources and, because they explicitly name individuals, probably ought to be double-checked (but I have no stomach for googling this one, sorry): "Child-Killer", Leo Vardiashvili, Luka Vardiashvili. The same user also created the apparently unrelated article Malkhaz Vardiashvili. Random Passer-by 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the "Not verified" tag which puts articles into the "Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification" so I added it to these articles and my question above is probably redundant. Random Passer-by 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Cry For Help

Dear Wikipedia and Wikimedia Affiliates,

I am a current high school student who has had trouble with the accreditation of your site as a useable resource. On behalf of the many student here at my school, my friends and I have started a petition to allow Wikipedia and Wiki resources to be used as credible, official sources in reports, essays, and research. My fellow Wiki advocates and I fully understand the workings of contributors, editors, and the occasional vandalizers, yet we believe that Wikipedia in its whole is a valuable source and is at most times more credible than other sources available to us. We understand that when researching, one should double check citing and information, and yet one should always do the same for all sources that are used. The other complication that had been aroused from our teachers was the necessity for a proper citation for Wikipedia. I explored the content section in your database and was pleased to find not one but multiple examples of each type of citation. I hoped that from this e-mail concerning your site your supporters and I would be able to acquire some positive feedback from any position in the inner workings of this helpful source. I hope to get a reply soon and to the site and its future, we give our best wishes.

Sincerely, Tom Hart

1/14/07

I attempted to send this email to "Wikipedia information team" and got no response other than that they thought that I wanted to make a change to the site. I really don't want anything to change because I love the site. I was just hoping to get some response to my plea and this is my last idea of where to send this request. Please give me something I can bring back to my friends or somewhere else to send this message where I can get a response.

Please and thank you, Tom Hart

1/25/07

I think it is great that you are taking an interest in working out with your teachers what you think is a credible resource. With regard to citations, you can click on the "cite this article" from any article (it is in the left column at the bottom). You have to choose which citation style you use, in the US, MLA is quite common in high school (if you're not sure, your teacher should be able to clarify which style is prefered).

In regard to the concerns about credibility, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Replies to common objections and Wikipedia:FAQ. Beyond that, you may want to consider how to argue a source is credible. Is it more or less credible than a website, for instance (anyone can put up a website). Because Wikipedia is easier to edit, does that make it less credible? How do you decide in general if a source is credible, and then apply those criteria to Wikipedia.

Finally, keep in mind that there may be secondary goals behind keeping Wikipedia out as a reference. Not so long ago, when I was a high school teacher, my school generally let students have only one Wikipedia article citation. We did not want students to give up doing their own research. Moving on to college, you will find professors and TAs not accept any encyclopedia as a reference (or rarely), simply because they expect primary research and sythesis of ideas from multiple sources. Your teachers may be trying to prepare you for that.

Hope all goes well and you can reach an agreement with your teachers. --TeaDrinker 02:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a Wikipedia sysop and I sympathize with where you're coming from - but for the most part I agree with your teachers. Way back when I was in high school the English class came right after study hall and cave painting, just before they taught us how to carve spearheads from rocks. Starting at age fourteen the rule came down like a hammer: no encyclopedia citations...none. We could use an encyclopedia as a starting point to look for other material, but we could expect a dismal grade and probably an order to rewrite the assignment if we broke that rule. Now once in a while you might find a subject where the school library doesn't have any material but Wikipedia does. On a case-by-case basis, go to your teacher and see if they'll make an exception. We're here to help, but the site isn't perfect. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would agree with your teachers on this. Wikipedia is not (yet) a reliable source for information. Our goal is to make it so, but we still have a long way to go before that is achieved. Given that our own rules and guidelines don't even allow citations from Wikipedia articles (or articles from other wiki type encyclopedias) to be used, I am not at all surprized that schools don't allow them. That said, Wikipedia can be a good place to start your research... it can be a very useful tool for compiling a bibliography of sources that can be used in school. Blueboar 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with my page

I was trying to sqaush down the space in my awards section by adding the following code:

<div style="height: 300px; width:100%; overflow:auto; border: thin solid black; background: #FFFFFF; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">

but when I scrolled down, the smily pictures immediately began floating out of place [3]. Can someone help me with this? --AAA! ^(AAAA)

Anyone? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 22:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly getting messages warning me of vandalism...

During the last few weeks I kept getting new messages telling me my i.p. has been involved in vandalizing the "Mickey Mouse" page. However I have no idea why I'm getting these messages since I didn't even have account until 5 minutes ago.

I'm really concerned about this, please give me some advice

Thanks in advance, Charonic

I can't tell what IP address you're accessing Wikipedia from, but others might be able to. I do not see any vandalism messages on your talk page. If you sign in to your account when you access Wikipedia you should be fine. I'll add a welcome message to your talk page that should be useful to you in navigating Wikipedia. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 14:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning messages are posted for anonymous IP addresses as well as registered users. It's possible (a) that the messages are mistaken, or (b) that there is just one, old message, or (c) that you think that because you were editing without an account, you weren't subject to warning messages, and that the message(s) are valid; or (d) that you're clicking on "last change" rather than "new messages" when you get the notification of messages, so the wiki software therefore thinks that you haven't read the warning message, so it keeps showing you the banner, which involves an edit warning for some other user who edited from the IP address that you're now assigned (since it seems like you have a stable IP address). In any case, as cgilibert said, if you have an account and you logon, you'll not see messages that are for the IP address you're using. -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the start of this thread was that account's first edit to Wikipedia. The odds are pretty good that this user was editing from a shared IP address. Someone else who used it probably did the vandalism. Don't worry too much: for technical reasons I won't get into here, account registration should clear up the confusion. Welcome! Durova^Charge! 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a non-living person

I would like to add an image into the infobox on the Virginia C. Andrews article. She is deceased so I obviously can't find take a 'free use' picture of her. She was a very secretive woman and the best image of her I can find is at this page. But I couldn't work out under which license I should/could upload it. Any answers? Madmedea 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't own the rights to this image (and I'm guessing you don't) then you need to get permission from whoever does own the rights to upload it. Please see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to place online survey link

Hi, I wish to make a request to the administrators here. I am doing some research on Wikipedia and I wish to survey fellow Wikipedians on what motivates them to contribute their time, effort and knowledge to this great resource. I have prepared an online survey form hosted on my school server and I wish to contact Wikipedians to help me fill out this survey form, by email or by posting the link on the user's discussion page. Should the user not reply or delete my post , I would not pester them. Is this acceptable behaviour on WP? I don't wish to unwittingly flout the rules here. And also, any data collected would be kept private and confidential. I would only be asking questions that are related to my research and probably the most sensitive questions I would ask for are the Wikipedian's username and simple demographics (no income and such). I would require the Wikipedian's username because I am going to engage in a lucky draw for gift certificates as a reward for respondents who complete my survey. Is this OK? --WikiInquirer 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Help needed fixing mess created by User:ShreveNewsMan

On 14 December 2006, User:ShreveNewsMan expanded Template:USLargestCities to the 100 largest cities in the United States with no discussion, even though at the start of July 2006, several editors (myself included) debated the issue over the size of the list, and the consensus was to trim to 50 from 75. See Template talk:USLargestCities. I have been too busy with my responsibilities as a lawyer to catch this mess until recently. Although I fixed the template on 23 January 2007, User:Squad51 just brought it to my attention that ShreveNewsMan had also put the template at the bottom of the articles of cities 51-100. I have deleted the template from four so far but I'm on a dial-up Internet connection at home and I just don't have the time to go through and clean out the remaining 46. Can a more advanced MediaWiki user please go through and fix the other 46, plus reprimand ShreveNewsMan for ignoring community consensus? --Coolcaesar 08:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to WP:BOLD an editor doesn't have to follow consensus to make changes, and it may be frowned upon for a third party user to go around undoing his changes. Personally I would suggest that you leave a message with him yourself, pointing him to where the consensus was made, and asking him to revert his own changes. SGGH 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding pages based on episodic programming like TV series or sub-divisions of an umbrella concept like group:album:song

I have run across mutiple pages that had the title of an episode of a television series as the article name. This seems like a TERRIBLE practice as often titles will refer to works of history or be quotes aor be other things that SHOULD be the main article under that title. Is ther ea "Best Practice" or Policy in WIkipedia for handling this? Someone please direct me. If not I would happy to propose a policy something like this:

The article title of a serialized fictional story or television show should be named: "(name of show):(name of episode)" . For instance, the episode of the (classic) Star Trek episode named "Bread and Circuses" would be named "Star Trek: Bread and Circuses"

This policy would also apply to things like the musical group:album:song articles.

I am clea rthis is a genral problem of granularity. When does an article split off and when does a single song require an article and when should it just be a section of a musical groups article. Can sopmeone point me to where this SHOULD be discussed or wher eit already has been? Thank you!!! If this is the wrong place to post this please direct me to the right place... Alex Jackl 16:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia articles are named. To use your example, an article about that Star Trek episode should be entitled Bread and Circuses (Star Trek episode) or something similar. The name of the article's subject should come first, and any additional information necessary to disambiguate the name should follow in parentheses. Where there are several articles that have the same main title, a disambiguation page is used to differentiate between them. See English for an example. (I'll also note that the article in the example is actually located at Bread and Circuses (TOS episode).) --Tkynerd 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot to address your final question, sorry! Basically information gets split off into a new article when the original article is considered too long, and when there is enough information to make a reasonably complete new article (and, also, when the subject of the new article can be considered notable in its own right). --Tkynerd 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding! Is that policy or de facto practice? Should articles with just a episode name or song name be renamed to say "Mr. Roboto (Styx song)"(I know I just SO dated myself!)? Alex Jackl 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't definitely point to a policy, so I'll say it's the practice here. Articles should only have a parenthetical clarification in their titles if they are ambiguous, which I don't think "Mr. Roboto" is (there's nothing else called Mr. Roboto that has, or should have, its own Wikipedia article, is there?), so in that case I'd say no. --Tkynerd 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a policy, but there is a guideline... see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Blueboar! Even less authoritative, but still very useful, is this. --Tkynerd 02:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout help needed

I can't figure out how to move the contents box to the right of the page and have the text still running down the left on Suspension (body modification) if someone could help me with this, that would be great, because at the moment there is a big blank space! -- Librarianofages 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a TOCleft that floats the table of contents on the left. Please see Help:Section. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different IP addresses, same vandalism MO

Recently, several fairly minor Wikipedia pages have been being vandalised. The reason I'm coming here for assistance rather than reporting it to WP:RFI or WP:AIV is because there are so many different IP addresses involved, and every time the vandalism takes place, it's with a different IP. I would normally guess that this meant it was a dynamic IP address (say from an AOL account) but some of the IPs aren't even in the same range as each other.

The articles affected have included The Dreamstone (now semi-protected), The Bluffers, SuperTed, The Dreamstone Pilot, Danger Mouse and Victor and Hugo. The vandalism consists of replacing entire blocks of text in the articles with nonsense (in the case of Victor and Hugo, the main body of text was removed entirely and replaced with what looks like a Spanish translation). This link shows a typical example of this vandalism. There is an obsession with certain random words such as 'mouse' and 'police'.

The IPs involved so far are User talk:80.189.172.7, User talk:80.189.172.74, User talk:84.65.26.30, User talk:84.66.78.177, User talk:81.79.196.181, User talk:90.240.251.88 and User talk:84.71.6.250, and I'm fairly sure that doesn't cover all of them, and that there are others on articles that I haven't noticed. Many of the IPs have been warned by myself and others, though not to the point of a final warning. The problem is that a block will have no effect, since the IP addresses change with every instance of the vandalism. I'm not sure exactly what can be done to stop this vandalism; even if you semi-protected all the pages that had been vandalised, the same vandalism would likely take place on other related pages. The other problem is that the pages involved are what I call 'minor' pages - pages that aren't read by very many people - so the vandalism has remained for hours, even days, before someone has noticed it and reverted it.

I'm sure this isn't the only time something like this has happened, and obviously I'm not an admin so beyond warning them - which has no effect - and reverting the articles, there is little I can do. As far as I see, there's no really easy way of stopping this vandalism, but perhaps some admins will know what to do? --Stevefarrell 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism on George Pocock page

Someone wrote "Wikipedia is really wierd cos u can change everything they write so it is not reliable, c wat i mean!?" on the page, near the bottom. I went in to edit it but can't find it in the code. Someone who is more proficient than I, fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.105.193.172 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This was fixed about 3 minutes after it was added, by this edit. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed fixing articles mauled by WP:BLP

The following artivcles have been truncateed as apart of a users efforts to apply WP:BLP to all articles. Some of the statements removed seem like they could be good contributions to wikipedia if cited, and In the case of some, like Roman Abramovich, I feel it's vital that we get them cited and back in the article as soon as possible. Anything to do with religion, sexuality or politics will need to be partivularly well cited as the user has a particular interest in those areas and will revert anything thats less than rock solid.

I'd do more of this myself, and there may be others that deserve this attention but frankly the whole affair has left me a little drained of enthusism for doing anything Wikipedia related.

(I'm not sure that this is the appropriate space for this, or that delving into the hisotry to recover things is concidered goodd policy, but there is no equivalent of the unsourced or cite templates, and no effort to indicate what has been removed has been made on the talk pages.Feel free to repost this somewhere more appropriate) Artw 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest posting it on the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Biography page. SGGH 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]