This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.105.14.168(talk) at 21:16, 12 November 2005(Why do people continue to use offensive language and shout at discussion pages?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:16, 12 November 2005 by 71.105.14.168(talk)(Why do people continue to use offensive language and shout at discussion pages?)
Hi, I'm running into loads o' trouble with information boxes. I've tried creating an info box for ferry vessels (I would like to create articles for each individual vessel of the Alaska Marine Highway System, but I would like to start once I have an information box template and know what information the template will contain) but I can't seem to make any headway. Is there a place in Wikipedia where I can request for one to be constructed by those more versed than I in info box construction (or technical issues at large)?
Jarfingle05:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the content is keep reverting back.
This is Rajput page and as a Rajput I can expect you to think we can do better job to publish rajputs related info here.
If any info is not correct then you can let us know and we can take it out or come back and provide some reference.
If anyone comes and provide proper reference about any info and you take that out then we don't see any problem in that too.
I hope you understand and extend your support to improve our relation with other users instead of messing up everyhting here.
I know it's open source edit website and anyone can come and post anything on any page but when any page is disputed many times then you need to give some preference to right people and ask other to provide references for any kind of modifications, additions or subtractions.
Looking forward for your reply.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Regards,
Ajitsinh Solanki
I don't know what the other editors' motivations are for reverting your changes, but the best place to discuss it is the Rajput discussion page. I'm sure if you bring up your concerns there, the other editors will participate in the discussion. —HorsePunchKid→龜06:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, take a look at the message at the top of that discussion page. With many controversial subjects, the current article is a compromise worked out over a long time, and carefully balanced. That doesn't mean it can't be improved! But it means you need to engage in full discussion before any changes, or they are likely to just be reverted instantly. Also, check the article's history for comments about your changes. Another tip for controversial articles: do you think someone reading your words would guess what your own point of view is? If so, then it doesn't belong. Even if writing about one point of view, or another, the author's own voice must be neutral. Notinasnaid07:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How to 'claim' unsigned contributions?
I'm a new user, and before making an account, I made small edits to some pages I found interesting, which were signed with my IP address. Now that I have a name, how can I add those edits to 'my contributions' (I have an IP that doesn't change, so they can be confirmed to be mine, I think). This also includes a fairly large edit of mine after creating an account that didn't get my name on it because I got logged out without knowing it during the typing. I very much want that one on my list.
There used to be an option for that, but it requires a lot of work by developers with database access, who really should be working on improving the software. If there's no other edits by that IP you can just link your anonymous edits (especially the diffs on your userpage and tell people you edited using the IP for a while. Sorry, there's no better option. - Mgm|(talk)09:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, it would be a good idea to ask a user whether they'd like to be nominated before doing so. Occasionally it can safe you a lot of time. - Mgm|(talk)11:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I've nominated at least one or two users for adminship, who have been completely shocked at the prospect that anyone in the entire world would think them of worthy of AdministrativePower®, and they all have had complete, or almost complete, support, and become admins. The only user who I nominated for adminship who didn't become one was a user who declined the nomination. — JIP | Talk21:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
children's rights
which countries have not accepted the children's rights movement?
I just received a dire warning "83.205.38.52 : this is the last time we warn you that you vandalized a page, next time we will prevent you from etc, etc..."
I've no idea what this is about !
Is it a bug somewhere ? Is it somebody else using my address to do evil things ?
I find wikipedia very useful, and I rarely change anything on a wikipedia page.
AC (preceding unsigned comment by 83.205.38.52 2005-11-05 12:27:23 (UTC))
I have seen this happen a few times since I started editing here. For newbies it is extremely disconcerting to have such warnings suddenly leveled at them and the whole process of explaining what has likely happened has fallen to me a couple of times. I presume discussions around the pros and cons of making all potential contributors create a user name with a legitimate email address have already taken place. Right now, only IP addresses are logged for most vandals and of course in most cases this gets reassigned dynamically, thus alienating those who are potentially useful contributors. It also seems to me that anyone who genuinely wants to contribute usefully should have no problem with the registration process and, of course, vandals will be much less likely to damage pages if they know they can be traced and effectively banned. Charlie Richmond13:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(after two edit conflicts - I've reverted the second one that obfuscated the IP address, as that is a matter or public record on the History page and should have been included in the original signature)
I cannot see any justification for a vandalism claim, however, your IP address was used to make this edit to the hurricane Katrina page in violation of a guideline, commented on the page, about not being a place for large lists of links. It's possible that there was a revert war. It's probable that your are on a dynamic IP address and the Katrina change was made by another user of that address.
There are many other Katrina related contributions from 24.165.233.150 the IP address used by the not-logged-in user that added the warning. They maybe correlated many accesses from Wanadoo. Maybe you are just sharing an interconnect point with the person who kept trying to add the links.
There is a standard piece of text (template) that can be added to the talk page of an IP address that is defnitely dynamically allocated, that makes the warning about this, that already appears at the foot of the page, more specific. As the standard warning indicates, the best solution is to create yourself an account.
There is some possibility, here, that the final warning was put on without giving earlier warnings, which would be abuse in its own right. They appear to be using a static IP address, so there shouldn't be any problem in communicating to them with their talk page, although they won't be able to reliably talk back if you have a dynamic address.
I just noticed that when using Konqueror, the "Watch this page" button isn't checked by default like it is in Firefox. Is this some sort of bug, or just a consequence of my browser settings? Ojw13:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your user account preferences at Special:Preferences. If you login to the same account with both browsers, or use identical settings, it may be the browser that is the problem. — Sverdrup15:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
info for sellers
hallo
i come from Sicily and to be direct, i have a lot kilograms of oranges more then 40.000,00 kg and i will like to send overseas.
there is a way to sell those by you? or thre is a way to sell oranges in one of those big chain such as auchian?
thanck you
I'm going to be starting a Business class soon and was looking over the scheduel. I ran accross this heading... Robert's rules of order. What is it? Or should I ask, What are they?
Thanks in advance.
Lstp
Installing "hit counter"/"visitor count" for User page?
Is there a way to install a "visitor"/"hit" counter (e.g., "[26,724] people have visited this page since ...") on the User page (given the interactive editing nature, I realize it would be inappropriate—and probably useless—on an article page, but it seems reasonable for the User page...and I haven't seen any policy prohibition against it)? I've tried installing one, but it just shows up as HTML code.
Or is there a special Wiki counter (or even just a way—"Special page"?—to find out how many User page visits there have been). ~Kaimbridge~16:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Basically no. MediaWiki contains software to run hit counters, but it's turned off globally due to the amount of strain it puts on the servers. I don't believe it can be selectively turned on. As for "installing" one, the software suppresses (for obvious reasons) most attempts to do fancy HTML to call external resources. Shimgray | talk | 16:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Technical FAQ#Can I add a page hit counter to a Wikipedia page?. I suspect as far as the front end caches are concerned, user pages are just like pages in the main namespace. They could be treated differently, and the software's page counter mechanism could be changed so that it could be enabled per namespace. Both of these changes would be software changes. Feel free to suggest this as a new feature at Wikipedia:Bug report, although without a compelling argument for why this is needed I doubt it would be implemented. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That poem is assuredly copyrighted. It's probably unacceptable to use it here, unless you're planning on doing a detailed analysis of each line. I've commented on the article's Talk page that I plan on deleting it in a few days if I don't get some arguments as to why it should stay. User:Zoe|(talk)22:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I find who authored an entry
Into your encyclopedia?
On the top of every page is a history tab that will show you every user that has contributed to that page. If you are looking for this information because you want to cite Wikipedia, you can find out how to do that at Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia. Canderson717:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with my entry on I Capuleti e I Montecchi which was deleted by another user who didn't realize I was re-using my own article forom Opera japonica. What can I do?
Kleinzach18:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added the title and linked it. It was originally a run-on from the previous article. I had to guess the page title....Found it. It's not deleted only in the process of a copyright violation deletion -- David Woolley22:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)re-edit 18:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A former Wikipedia user and administrator especially well-known for his vandal-hunting as the vandal-hunting award in his name shows. I don't remember the details, but there was an incident that prompted him to leave Wikipedia and he hasn't come back since. - Mgm|(talk)18:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please tell me how my article on farnham kung fu club can be considered to have broken a ny rules in order to be considered for deletion?
This appears to be an arbitrary process in which one has no facility for responding to the alleged problem.
In this particular case, the only 'evidence' I can see cited is that one single person considers that the club 'might not be a NOTABLE kung fu club'... which seems something of a value judgement to pass on a small club that has produced numerous British champions and at least four world title holders in 23 years.
Can anyone enlighten me? Is anyone free to vandalise someone else's posting, just by objecting to it?? (preceding unsigned article by 195.92.168.166 2005-11-05 20:42:40 (UTC))
Nominating an article for deletion is rarely vandalism (only when there's clearly bad faith involved. If you can provide written sources to back up the article and post it to the deletion discussion page, there's a good chance it might be kept. - Mgm|(talk)21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(After collistion.) Please do not start lines with spaces. That is interpreted as being preformatted text.
In general small organisations are considered not notable, otherwise every social club would want an entry.
Another test of notability, the presence of multiple, independent, Google hits, also fails. The only hits are from your local (government) council[1].
Here you claim 4 + n famous people, but on the article page, there is only one famous person claimed and they are not famous enough to have their own article. There aren't actually any links at all in your article, but I did search for Gary Turner. If you can find a verifyable quote by a world champion that they owe their success to the club, and cite that quote in the article, you might make a good case for being notable, but as things are, I think the nomination is correct. (There are enough Kung Fu related hits on Google for Gary Turner to possibly justify an entry for him, but none with any mention of Farnham.)
There are currently two votes for deletion, as well as the nomination.
So I'm a relatively new user, and ive been unable to figure out how to revert. For the most part its been no problem, because most of the time what i would revert is simply a one-line vandalism of some kind. That being said, I've also seen cases of page-blanking, in which case i couldnt just edit the one sentence out of the article. how does one actually revert a page?
second, and also as a function of my newness, i know almost nothing about any html or wiki coding (what i do know ive either figured out by mimicing previous edits or through the how to edit a page page). I nominated a list for FLC, and one of the criticisms was that i should make the tables a standarn width (which i agree with, but just dont know how to implicate it.) it seems that a template is used ("prettytable" or something of the sort), and i cant find anywhere where i can specifically adjust the width. in any case, the article is List of NFL champions, and if anyone could help me out thatd be great.
See Wikipedia:Revert for details, but basically, provided that there have been no legitimate changes since the vandalism, you use the History tab to find the last good version, pretend to edit, but do nothing except add an edit summary explaining the reversion, and save it.
Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas! I can't figure out why my sig is rendering differently on different pages. I want to have a Canadian flag there, but I don't want to link an image, so I've got 's with a red background, followed by a "#" in red on a white background, followed by more 's. On my sandbox they render fine, but when I use them on the Reference Desk (like here for instance) and on some other pages, the backgrounds don't render, and I just get a red #. I notice that in the HTML source, the working ones convert the to a  , but the non-working ones convert them to ordinary spaces (" "). What can I do to make that work everywhere? — mendel☎#01:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, even that one showed up correctly in preview, and now that I'm editing the page I see the 's are still there. Grr. — mendel☎#01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's even stranger. I have a new approach that I think might work -- underscores in the same color as the background instead of 's. Mostly I just need to try it here because here is one place the old one failed consistently. — mendel☎ _ * _ 19:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How to split an article and preserve edit history
I'm trying to split part of an article (cutting) into another article (cutting tool), and I was wondering how to do this while preserving the GFDL history requirements. The Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page article doesn't mention how to handle partial movements. Wikipedia:How to break up a page, which is linked from the FAQ, tells you *when* to break up a page, and the formatting details, but doesn't tell you how to perform the actual break. I'd be happy to help update some of the documentation if someone can let me know how to do this. -- Creidieki01:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My impression, as noted in a long thread here, now archived, is that the de facto Wikipedia licence is not the GFDL, differing particularly in the areas of the History section and the copyright notices, and also in the provision of URLs that provide the complete transparent form and nothing but. That's probably only a problem for anyone trying to import GFDL material from elsewhere, as anyone directly contributing can have no real expectation of seeing copyright notices immediately after the title line (there is no title page requirement), etc. My user page has standard templates that are intended to make it easier to use my contributions if fhe GFDL status ever gets formally challenged.
(Note, I believe that complying with the GFDL rules for opaque copies would make pages unreadable, even in default of cut and paste.)
I've noticed that the Wikipedia:Help desk page is very long, and is sometimes archived. I was considering trying to archive the page, but I couldn't find any archival instructions linked. Are any instructions available? --Creidieki01:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am wondering what the usual process is (for my own purposes), and I could not find anything specific after quite a bit of searching. My guess is that you move this page to something like Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 34 (so as to preserve the history), then recreate the page with whatever boilerplate goes at the top. I'm not really willing to do that (and certainly not on this page) without knowing that this is actually the correct way to go about it. —HorsePunchKid→龜06:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. That would also archive still active questions. The best way to go about it is to cut and paste the text to whatever the next archive is and mention it's archive from the main HD page to show where the history is. Be sure to link the new archive in the list of archives mentioned. - Mgm|(talk)11:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RCP and WP:V helps little regarding this, so I appreciate any advice. I tried to expand Thelovefest but found absolutely nothing about it on the Internet. User:RHaworth reverted the ((nonsense)) tag I placed, so I put the ((dispute)) tag. What should I do - nominate to ((afd))? Thanks! -- Perfecto02:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a nuisance if it went to AfD and then it was discovered to be legitimate. Try to find an Irish Wikipedian and see if they know anything about it - they will probably have better resources than us.--Commander Keane04:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did quite a few bits of editing in Wikipedia before I actually getting myself a user account. Those edits are visible in the history section of each article (under my IP address, rather than an account name). I wondered if there was a way to change this so that clicking on the link (my IP adress) would take me to the contributions section of my new user id? Or otherwise to merge the two accounts?
I apologise in advance if this has already been asked, but I wasn't successful in finding anything about it.
the whole page is almost copy paste so plz tell me what this is all about.
Wikipedia licenses all of its content under the GFDL which gives anyone certain rights to reuse articles, as long as they follow certain rules. If NNDB copied their article from here, I think they're required to at least attribute it to Wikipedia in some way. If the Wikipedia article is copied from NNDB, that's a more serious problem, and we'll need to rewrite our article to avoid copyright problems. It's not immediately clear to me who copied whom here. —HorsePunchKid→龜06:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this doppelganger is not a copy. They have erronous stuff, and little to do as clean up. Origionally, I went there to fix something, and found it fixed here. The have not synced up in a while so...Artoftransformation10:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
editor
Dear editor,
I was looking for the Mexican Revolution and history regarding the persecution of Christians and came upon your site.At the top of the Mexican page and I'm assuming others,there is referance to stuff happening in the land 28,000 years ago:
1.This cannot be proven no more than evolution can.
2.Carbon dating as well as evolution has been proven wrong.
3.Stick to the facts please.Do not spread theories of evolution as it is linked to communism.
James ,Missouri
email address removed
If you have an issue with the factual accuracy of the page, please bring it up on the talk page for that specific page (just click the "discussion" link near the top). I have removed your email address to prevent spamming. —HorsePunchKid→龜07:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you don't like evolution much, but what you said is not true. Carbon dating may in some cases be somewhat inaccurate, but it certainly hasn't been proven wrong and as for evolution being linked to communism, I don't think there's anything that proves that's true. If you want to bring up issues with the accuracy with an article, be sure to cite sources. - Mgm|(talk)11:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution is a theory, that explains the fossil record, and rock strata and the connection between species. It is now in its ultimate test as there are recent reports of Evolution being observed. Right now, it looks like Evolution is being resoundingly verified.
Carbon dataing, another theory has proven, and has been used sucusfully in proving certain artifacts in British museams, and Russian Museams, were taken from Easter Island. It has authenticated these artifacts. If you have another theory, that would withstand scientific rigor and reproducability, I am sure we are all ears and eyes.
Creationism, and Intelligent Design are not theories. They are faith based decisions made by men of god. They have no place in the scientific world. They are Religion.
Contrary to your beliefs, there are communist christians worshiping in a religion recognised by Rome. Some of them believe in Creationism, and some of them do not.
I have no appatite for the truth. The truth comes knocking at my door, a few times a month, with their 'WatchTowers' and I have to point out Timothy 2:12. Its nice to be a biblical scolar. Keep the faith
Old U.S. Army Bases.
I was trying to figure out how to get this out to the general WikiCommunity, but, due to my inexperience with the site, was unable to figure out the proper place to ask the question. Maybe this is the place??
Anyway, I'm a 2 time combat vet who served over 12 years with the U.S. Army. At each place I was stationed, I became (volunteer) an unofficial base historian. There is no actual real job as that, but I would simply spend a couple hours a week researching the past history of units on that base, & most usually, the base itself.
After being wounded & discharged, I beame interested in researching ALL defunct U.S. bases that I could locate, or at least ones which are at a fraction of their mission during WWII. Although many bases trace their origins to the late 1800's, I mainly, with some exceptions, pick bases from the WWII/Korea/Vietnam era that have fallen into disuse. Needless to say, after 20-some-odd years, I have gained a large collection of this type material.
Data on these old bases is extremely hard to find sometimes. Try doing a search right here on Wiki for Camp Gruber, Camp Beauregard, & Camp Robinson, & you'll see what I mean. Do you think this would be an appropriate series of articles for Wiki?? I don't want to spend time posting them only to have them deleted for some reason that I wasn't aware of.
Each article would be about a medium-length page, detailing stuff like the following--Name of base, location, when it was in operation, what it's mission was, which units were home there, any notable figures that trained at, or commanded them, etc. It would also include an aerial picture of what the base looks like now, usually from Microsoft TerraServer. Their rules allow sharing of images like this, since the maps & pictures are actually public USGS issue.
It might also include a picture of when the base was in operation, although these are sometimes VERY hard to find, and maybe pictures of anything that's left from ground level...like foundations, markers, etc.
I have been threatening to put this stuff on my own web-site some day, but there's a problem. I'm not that good at maintaining web-sites. I just want to get the info out there, 'cause I know there's some interest in the field. I could supply the info, get each page started as best I could, & then Wiki users with more knowledge of working with Wiki could correct my screw-ups in format whenever they got a chance if they wanted to do that for me.
Give me an honest answer. If it's not something that sounds appropriate, no big deal. If it sounds OK, I'd probaly start in a few days. There would eventually be 3 or 4 dozen, with a new one added every couple weeks after that as I found ones I haven't researched yet.
Huumm...I coulda sworn that I WAS logged in when I posted that. No, the Fort Robinson is a completely different place. Guess I'll try a few & see what happens. 67.14.205.14522:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Franz Weninger
I am searching for relatives of Franz Weninger. Who was a copral Panzereramee Afrika 1943.
My Father served in Africa with the third ishlone New Zealand artillary battery.
After my father had passed away and cleaning up the estate the family has now come acroos a diary of Franz Weninger.
Inside the diary is three photos.To help anybody his first entry in the diary on the 1st of January had a hang over and sleeped with Finy before departing for Vienna on the 3rd of January. In his diary he mentions Finy on two other occasions so i only ashume that he is reffering to the lady in the photograph in his diary.
I dearly love to hand this diary back to the descendents of Franz Weininger and the three photgraphs.
If anybody out there who can relate to what has been said here please don't hesitate to email us (email removed) Thats my wifes email address.
My full name is Robert McIntosh
Please read the instructions at the top of the page. This page is meant for questions regarding Wikipedia. Your question belongs on the reference desk. Also, check back yourself and don't leave an email address. It's going to be picked up by mirror sites and almost certainly results in tons of SPAM for your wife to go through. - Mgm|(talk)11:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After I reprimanded an anonymous user for making a remark that used profanity to attack all members of a religion (and had no other content) on a talk page, he asked me to point him to the Wikipedia policy that prohibits religious slurs. Since it wasn't technically a personal attack, I am not sure what this falls under. Can I get some guidance? -- SCZenz17:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but it lists them as an example of a personal attack. Obviously, saying "You fucking XYZ" to another user is against policy, but it's not so clear that saying "All XYZ's are worthless and greedy and should die" is, because it's not a personal attack. At the same time, I stand by my reprimand of the user; if the latter example isn't explicitly prohibited by policy, it sure should be. -- SCZenz21:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One might say that it is common sense that if User:X is a member of XYZ, and someone says "Alll XYZ's are worthless and greedy and should die", then they have made a statement about all members of XYZ, including User:X. Johntex\talk23:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fear logic like that could lead to over-use of WP:NPA through Wikilawyering. On the other hand WP:CIVIL defines civility quite generally, and obviously insulting someone's ethnic or religious group fits under the definition whether it is a personal attack or not. -- SCZenz01:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is no explicit policy against this, it is not appropriate anyway. WP:NOT a soapbox or a forum for unregulated free speech, so a contentless tirade is inappropriate to begin with; WP:NOT a system of law. We do not need an explicit rule against something that is implicitly unwelcome. (I find it helpful to think of it as a common-law system, still slowly developing out of the feudal period by establishing its first courts, but with a monarch from whom all justice flows; many assume it is more akin to a civil law system...) Shimgray | talk | 16:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. It was difficult to take a stand and say "I speak for Wikipedia when I say religious slurs are unacceptable," when I hadn't encountered the problem before or seen an explicit policy. But, if there's no explicit policy because everyone agrees it's a no-brainer, that's good enough for me. -- SCZenz16:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
msg:
I have occasionally seen some pages put 'msg:' before a template (like {{'''msg:'''stub}}). What purpose does this serve? Thelb418:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the olden days of templates you had to explicitly say "msg" in order to tell MediaWiki that you were expanding a template (as opposed to substing one). Later this requirement was removed, and mediaWiki figures out that it's a template from the wikisyntax. Tim write a script that was supposed to find all the cases of msg and remove the msg: bit. If you remove the msg the template should expand just the same. I believe the script left a change entry as "template initialisation script". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the reason there are some templates in the msg format still around is that it took a little while for people to stop useing them.Geni20:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I love this site, but am totally unable to navigate around it. I am relatively clod-like with regard to computers and "chatting" on them. Is there someone out there who can give me a brief description of how to make corrections or additions to articles I have read. I sem to be able to "look up" definitions by simply typing in a word in the search box. But it seems like there is more depth to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.47.151 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make corrections and additions to articles, you can click the "edit"-tab at the top and put them in the edit window, like you did when you asked this question. Wikipedia:How to edit a page might be helpful in describing the wiki markup for easy linking and such. - Mgm|(talk)20:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for pressing edit
I pressed an edit button on your page by accident and received a message telling me that I have violated some copyright law. I am sure you have a log of it somewhere. My deepest apoologies as I did not mean to press it. Sorry for the misunderstaning.
You're suppposed to be able to edit things; that's the way this site works. It's only a copyright violation if what you insert into the site is plagiarized from a copyrighted source and is not covered by fair use rules, and there's no way for the automated software of this site to tell this. I'm not sure what message you're talking about. *Dan T.*20:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he is just referring to the message DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION that appears at the bottom of the edit screen for any page anywhere in the entire Wikipedia? — JIP | Talk20:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Editing/page creation
I seem to be having trouble editing the "Skrewdriver" article. There does'nt seem to be any options/links to edit the history/biography of the band. There are also track listings for only one of their many albums, and I was wondering how I could add tracklistings to all the albums listed. And finally Ian stuart (Key member of Skrewdriver) also has many side projects including three albums under his own name (Ian Stuart) But when I search "Ian Stuart" it automatically redirects me to "ian Stuart Donaldson" which is just a short biohraphy about the person... not ythe band. I also would like to know how I can add bands on here (Like his other side projects). Thanks.
If Ian Stewart has a solo career, then that info should go at Ian Stuart Donaldson. Unless you mean that he had another band called "Ian Stewart" in which case you could just create a new article about the band at Ian Stewart (band).
Also, there should be no reason that you can't edit the history section of the article. You can click the "[edit]" button for just that section, or the "edit this page" button at the top for the whole article. If you are talking about the introduction, dometimes people are confused about there being no section edit button. You just have to use the one at the top. Tell me if you need any more help! Dmcdevit·t01:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OPINION COLUMN
From <email address deleted>
From aurelio23
While I recognize that Wikipedia is not a newspaper but a glorious idea about knowledge, I wonder if you already have or plan to have a section devoted to opinions, comments, articles or other references?24.99.254.17822:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. That doesn't seem at all compatible with our goal of building an encyclopedia. Indeed, there are those who feel our current events sections and its kin aren't relevant to that goal, and occasionally folks suggest we should remove them. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk22:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I was on your site, I saw that the articles could be edited. I thought that was weird, so I clicked on the edit button, and I made a few innappropriate changes. When I realized that everybody could see my changes, I switched it right back. I'm really sorry. I hope no one saw what I wrote. I guess it wasn't that horrible, I just want to apologize.
Being able to edit a website is an unexpected experience, and I think everyone makes their first edit and says to themselves "do they really let me do that?" You can practice editing in our sandbox, where much silliness is permitted. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And we hope that after some experimentation, you may want to contribute. Many people start contributing to Wikipedia by fixing a simple typo that you might find. Others write short articles on topics they have familiartity with. Let us know if you have any questions. Johntex\talk23:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Select Page history and then choose (click on) the version of your choice. From there you can go back or forward one iteration at a time or start over from a different version. --hydnjotalk01:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The same question was asked on October 30. The answer was that that the software used to supply page statistics, but it was removed because of performance problems (The servers get somewhere around 5,000 requests per second at peak times). You can see the original answers here. --GraemeL(talk)01:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While reading the article about Starships, I found a link for the SDF-1 from Macross. When I clicked on it, I went to SDF-1 as it relates to the immune system (I think). I do not know where the SDF-1: Macross link should go. How do I find out who to contact regarding fixing this? I can't do it myself since I don't know where it's suppose to go.
The change has been made. Thanks for supplying the information. MistWing SilverTail
Previous language translator
Hello :)...I used to have an older version of your google toolbar installed which had a built in language translator for when visiting foreign websites it translated the whole page at once....upon installing your new toolbar I can only find an option for mouse hovering one word at a time translation...is there a way to get back the old version with the full translator installed or as a seperate download add on?
I noticed User:Knowledge4all is going through everything pretty much alphabetically and adding external links to the online Columbia Encyclopedia. I'm not going to go through and check every one, but some spot-checking suggested that the articles from the CE are frequently very inferior to their Wikipedia counterparts. Is there any official policy on this sort of thing? Or a better place for me to ask this question? —HorsePunchKid→龜05:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the wikipedia article takes from CE, an article shouldn't link to to it. perhaps he's doing a bit of advertising eh? --Ballchef23:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why have various articles on ancient history such as Cholas, Hunas and Indo-Sassanian shown up at CAT:CSD, as candidates for speedy deletion? There's no speedy delete tag on them, and no category link at the bottom. I can't find anything in the edit history that would add them to the category. Is this a MediaWiki bug? — JIP | Talk06:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HI! For lack of any other place to do this (I searched throughout your site!) I wish to submit an addition to your material on the subject individual. Under "places named after" I submit the more recent info as follows:
HMCS Quadra - a Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Summer Training Centre located in Comox British Columbia, Canada. Named for the Spanish explorer Quadra and commissioned in 1956 as a training base in Canada. Still operating as same to this day. reference: www.quadraalumni.ca More info available at http://www.cadets.net/pac/seacad/summer/cstc_e.asp
Regards,
D. Yates
e-mail removed
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you wish to submit new material, simply click the "edit this page" tab at the top of the page or an "[Edit]" link at a section, add the changes you need, and click on Save page. — JIP | Talk09:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The longitude between 180° W to 180°E is true on the earth, and perhaps be true on the sun and the moon, but it is not true on other planets and moons. Some planets have a longitude range from 0° E to 360° E, so I suggest to modify the geographical coordinate site to allow a much wide longitude range from -360 to +360. See the last paragraph in Timekeeping_on_Mars#Keeping_track_of_time_of_day for details about geographical coordinate used on Mars. — Yaohua200012:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently kvaleberg.com (the map sources page) and I both are ignorant of the fact that +-180 degrees just applies to the Earth. We should probably inform them (since they support different globes) that they have to modify their error checking. — Sverdrup13:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Timeout
All today I have been having difficulties - my computer has been saying "The operation timed out when attempting to connect to rr.knams.wikimedia.org". This happens on all browsers with a message of similar meaning. It is only now that stuff is back to normal. Can anyone help? --[[User:4836.03|User:4836.03 Oh yeah! i am cool!]] 12:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever something like that happens to me, I usually go to Wikipedia status to see if the problem is on my end or Wikipedia's. It appears, scrolling down to the bottom of the page, that there was some issues with timeouts earlier. Akamad13:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Bold text
Good morning. A young man want to know if you have movies and other informations in DVD. Thank you.
I am unsure if this is a test edit or not (I added the sub heading, but not the "Bold text" part), but either way, Wikipedia certainly does have information on movies and DVDs, just search what ever movie you are looking for in the seach box. I assume that's what you meant by your question. If you mean: does Wikipedia sell movies/DVDs? The answer is no. Akamad14:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do I link from a Wikipedia page to my own private wiki space?
Hi. Our group would like to be able to link back to a Wikipedia page from our own private wiki page. Is that possible? If so, could you explain to us how to do it? Thanks so much. SHH
Try Wikipedia:External link. The title of your question says linking to your wiki, the question is about linking from your wiki. Please note that unless it's from your personal userpage it's quite likely linking to a personal wiki from Wikipedia is considered SPAM. Read the link to find out what is considered acceptable. Linking to Wikipedia has no restrictions. - Mgm|(talk)19:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Understanding templates
Good day.
Still being something of a wikinoob, I'm hoping someone might offer some insight. While I've browsed through a great many pages that talk about templates, and have even read through the complete list of templates, there is one concept that I'm still confused on. Namely, templates that are prefixed by 'User_'. As best I can gather, these are templates that are created as a subpage of a user page (if I am using the terminology correctly, "in the user namespace")? How can one search through these templates? For example, I would like to find a userbox template that identifies nationality that I've seen in some people's "babel" box. Any advice is most appreciated.
It's actually possible to include any page on Wikipedia in another page as a type of template; the process is called 'transclusion'. To transclude a page from the template namespace, just enclose the page's name in double braces. The following code would transclude (insert) the content of the page Template:Foo.
{{Foo}}
For pages outside the Template: namespace, you have to include the namespace and a leading colon. If User:Johnsmith created a subpage called Foo which he wanted to transclude, (User:Johnsmith/Foo), he would use
I think there was some discussion somewhere about POV links being used as sources. Can you use a POV website for a source? Does it then make the article POV? Can POV links be deleted? Can someone point me in the direction of this discussion. I have looked around, but with no sucess. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --LV(Dark Mark)21:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If a POV link is being used to indicvate what people whith a particualr PoV think or say, then it can be included -- indeed in some cases WP:NPOVrequires that cited examples of multiple points of view be included, adn POV links can be a good way to do this. The title and/or placement of the link should indicate that it is going to a PoV site, if the PoV is extreme. But in any case sites outside of wikipedia are not in geenral commited to the NPOV policy, and we can't link to any site, or reference any book, without there being a sizable chance that the work refernced has a specific PoV, often a strong and biased one. DES(talk)22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:NPOV says, in part: Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest rock band," we can say, "Most music listeners believe that the Beatles were the greatest rock band of the Sixties," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had more Billboard #1 hits than any other rock band," which is also a fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It's important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe ..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and subjectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name. Including a link to a well identified PoV site can be a good way to do that. Note that a PoV site that fails to identify its PoV, and even who is responsible for the site, and that tries to present it's Pov as widely accepted and unquestioned fact, may not be a good site to link to unless the link clearly identifies the person or group responsible fo the site, adn perhaps the PoV of that person or group. DES(talk)22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How could I translate any article to my language for other readers?
I´m really fascinated by wikipedia, but some times its very slow to translate any article. Could you tell me, how could I and my friends help to translate articles to Czech language and place these translations to wikipedia for others, please? Thank you.
Hello my name is Candyce Frichtel
My e-mail address is <removed>
I`am a first year med student and my instructor is saying that HoH and H2o are the same meaning (or component) is this a true statement or not: the reason for my question and curiosity are : i looked up the definition of both and they dont seem to fall in the same category ; although they both have water as a basis for their chemical make-up. i would like a response to my question so that i can be clear about whether HoH and H2o are the same chemical make-up or do they differ.
Websters collegiate dictionary The concise columbia encyclopedia HoH and H2o web pages
It's HOH and H2O with a capital O (oh, not zero). What I remember is that you write two H's if you have to separate hydrogen atoms but H2 if they have combined with a molecular bond. — JIP | Talk07:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The H2 notation simply says the total number in the molecule, or the proportion, in the case of an ionic crystal. The H-0-H form shows the actual structure (except that they are not in a straight line - if they were, the world would be a less interesting place, probably with no liquid water). All of them are, of course, to some extent, simplifications. --David Woolley13:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Link a page from a picture
Normally when you click a picture, it takes you to the picture. How do you link a page to it so that when you click the picture it takes you to that page instead of the picture?
I'm not sure, but I think it's important that it go to the image page in every case. That's because people need an easy way to check the copyright status or other information about the picture. Also, consistent behaviour seems a good thing. Notinasnaid08:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about on a user page? I would like an image to go to another page so that I can remove the frame and caption, is it possible? --Ballchef11:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to use the image in a forthcoming book but would like to get access to the best quality original possible. Do you know where or how this can be obtained?
Thanking you in anticipation.
George English
This image apparently is taken from the "albums de croÿ" (note spelling) of Charles de Croÿ. No idea where to get a better scan. There seems to be (or have been) an exposition on these albums at the Chateau de Flers in Villeneuve-d'Ascq in France [2]. Lupo09:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it is often the case that you have to buy or license a high quality image. Just because something is in the public domain doesn't mean it is freely available. What you do obtain, you may use in any way (unless you obtained it under a license). 17:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
A side note, high quality images of PD work may not be copyrightable in the US because of their lack of originality. See [3]. Of course that doesn't mean you will succeed in demanding the museum send you an 8000x6000 TIFF file of their painting. Tempshill21:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How to handle potential vandalism?
On the Tekken (2006 film) article we have a user (User:81.218.200.189, he seems to change IP's every day he comes to edit FWIW) consistantly adding unverifiable (WP:V) information (specifically a non-existant cast list). He then goes to each of the individual actor's pages and adds "Tekken" to the actors filmography. I've done the test/test2/test3/test4 template bit, hoping this might at least get the guy to talk (since this could be a content dispute), but so far no response. There's discussion on Talk:Tekken (2006 film), but this user hasn't participated or is unwilling to participate. What's worse, the incorrect info on this page is being used as source on other sites, so I'd really like it if this guy would knock it off. So my question is: is this vandalism? A content dispute? How can I resolve it given that the individual won't respond? -Locke Cole11:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be verified and the user is not prepared to listen to reason, then -yes- I would consider it vandalism. Since he regularly changes IPs, I'd suggest you ask for protection of the Tekken article, rather than a block, because they are likely going to try and evade it. - Mgm|(talk)13:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
dear sir, please i would like to know how much castor seed can be collected per hectar? thanx. mekonnen gebabaw. my e mail address, <deleted - see instructions> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekonnen (talk • contribs)
A Complete Article on Backplane Buses
Dear Concerned!
I'm a student of electrical engineering and wants to ask some information on;
1) Backplane buses (ISA, EISA, AGP, PCI).(Complete article)
2) Advantages and Limitations
3) Which one is faster?What is the data transfer rate?
Please email me these things on this email address:
<deleted - see instructions>
Regards,
Tehseen Aslam
(A student at University of Engg. & Tech., Lahore, Pakistan.)
As the instructions at the head of the page indicate, this is not a page for factual questions. You need the Wikipedia:Reference desk, specifically the science part. This page is to ask questions about the use of the Wikipedia itself. --bodnotbod18:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please look at and remove the stupid comments from the Bruce Lee page. I love this site and use it all the time, but don't know how to do something like this myself and the help pages are too complex. Thank you.
When uploading a screenshot, the option bar notes that one screenshot per article can be used, but I can't seem to find any other times when this restriction is stated in the usage policy files. I'd just like confirmation that there is a one screenshot per article restriction.
Whilst there is no explicit restriction (there's cases where several can be justified), we try to encourage keeping the use of fair use images to a minimum - the legal validity of having multiple images is often pretty shaky. A one-fair-use-image maximum is, if possible, a good rule of thumb to stick to. (Free images are even better, but understandably hard to get for films!) Shimgray | talk | 02:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm writing an article of an item with multiple parts (the First Tsurugi article), and would like to include screenshots of each part to supplement my probably insufficient written descriptions, then might taking shots of each part and posting them be excessive? KLSymph02:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmuuh... I dunno, frankly. I'd encourage you to only use one, but I can see how you could argue for half a dozen (and, god knows, enough articles on films do) - you're using them alongside an explicit discussion of the thing portrayed, some critical and informed commentary, &c. Hrm. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use is a good place to leave this sort of query. Shimgray | talk | 03:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Usher article
Someone stated that the song "Caught Up" by Usher is about masturbation, however the song is clearly about a women that the man is "caught up" with. Can wikipedia change this, because it is highly insufficient, and I am hoping that the author of that page was not doing it out of spite.
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Shimgray | talk | 03:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the rules on the non-use of original research before doing so, as "clearly about" sounds like your opinion, rather than a statement that there are other documents that you can reference to support that view. Conversely, if no source is given for the current view, that may be original research and should be challenged on the article's talk page, or with the original author, and, if necessary, and after searching to confirm no supporting material, removed. --David Woolley07:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What links here
Is there a way to find out recent changes in the articles that are linked to one particular article. For example, I want to see changes in pages that are linked to India. Please advise -- Ganeshk07:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is recent changes in links present in the India article (outbound links). What I am looking for is recent changes in all the articles that link to the India article (inbound links). Hope that clarifies. - Ganeshk09:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there is no automated way to do precisely what you're asking for. You might be interested in List of India-related topics (there are fairly many "list of x-related topics" pages), which exists at least partly to allow the "related changes" operation. You could also create a subpage of your user page containing links to whatever set of articles you're interested in, and view recent changes for that specific set of articles using "related changes". Note the "list of" articles (or your user subpage) are manually updated and many have not been kept up to date since categories were introduced a little more than a year ago. "Related changes" does not seem to work for categories. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Argentinian National Anthem's mp3 Link
When I click the link to Argentinian national anthem mp3 (the second link in the page), instead of a download page, it "warps" into a Spanish-Argentinian site about education in Buenos Aires(educacion=education, right?) with tons of another links. I have no idea what to do, since I have no knowledge about Spanish language at all. So, could you make a more-specific link that can lead straight to the mp3 file, please? Thank you.
Ooooh.... Then please, someone, make it "back to live" ! Thank you.
The problem is that it's an external link - we have no control over whether it's dead or not. I'm afraid to get it back you'd have to contact that site specifically. I'll remove the link from the page for now, though, since it's of no use. Shimgray | talk | 12:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please disable the IP 198.96.86.4
Hi,
Please block this IP 198.96.86.4, he has been causing much pain.
Please check the history of this IP.
I once again request you to block this IP.
There seems to be an edit war about the transliteration of an arabic word. It's certainly not vandalism, but I would have thought that the transliterations were somewhat arbitrary, and therefore it was unreasonable to claim a mistransliteration. It looks to me that the requests for comment process is needed here, not a blocking. --David Woolley12:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting articles without checking the authenticity
A quick question, to ask why splash (AN ADMINISTRATOR) had the power to delete an updated page on "Damn Skippy". I updated the page to display information on my band of the same name. All information was correct and could have easily been verified by going to the specified websites. I am wondering why the update was denoted as "Nonsense/Loser", this is unfair.
An appology would be kindly accepted.
Many thanks.
Wikipedia is not the place for self promotion. I've just listed the article you re-created as an article to be considered for deletion. This isn't to say that your band isn't great, or that you will not be notable enough for inclusion someday in the future. However, Wikipedia cannot be a promotional site for non-notable bands, non-notable people, etc., etc. Imagine what Wikipedia would be like if every Joe Schmoe had an article?. It would be unruley, unencyclopedic, unmanagable... in short, chaos. As for the admin calling you a "loser" -- that's not fair, I agree. However, due to the quirky song names of your band, he or she probably thought you were being a vandal playing a hoax on wikipedia. --Quasipalm15:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC) p.s. I've added your other albums, along with Damn Skippy to the AfD, including Live From The Haunted Candle Shop, Hip To The Javabean, Clown Circus.[reply]
Creating a new page with the same title as an existing page
How do I create a new page whose title is identical to that of an existing page? Specifically, I would like to create a page for a person whose name already exists in Wikipedia. Will this involve creating disambiguation and redirects? Does the existing page need to be edited in any way?
I'm sure there are many ways to approach this. Would appreciate your input.
The general process involves disambiguation by adding a parenthetical distinguisher after the main article name, e.g. "suit (cards)" if you want to write a "suit" article and want to distinguish it from clothing. — Extreme Unction19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see some folks on this page and others have their signatures in different colors, superscript, subscript, and so forth. I know how to use HTML, so my questions are basically:
1. Are these signatures saved somewhere, and accessed via some combination of keystrokes similar to ~~~~? Or are they just saved locally on the poster's computer and cut-and-pasted as necessary?
The modified signatures are set up in Preferences. Basically to change your signature, put something in the box marked "Nickname" and check the box marked "Raw Signatures". This will prevent the Wiki from automaticaly linking your name to your user page. You can make your own wiki links in the Nickname box (try testing it in the Sandbox first). Enter ~~~~ in talk pages to display the signature you created, with timestamp. ~~~ displays your signature but no timestamp, or ~~~~~ for timestamp alone.
Mine looks like this -=# [[User:AmosWolfe|Amos E Wolfe]] <sup>[[User talk:AmosWolfe|talk]]</sup> #=-
Note that an overly ornate signature can be perceived as attention-seeking or annoying; such signatures also eat more bandwidth than they deserve. Feel free to add a splash of uniqueness, but don't go overboard. If someone suggests that your signature might be a bit too dramatic, take heed. To produce a signature, use three tildes: ~~~. For a signature and timestamp, use four tildes (~~~~) and for a timestamp alone, use five: ~~~~~. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a babel box on my user page. I noticed however there are various "user templates" for additional languages like C programming language, HTML and such.
Is it "really right" to put those languages in babel boxes? After all, they're not "real world" languages. Maybe I've not got the point in babel boxes?
Thank you, MaxDZ820:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
People do it also because they think it's neat and cute or whatever. They're having a little fun with their user page. Where's the harm? Dismas|(talk)21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are not "real world" languages, but listing them is still useful. The Babel box was made to encourage user classification by the languages they have mastered. Whether they are spoken in the real world is irrelevant in that case. - Mgm|(talk)22:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll think about it. I see above there's a question about generic div boxes. I believe I'll play a little with them. Thank you for your feedback. MaxDZ811:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merging, when's a discussion a dispute...
Earlier today I added merge tags to Scottish term days and Quarter days, these were reverted by User:Mais oui! without discussion. I readded them and added an entry to the articles talk page. Mais oui since has changed them to mergedisputed tags and we've had a good bit of to-and-fro on reverts about it.
In my opinion the merge is not disputed. I added the tags because I thought the articles would be better if merged. I added the tags to see if anyone else thought so too, or if they thought it was a bad idea. The tags are there to point folk toward a discussion on the subject, if most people don't think a merge is a good idea then of course i'll not merge the articles. A disputed merge is one where i just go in and do a merge and someone thinks "whoa, that's a bad idea". Or if at the end of the merge discussion I do a merge regardless - that is a disputed merge. Am I completely off the ball here? I have discussed on the user's talk page without much success...
I'd rather discuss the merge, rather have someone play silly beggers with the politics of it - going on about 3RR and "no personal attacks" when I'm the one trying to be constructive, discuss things and have made no personal attacks at all...
It is a bit votish, but a discussion seems to be ongoing on Talk:Quarter days right now. I think was Mais Oui tried to say is that it would've been a good idea if you had explained why you wanted them merged on the talk page in the first place, but I do agree with you that that's not really mandatory. - Mgm|(talk)22:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't know where that layout came from, but it was there when I added my comments so... Anyway, that's my point - it is a discussion, so why the need for the dispute tags etc? Thanks/wangi22:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we not having a traditional Chinese character pages? It will serve likely more than those only familiar with the simplified characters. Thanks and I appreciate some response.
Is that the simplified Chinese Wikipedia? Or the traditional Chinese Wikipedia? Maybe there is only one, which would lead to the question. Notinasnaid10:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. I'm new at this and I'm not sure I understand an issue about the sandbox. Going through the tutorial Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links), and at the bottom, it says "Try it! Here's the sandbox for this page." But when I click on the link, it just goes to the regular sandbox (Welcome to the Wikipedia Sandbox! This page allows you to carry out experiments. To edit,...). Same thing happens for Wikipedia:Tutorial (Related site links). Am I supposed to cut and paste everything into the sandbox and then play? I looked through the editing FAQs but maybe I need a little bit more on how the sandbox works. Hope this isn't too stoopid a question.
Not a stupid question at all! What you're seeing when you hit the link for the tutorial sandbox is actually a template, which is basically a chunk of wiki markup that is included (transcluded, as they say) into another page. The main sandbox just so happens to use the same template as this other sandbox, but the pages themselves are actually stored separately. So do go ahead and just edit the sandbox linked from the tutorial; it won't affect the main sandbox, though you're certainly welcome to experiment there, too. Hope that wasn't too confusing. Good luck, welcome to Wikipedia, and let me know if you need any further help! —HorsePunchKid→龜06:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Legality issue
I'm wondering, does it constitute as fair use to use small sound clips directly out of an anime series or film? We're talking about 2-3 second clips, for name pronounciation. -- Ynhockey || Talk11:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is tricky. As noted above, we like to avoid it. The important thing here, is to remember that fair use depends on the context. If you write about an anime series, you can illustrate the article with a poster as fair use, since it's directly and closely related to the subject. Pronunciation of names of anime figures is not central or essensial illustration of the article, and may not be valid fair use, depending on standpoint. On the far end, if you cut sounds from an anime episode, to illustrate something completely different (like pronunciation of a name, in an article about, say Mao), fair use doesn't apply because you are just ripping off someone's value without association. — Sverdrup13:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia
What is wikipedia?
Yesterday when I came here everything was stupid! Someone had changed Wikipedia to Wikipaedia with an e. Is this vandalism or official? Wikip(a)edia rocks!
If you are talking about the template, perhaps you can point me to the template you are working on, so I can have a go at fixing it. - Mgm|(talk)16:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to list it for AfD, but the "Link to this article's deletion page" or whatever takes me to a pre-existing archive from the last time it was up for a vote. (There apparently was no consensus.) So I removed the AfD and came here.
1. Is there an official or acceptable length of time to wait before re-nominating a page for deletion? The previous AfD vote was 2 months ago.
2. Assuming that it's kosher to re-nominate the page, how do I link to a new deletion page? The current deletion page offers up DIRE WARNINGS against altering the discussion archive, so I want to avoid doing that, if possible.
To renominate you use the tag {{subst:afdx|2nd}}. Read through the original AFD debate first and decide if it is likely that a renomination won't just lead to the same result. See WP:GD for further details. Sjakkalle(Check!)13:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do I get rid of this?
Apologies for my noobness in advance.
At the Dopethrone page, I'm editing track listings, and this happens every time I want to put the three parts of a song on a different line:
1. Song
2. Song
3. Song
I. Part One II. Part Two III. Part Three
Is there any way I can not have the text in the box? I've tried fiddling around with it, but it seems to go automatically. I presume it's something to do with having a Roman numerals list?
It's because you're putting a space at the beginning of the line:
Accounts cannot be deleted. This is in order to comply with the GFDL license, which requires keeping track of individual contributions. If you no longer plan to use your account, then you can just leave it there and never log in again. Johntex\talk22:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Editing the "1995 births" Category page
How do I add a new link to the 1995 births Category page? Clicking the "edit" tab doesn't display the content that is actually shown on the page.
Categories are generated automatically from article text. To add an article to a category, add the text [[Category:1995 births|Smith, John]] (or whatever is appropriate) to the article. The text after the bar is used to put the name in order; the text displayed is always the name of the aricle. Susvolans⇔17:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The heading for the article on the America's cup incorrectly identifies the final matches of the America's Cup as the Louis Vuitton Cup. The Louis Vuitton Cup is the cup awarded to the winner of the challenger series. The winner of the Louis Vuitton Cup is the boat that sails against the defender of the America's Cup in the 9-series race for the America's Cup. This is a common misconception, but I couldn't find it misstated anywhere in the editable portions of the article. If the header is assembled by Wikipedia editors, I'd like to request that they update their information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.195.30 (talk • contribs)
I'm using MSWin MSIE6; would someone who knows such things check whether the scripts in my monobook.js should work with it, please? —msh210 15:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Fonts
For some reason which escapes me, the font with which I see wikipedia has changed(to a font that is downright horrendous). I cannot find the setting in my preferences, if there is one. And no one else seems to have commented on it, so I'm assuming it wasn't a wikipedia-wide change (that is, it's only affecting me, so far as I can tell). I don't beleive it's something in my browser because all other pages outside of wikipedia look the same. Can someone point me to the setting? Thanks. --2tothe421:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any change in my fonts. There are various settings in your browser that can change default fonts, as well as problems that can occur in your operating system's settings. If you're sure neither of these is the problem, try checking out your CSS file, User:2tothe4/monobook.css. You can force Wikipedia to use a specific font with that; I can provide more details if necessary. Hope that helps!
On a marginally related note, did anyone else notice that for about five minutes a day or two ago, the default justification of paragraphs was set to "justified" (instead of "left justified", which it has always been)? Was someone fiddling with the main monobook.css? —HorsePunchKid→龜07:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With most editors having tens/hundreds/ or even thousands of pages on their watchlist, this would be a very rarely used feature. Probably, I'm guessing, not enough to justify having it. Dismas|(talk)01:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Making That Red Link Blue
On the wikipedia page for Joey Waronker, all links are cross-referenced BLUE, except for the link to Walt Mink, which is RED. The reason for this, if I understand correctly, is that there is no wikipedia entry for Walt Mink.
However, there is a wikipedia entry for Walt Mink. The FAQ tells me I can link the two by authoring a Walt Mink entry -- but I already have.
What I can't seem to figure out (since I'm apparently dense) is how to--how do I put this--hip the Joey W. page to the existence of the Walt Mink page without recreating my entry on Walt Mink.
Why is it that any random person can come and edit your pages? Some random person can come around and make all correct things wrong, therefore messing up other's work. I have been doing research papers for school, finding out only recently that you can edit pages. I am worried that anyone looking for correct information could be picking up false information, therefore getting the wrong idea about something. This is just my opinion on this subject, but i would feel much more comfortable if you could maybe prevent anyone from editing the pages. Thankyou very much for listening. unsigned question by anon 24.211.103.120
As anyone can edit any article, it is of course possible for biased, out of date, or incorrect information to be posted. However, because there are so many other people reading the articles and monitoring contributions using the Recent Changes page, incorrect information is usually corrected quickly. Thus, the overall accuracy of the encyclopedia is improving all the time as it attracts more and more contributors. You are encouraged to help by correcting articles and passing on your own point of view.
But on the other hand, where do you think Wikipedia came from? There wasn't a huge accurate encyclopedia, suddenly opened up for vandalism; there was nothing at all, and all of these million articles and more exist because anyone can edit. And the job isn't finished yet. Notinasnaid16:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who adds the links to newlt added content?
I added some content to an existant page. I see that all the Wikipedia pages have links embedded in thgeir content but all I did was add to content, I did not create any links. Does a human editor come along at some point and annotate content added by users?
I think he may be asking how you actually create links. The way it is done is to put the name of the article in double square brackets, like [[Wikipedia]] (Wikipedia). There are some subtleties which are explained in Wikipedia:How to edit a page. The most important are that the first letter may be either upper or lower case, but all others must be exactly as in the article title. The second is that you can put a vertical bar after the article title, and follow it with what you want to appear in blue, for the link, e.g. [[Wikipedia|this encyclopedia]] (this encyclopedia). There are various short cuts and special cases which can speed the process, but, for most articles, the above rules will get you started.
In many cases, you will need do no more than add the double square brackets to the text you have written, but you should always test each link, by previewing the edit and, for example, using right-click open in new window to make sure that it is what you expected. If it is not, you will have to find the right article and put its title and a vertical bar ("|") before your text (or change your text to match).
I'm familiar with RfC (for user disputes), AfD (for content deletion), but where exactly would one make a proposal to, in this case, ban all anonymous contributions from AOL IP addresses? --Locke Cole02:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd figured it'd been discussed before, that's why I didn't want to try reinventing the wheel first. Thanks for the pointer to the older discussion! --Locke Cole16:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
munierz pipe organ
What is the location(address) of this organ builder? The date? The historic sinificance? [email removed] thank you linda shearin
Please read the instructions at the top of this page. Sharing your email address is likely going to leave you with a lot of spam and questions like yours should be directed at the reference desk. Good luck. - 131.211.210.1108:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Subst in signature templates
I've seen some discussion regarding templates in signatures (e.g. at Wikipedia:Template substitution). I assumed templates in signatures were not allowed, but now I suspect otherwise. So first I'd like to know for sure that they are allowed. Secondly, assuming they are allowed, I would like to subst mine (seems friendlier to the servers), but this seems to be forbidden (at least according to my tests in my sandbox). Is this actually the case? (See also Wikipedia:Help desk#Time in signature.) Thanks for any help! —HorsePunchKid→龜07:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In geernal templtes in signatatures are strongly discouraged, but there is no actual policy against them (although some people have sugested one from time to time), substituted templates avoid many of the problems and are IMO better than trascluded templates. But I think it is better yet to have a signature simple enough that no tempaltes are needed. DES(talk)16:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, though I am still confused. First, I'm certainly not a fan of excessively large signatures, but anything but the most trivial signature is impossible to edit effectively in the preferences. Second, my main point here, which I did not make clear, is that subst in signatures fails; the wiki markup for the template remains unprocessed. Is this a bug or a feature? —HorsePunchKid→龜19:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Broken global stylesheet, or where to report minor bugs?
There are two problems with the global stylesheet that should be fixed ASAP. First, the filter statement on line 225 should simply be removed: It is nonstandard and produces errors messages in Firefox. Secondly, the line-height property on line 208 has no units (should be 1.5em, I'm sure), which is invalid and also causes error messages.
These are trivially fixed, but I'm not sure this is the sort of thing a bug report should be filed for. If so, I'm happy to do so, but in that case, what sort of timeframe might I expect on the fix? (Not that I'm that worried about it getting fixed quickly; I'm just trying to debug some custom monobook stuff, and it's a tad annoying.) Much thanks! —HorsePunchKid→龜07:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Error messages in Firefox? I have no such problems. Are you sure the problem wasn't temporary? Anyway, it would help if you shared the error it produces. - 131.211.210.1108:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No need, really. The errors are pretty blatant and fixable, as I described. Look at the link I supplied and the line numbers, and you'll see them. I should clarify, though, that I'm not getting popup errors or anything; it's just dumping stuff into my Javascript console, which is rather annoying when one is trying to debug one's own code. :)—HorsePunchKid→龜19:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Funny Language Page
I found a page on Andrzej Maksymilian Fredro while surfing through Wikipedia recently, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better of in the Polish language area. The reason being that the article is pretty incomprehensible to any non-Polish speaking readers. In general, how do you nominate a page for review? (besides deletion)
Wahming08:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{cleanup}} or {{expansion}} usually works, as the article would then be placed into their corresponding category (Cleanup by month or Articles needing expansion) and someone who sees it could help expand it with info. NSLE(讨论) \<extra>09:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If a page on the en wikipedia is actually writen in a langauge other than english, you cn put the {{notenglish}} tag on it, and follow the directiosn that appear to list it as a page in need of translation. DES(talk)16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Finding Wikipedia: (wikipedia colon) pages
There seem to be a lot of pages about wikipedia that have titles wikipedia:something_else
For example, there is wikipedia:relative size, here is wikipedia:help desk there is wikipedia:long articles
How can I get a list of all of the wikipedia colon subpages?
What I am curious about is just a dump of all of the subpages for the category wikipedia and if it is possible to find one for other categories with subcategories I would like to figure that out too.
Wikipedia:community portal has several links to different subpages, but not all of the subpages.
Apparently you've got your terminology mixed up. Categories are the links at the bottom of an article. "Wikipedia:" is what is called a namespace, so what you are really asking for is a list of pages in that namespace. Subpages are writting using "/" not ":". See Wikipedia:Glossary. - Mgm|(talk)11:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Templates that bestow category membership
I'm sure I have seen a template that puts the containing article into a category, without showing up in that category itself. How is this done? — PhilHibbs | talk11:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you actually want to use <includeonly> for what you are trying to do. <noiclude> will put the template in the category, but not any articles you add the template to. <includeonly> will not add the template to the category, but will add any articles the template is added to into the category. --GraemeL(talk)13:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some intermediate questions
1. Is there an easy way to find out how many contributions a particular user has made? (Me, for example?)
2. Likewise, is there a way to find out a given user's IP address, in order to identify sock puppets?
3. I see folks voting on AfD with stuff like "Strong Delete" or "Strong Keep". What is the purpose of these extra emphatic votes for purposes of whether or not the article is kept or deleted? Do "Strong" votes count twice or something? Or maybe it's an inside reference to Demi Moore's "strenuous" objection in A Few Good Men? Or is it just meaningless internet posturing? Or what? Inquiring minds wanna know.
Yes, but not available to anyone other than a very restricted set of users for privacy reasons
Not really. AFD is not a vote; it's an attempt to gain consensus. One thing that helps in gaining consensus is some idea how strongly people feel about it, so often people will vote "weak delete" ("delete as is, but could change with improvement" or "I don't feel too strongly about this") or the like; "strong delete" ("please god, kill it now!") is the obvious corrolary. Shimgray | talk | 13:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Translation
I want to translate some articles from English to Greek.How can i do this?
A dictionary and a grammer might help.
More seriously, you may translate any article you wish, as all articles are available under the GFDL. If you wish to put them onto the greek wikipedia, you should ask them about their prococedures, but usually the translator posts the translated article, with a note on its talk page that it was translated from a particular article on the en wikipedia, and the date. It is probably a good idea to register a user name on the greek wikipedia and log in when posting the traslation. DES(talk)16:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Need help de-hosing one of my AFD entries.
I have done this once before, and the last time someone fixed it for me without explaining what they did. So here I've gone and done it again, and have no clue how to fix it myself.
The issue: I tried to add a page for AfD nomination in reverse, sorta. The entry is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octodecillion. I first tried to add the {{subst:afd3|pg=}} entry to the AfD log, and then I was going to go back and edit the specific entry page.
Additionally, the entry for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octodecillion shows up in the editable list of pages when you use the "add entry to AfD" link, but does not show up on the table of contents.
So I'd like all of this fixed. But, more importantly, I'd like to know how to fix it myself. (I know that following proper procedures will avoid all of this, but that doesn't help me now.)
I have fixed this. What I did was edit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octodecillion and add the missing section header. Using {{afd2}} inserts that header automatically, but you can always do it manually. the code is ===[[Octodecillion]]=== on the first line of the afd page.
Then i edited the AfD log for today, to make sure that the line {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octodecillion}} was properly in place. (it was, if it hadn't been I would have added it. This is what {{afd3}} does, but when i do an afd nomination i fand it easier to do this part manually.) Then i purged the cache on that page, so that the edit to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octodecillion page was proeprly reflectd on the combined page. I hope tht helps. DES(talk)16:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Documentation on how to rewrite material to avoid copyvio
I'm leaving a note on a user's talk page about some copyrighted material he submitted to Wikipedia. I'm clear on what most of the contents should say (from Template:Nothanks-sd). But I was hoping to link to a page that explained how you rewrite material to avoid copyright problems. Is there a page like this anywhere in the Wikipedia: namespace? I'm basically looking for an explanation of how much you have to change before you're allowed to use the material, written from a user's perspective. It seems like an obvious piece of documentation, but I had trouble finding links to anything about it. -- Creidieki17:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, you might want to shy away from looking at it as 'changing' the original to a non-copyvio—really the process is one of writing from scratch. You can transfer facts across, but not phrases. Sometimes it's a good idea to start by taking notes on the topic–sketch out a point-form version of what you want to write on a temporary page. It helps if you have more than one source to work from, too. Give it a day or two before you come back to write the final version; this will tend to cut down on any subconscious copying. Cite sources for any facts, and include relevant source pages in the external link list. Direct quotes can be used sparingly where appropriate, as long as they are marked as such and properly sourced. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After edit conflict)
I'm not aware of any specifc page on this subject, but you could try reading Copyright and Wikipedia:copyright for soem guidance. If the page is basically factual, a rtewrite that simply states the same facts, or an appropriate subset of them, in significantly differnet words, and removes any rhetorical florishes will probably do. this is the usual method I adopt for dealing with cut&paste biography articles, for eaxmple. Be sure that the origianl version is cited as a source. Often such a re-write can be combined with changes to make the text neutral and encyclopedic in tone, and to follow the MoS in format. A link to teh MoS might be a good idea in your msg. If multiple sources can be found, and some content used from each, and each appropriately cited, that would probably be better.
Such a page as you suggest would probably be a good idea. Feel free to write it, adn then link to it. there is no specifiv standard for "how much" change to introduce, but it is better IMO if few if any sentnces are exactly copied.
Hey, has anyone seen a complete spidered version of Wikipedia for download (probably using BitTorrent)? I think it'd be handy to have a local copy (text only) of Wikipedia since the servers are buckling under the pressure of being popular. I was thinking about doing it myself, but I won't if someone else already has. I figure after a spidered copy is more or less complete, people could download it via BitTorrent since it'd be such a large file. This would have the added benefit that if something ever happened and knocked Wikipedia offline -- there would be lots and lots of redundant copies of it around the world. Does anything like this exist out there? I didn't see anything on Google. --Quasipalm19:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am an expert in an area of technology for which there is already a very short (a few sentences)description in Wikipedia. I would like to contribute a more adequate article (~ 2 pages) but I do not understand how this can be done. Am I supposed to delete the original page or just add to it? If I just add to it, there would be a redundancy in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NedRasor (talk • contribs)
The biggest problem for an expert is citing sources. You need to write the article so that someone without detailed knowledge in the specific field can verify its contents without asking you. --David Woolley22:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After many failed attempts, I finally uploaded a corrected RembrandtNightwatch.jpg. It showed up right away in the file history. Since the lighting was still awful (I thought), I uploaded another, lighter one. I didn't realize that the image would take so long to show up. Well the first one (20:59, Nov 2005) was the right one. Would someone delete 23:00, Nov 2005? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyS (talk • contribs)
Whilst that image does have two, apparently identical, older versions, and a larger, newer, version, none were uploaded in 2005 and none match the time of day (minutes even) quoted. NancyS has never uploaded any images. --David Woolley22:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So this gets to another area of Wiki that I don't get. Isn't Wikimedia supposed to have pictures linked to all the different wikis? The image came from Wikimedia Commons: Images for cleanup [[4]]. NancyS00:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why does someone keep erasing my edits? I don't think I violated any copyrights and I didn't shout nor used offensive language. I checked my sources and they were correct, so I don't see any reason for anybody to erase my editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.14.168 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask this question on the talk page (see Discussion choice on the article page). The person who erased it will see your question and if courteous will respond and you can make your case for including your points. alteripse23:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the History tab at the top of the article will show all of the changes, including your own, and the ones which removed them. Look for the comments (and be sure to fill in accurate comments when you make your own changes). You do seem to have done some strange things (if it was you). For example, the article "Sonic the hedgehog" which used to be a redirect to Sonic The Hedgehog (upper case), was turned into a separate article. Notinasnaid09:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious about how much storage space is required to store all of Wikipedia, is there any place I can find this info? Thanks - Akamad00:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
His user name "seems" okay because he has it set up to display the way he wants it via his preferences. If you click on his user name you'll see that it's actually "dannyyee". Dismas|(talk)02:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The ability to change usernames, given only to bureaucrats is currently disabled, and there are no plans on turning it back on again in the foreseeable future, so sadly, no. Titoxd(?!?)02:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template for marking articles which are hard to understand/too technical? (the specific article I have in mind is CD36) --Wulf02:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriately, it's {{technical}}. If you do add it, though, please leave some notes on the talk page (or, at least, in the edit summary) explaining why you added it - it's often difficult for a specialist to realise what's confusing for someone else, since it's all obvious to them... Shimgray | talk | 02:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this subject was recently discussed on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), in relation to a different article. Also note that the rules require that articles not be dumbed down, so what you should expect is a layman's overview, followed by the technical detail. It's unreasonable to expect every article to stand on its own, especially in a hyprtext medium. --David Woolley15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. This article is pretty bad, though - I read it and would have been convinced it was something to do with malaria, were it not for the external link... Shimgray | talk | 15:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image metadata
I had been wondering where to find out more on image metadata (specifically, the link to 'Canon' should point to the company, not the disambig), and a user at Talk:Metadata was also wondering about it. The only page I could find was a Wikimedia one on general metadata. Anyone know if there's a page on it? Deltabeignet04:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I was wondering if there is an escape character for Wikipedia. So for example, if i wanted to put two sets of square brackets (such as a wikilink) but didn't want the link turning up, instead actually wanted the square brackets to be on the page, is there any way to do that? Thanks Akamad09:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You want to put "nowiki" tags. For example, put whatever it is like so: <nowiki>[text]</nowiki> (I had to use two to make that show up :) This will work for any code in wiki (brackets, templates, tables, etc.) Dmcdevit·t09:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In 720p and 1080p there is a external link in the middle of the article referencing to a windows shareware. They were added by 154.20.85.214 and 220.253.45.200. They both (he?) added more things to the articles, very relevant.
Although relevant, those links propably do not have place inside an encyclopedia. Should they be removed or added to external links with reference to other softwares? I don't know how to handle the matter exactly, could someone help?
--Pieleric14:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedias shortest article
what is wikipedias shortest article and is it a stub.
17:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
02:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
![[4]](/wiki/Image:RembrandtNightwatch.jpg){kind=link}