Skip to today's questions Skip to the bottom Special help services Archived discussions (searchable) How to answer

Welcome to the Help desk This page is only for questions about how to use Wikipedia. Are you in the right place? For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk. For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.

	Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

	Please leave feedback to help us improve this page

	If you can't find the answer in the FAQ, click here to ask a new question.

Shortcuts: WP:HELPDESK WP:HD WP:Y

Contents 1 December 4 1.1 Can't find a link within an article 1.2 Adding an image to an existing page 1.3 No INR donation option 1.4 Bookmarking Paricular Items for a Personal Wiki 1.5 Autocomplete on Wikipedia 1.6 Photos at Flickr 1.7 Deleted? 1.8 No regional presence in India 1.9 difference between two companies should be added 1.10 Editing Advice 1.11 Sources 1.12 I ask a Q in the RD. It's removed. I ask the editor about it in the editor's talk page. It too was removed. Now what do I do? 1.13 Why am I not an "Autoconfirmed User" yet? 1.14 Keep up with new articles 1.15 Reviewing an article 1.16 New Topic 1.17 Patrolled 1.18 Wikipedia edit stats 2 December 5 2.1 How to download and use a labeled image map 2.2 Days of the year RSS feed 2.3 linking new account (username) to old edits done under anon. IP address 2.4 Auto archiving your user talk page 2.5 Questions Comments to ensure Publication 2.6 Author Page Publication 2.7 Windy City Blues Society 2.8 Problem with refreshing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old 2.9 Unwanted bold-face in wikipedia table, bug? 2.10 Annoying bug 2.11 Search bar 3 December 6 3.1 Contact 3.2 How the person in coma will recure? 3.3 New articles 3.4 HTTPS with HTTP content mixed 3.5 Inserting messages in article namespace 3.6 adding 3.7 Name conflict 3.8 search results give wikipedia.org link, but clicking doesn't link to article, but instead asks me to save the file 3.9 reviewing an article 4 December 7 4.1 Lansing crusaders 4.2 Citing legal documents 4.3 Inserting an image 4.4 source problem in college 4.5 Voluntary translation of a German wikipedia page to English 4.6 Cherokee Studios - wtf!? 4.7 Saul Ewing Page 4.8 Text search in category and its sub-categories 4.9 Use of WikiProjects for improving and creating articles related to Oxfam 4.10 How to store a document for reference material

[edit] December 4

[edit] Can't find a link within an article

I'm trying to figure out why Pamela Anderson and Anna Nicole Smith link to the redirect for Playmate (the article is actually at Playboy Playmate). I don't see any reason why these two articles link there and it's driving me a bit nuts. Anyone have any idea? Dismas|^(talk) 01:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith#See also currently contains *[[Playmate|List of Playboy Playmates]]. I null edited Pamela Anderson and it disappeared from Special:WhatLinksHere/Playmate. Maybe a link table update from your edit [1] to {{Playmates of 1990}} was waiting in the job queue. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! I had null edited the templates but not that article. Didn't think it was necessary. Dismas|^(talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adding an image to an existing page

I'm about as frustrated as can be. I think Wikipedia is the worst place on the web to get a simple question answered!!! I have images I've photographed of hundreds of species of birds and animals, some of them the rarest on earth, and simply want to add them to the wikipedia pages where they exist but have no image.

I don't want to be sent to some link that tries in vain to explain how, as I've yet to figure out how to do this! This should be, I would think, a very typical and common request. How to edit an existing page to add content, etc.!!!!!

Yet I cannot find anything about it. I cannot even figure our the Contact Us pages of how to ask this question and after an hour of trying all kinds of links found this page to ask a question.

Can someone please, help me? I'm not iliterate, I have a Masters degree in Engineering, have produced numerous websites of my own, and am the owner of a Computer Consulting firm!!! Yet, this wikipedia site is unbelievable that you cannot find a simple questions answer.

Please tell me the exact steps to do this. Example, there is a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechora_Pipit for a species of bird called Pechora Pipit. I've uploaded the image to Wikipedia (figured that out) yet have no clue now how to get it on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechora_Pipit so that you would now have an image of that species!!!

Maybe simple for wikipediaites, but not the everyday person as myself!

Any suggestions?

Now I find the only button to click on below is "Save Page"?????? What is that supposed to mean? Is this request going to some wikipedia page somewhere in cyberspace or to a homo sapien that can answer my questions????!!! Guess all I have the option to do is that, Save Page!!! STUPID link for SUBMITTING a question!!!!!!!

Monte Taylor http://www.tsuru-bird.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.132.19 (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the pages you have tried to edit (assuming you got thus far), there should be a similar button. Before we can talk about saving, first we need to make the edit. Click the edit tab at the top of a page. For example, practise doing so at the top of the sandbox (direct link). Then, in the text field, locate where you want to add or remove something, and do so (treat it as you would a text processor). Try this in the sandbox as well. Following is the image syntax as simple as I can make it. Type the following, exactly as it appears: [[File:IMAGENAME|thumb|XXpx]]. Now, replace IMAGENAME with the exact name of your image, copypasted from the file page (including the .jpg, .svg, .png, whatever, but not File:; that is already there). Replace XX with a number between say, 100 to 500, 100 being smallest, and 500 being largest. In theory it is possible to go without these limits, but most images in articles are in this range. You can try this in the sandbox; use Example.jpg for IMAGENAME if you do. Intelligentsium 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, What is the "replace IMAGENAME with the exact name of your image" Image??? Where do I get this link or reference? I thought I could use my website link? No?? Where does this info come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuru8 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You said you've uploaded an image to Wikipedia. So what Intelligentsium means is to first type [[File:IMAGENAME|thumb|XXpx]], then delete the word IMAGENAME, and type the name of the image you uploaded in its place. Then follow the rest of his instructions. --Mysdaao ^talk 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I did exactly what you said, copied the

onto the edited page for Pechora Pipit, and then changed IMAGENAME to "http://tsuru-bird.net/a_species/pipit_pechora/pipit_pechora_spring_attu-island_alaska_1a.jpg" then changed the XXpx to 150 for starters. Nothing seems to show up when I click on the "Show Preview" to see the image show up on the webpage. So, something is wrong, and not intuitive. Thank you for your reply and additional instructions too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuru8 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

An image can't be used in a Wikipedia article from an external website. Before adding it, it has to be uploaded to Wikipedia by clicking "Upload file" on the left side of any page. However, not all images can be uploaded. Wikipedia can't accept copyrighted images. If you're able to upload it, please do so and then try again to add it to an article. --Mysdaao ^talk 02:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, got as far as getting the image showing up now, by using the "name" I gave it on Wikipedia when I uploaded it. I had asked about the website URL in my previous question but now you've answered you can't use that, so changed the reference to the name I gave it when uploading to Wikipedia.

So, the next question, and hopefully last, is how do I get the image to show up on the top right portion of the page as all the other pages I see on Wikipedia of a species where the pic is at the top right portion of the page? Mine is showing up in the preview at the bottom right of the page. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuru8 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing images. I see you uploaded File:Pechora Pipit spring Attu-island Alaska.jpg to Wikimedia Commons. Images can also be uploaded directly to the English Wikipedia but it's best to upload to Commons when the license allows it as in your case. Images at Commons and at the English Wikipedia are added to articles in the same way. If you want the image to be part of the box to the right of Pechora Pipit then see Template:Taxobox#Images (some other similar looking boxes can have other code for adding images). If you want to add a stand-alone image elsewhere in the article then see Wikipedia:Images#Using images. For example, the following code produces the image to the right: [[File:Pechora Pipit spring Attu-island Alaska.jpg|thumb|alt=Photography of a small bird standing in snow|Pechora Pipit]]. The same software and user interface is used to ask questions, answer questions, edit articles, and most other things. This can sometimes be confusing to new contributors. Please come back here if you have more questions. This is a good place to ask them. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

GOT IT !!!!! Thanks for your help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuru8 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you'll have to crop that particular image. There is some noise, but more importantly, it says "Copyright 2009 - Monte M Taylor"; you'll have to edit that out before you put it on any articles. Intelligentsium 02:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You can see how another page did something by clicking "edit this page" and look at the code. For example, Mountain Pipit adds an image to the box with these parameters to {{Taxobox}}:

 | image =Mountain Pipit (Anthus hoeschi).jpg | image_caption = Top of [[Sani Pass]], border of South Africa and Lesotho. 

"File:" is not included in the file name when using {{Taxobox}}, but there are other situations where it has to be included. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox#Images says the image size in the taxobox is controlled with a parameter of form | image_width = 320px. Another editor added the parameter | size = 300 but the parameter name size is not recognized by Template:Taxobox and therefore ignored. Anyway, it's often best to omit an image size in an infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No INR donation option

I would like to donate some money to Wikipedia in INR but you do not have an option to donate in INR. Please add that option so many other Indians can donate too. I would suggest you to have an aggrement with SBI (State Bank of India) which is a national and most popular bank in India. Else you can go with International banks like HSBC/Citi etc.

Thanks, MKD

• It's not the most trustworthy of sources, but it appears there are legal problems when it comes to using Paypal in India (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum31/1519.htm), which I assume is your donation method of choice. That's not something Wikipedia can change. Credit cards are processed by Paypal too. Have you considered donating using another method? - 131.211.211.252 (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bookmarking Paricular Items for a Personal Wiki

Is there a mechanism to bookmark or capture particular definitions/entries to form a personal Wiki or glossary? .. to allow later review of the subset of definitions of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.88.62 (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Books may be close to what you are looking for. --Jayron32 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it for a quick reference to a policy or main page article you are looking for? You can setup links in your userspace and name them whatever would assist you in remembering where they direct to. You can also setup things called anchors within the link to go directly to a section of article. This can be explained in detail if this is what you are referring to. Calmer Waters 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal wiki has a specific technical definition. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean Your very own Wikipedia bookmark page? To do the latter, you have to create an account first. --Teratornis (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Autocomplete on Wikipedia

Is there a page on the autocomplete feature for the search box providing more information about it, e.g its history, what the order of appearance is based on? Richard001 (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, autocomplete has nothing to do with Wikipedia, the information it uses comes straight from your browser. Wikipedia has nothing to do with it. - 131.211.211.252 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

By default, Wikipedia does show a list of suggestions in the search box based on what has been typed. It's described briefly at Wikipedia:FAQ/Readers#How do I search Wikipedia?, but I can't find any page with more information. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe more information can be found by searching terms used here: mw:Manual:$wgAjaxSearch, mw:Manual:$wgEnableMWSuggest, rev:33400. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The order is based on number of links to article, as well as if there is an exact match. Redirects to article that differ in case are removed. --rainman (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photos at Flickr

Was wondering if photos posted at pictures/2559131312/ Flickr qualify as free images we can use at Wiki, since they have been effectively published in what looks like the public domain.

Orestes654 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, they're licenced as 'All rights reserved'. See the acceptable licences at Wikipedia:FLICKR. 10:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You can use {{Flickr free}} to search for photos on Flickr that are licensed suitably for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. For example, this search finds 150 freely-licensed photos of which many show the Sony Center which is the subject of some of the non-free photos you linked to:

• Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Sony-Center, Potsdamer Platz under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa

For more information see Commons:COM:EIC#Flickr. Also, Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki. --Teratornis (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted?

(del/undel) 23:00, December 3, 2009 (hist | diff) PAGENAME

I came across an edit in someone's history that looked like the above line. It can't have been deleted, because I'm an admin. So I must've missed something while I was away. Does this mean we can now see an oversighted edit used to be there? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 57#Oversight logs. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The oversight extension has been replaced with the RevDelete extension. I believe that RevDelete has multiple levels of operation; if an Admin deletes a revision using it, then other admins can still see and undelete the contents of the revision. If an oversighter or other high functionary RevDeletes a revision (so-called "Suppression mode"), then only someone at THEIR level has that option, and admins cannot see the contents of the revision. However, RevDelete, unlike oversight, leaves a "ghost" behind, indicating that the revision existed. See WP:REVDELETE for a fuller explanation. --Jayron32 13:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

RevDelete can also suppress or not suppress the edit summary or editor. This allows you to leave a non-rule-violating edit summary or username up while deleting the contents, or suppress all if the username and/or edit summary were inflammatory or otherwise suppression-worthy. My guess is that username and edit summary suppression is mostly vandalism or harassment-related. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No regional presence in India

hi, was just curious why WIKI doesnt have a regional office in India, i think there is formidable number of netizens from india, who regularly refer WIKI

Also, as already mentioned in one of the earlier posts there is no option for donation in INR and no tie ups with the national/private banks from india. See in times like these is when we can get in touch with the regional offices

would like to know if i can donate through Debit Card, under the Credit card option ??

Thanks, Santosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshkamble (talk • contribs) 13:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean Wikimedia, the parent company of Wikipedia. The word "wiki" is a generic term for the kind of software that Wikipedia and other Wikimedia websites use, but it has no additional connection to the company or the website. According to the article on Wikimedia, there is no local chapter in India; however if you are interested, you may be able to start one yourself. I have no idea what is involved in starting a local chapter, but see this link which contains information on how to actually start a local chapter. --Jayron32 13:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer your second question, if the debit card is a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card, then it can be used like a credit card with that option. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you scroll up a couple of questions you'll find a question about donation in INR which may interest you. -0 87.211.75.45 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] difference between two companies should be added

like i would like to knoe what is difference between Times of india and Deccan chronicle news paper what are the major differences between both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaitunvk (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are free to read the Wikipedia articles The Times of India and The Deccan Chronicle yourself and arrive at your own conclusions. They are seperately run newspapers with different parent companies, so I don't know that there are expected to be anything similar between them except that they are both Indian newspapers. --Jayron32 13:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Advice

Please refer to Game_Boy_music#Artists and note how many MySpace, unofficial, and unverified entries there are in this list. I am very tempted to remove all entries that do not already have an exiting Wikipedia article. Does anyone else think this change would be warranted? WAT (talk • contributions) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh good lord, yes. What a mess. When I run across things like that, I remove anything that doesn't link to a legit Wikipedia article. TNXMan 15:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Ok, thank you for the confirmation. WAT (talk • contributions) 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I am new and confused, and my question is how do I show that an addition I made is verifiable and accurate? The Conqueror Worm (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You provide citations to reliable sources (i.e., not gossip sites, blogs, etc.); and you format those cites in an acceptable manner (see WP:CITE for instructions on how to do so). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Would a blog from a newspaper qualify. As in, a reporter's blog on the newspaper website. The Conqueror Worm (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's on the newspaper's website, and the newspaper is itself a reliable source, then yes; but you must not go beyond what is on the website with your own conclusions, deductions, reasoning, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, comments made by the reporter are OK, but comments made by readers are not (unless the reporter indicates the reader was right, such as a reader pointing out an error in a column and the reporter acknowledging he/she had indeed made an error.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A blog qualifies if the person exercising editorial control over the blog and the person making the statement are both reliable sources. Newspapers vary. A newspaper blog which "speaks for" the newspaper is as reliable as the paper itself, providing the text is written by or later explicitly endorsed by someone speaking on behalf of the paper. A "reporter blog" or "columnist blog" may or may not be reliable depending on circumstances. Some newspapers give reports and columnists great leeway on blogs, treating them like an in-house WordPress or other blog. Others insist that employees running blogs on the newspaper's web site act as if they were writing a printed column and expect them to act in accordance with high journalistic standards. Caveat reader. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I ask a Q in the RD. It's removed. I ask the editor about it in the editor's talk page. It too was removed. Now what do I do?

Here is the question as it existed.
(last question--about the soldiers and welfare)
[2]
Thanks for your help.
:-D
Civic Cat (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Questions at the RD aren't supposed to evoke political discussions. Some people will agree with it, others will find it ridiculous. But any answer would be an opinion rather than something factual which is what the RD is meant for. That's why I suspect it was removed. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure many questions can evoke political discussions. e.g. "What did Obama do this week?". However, given how Wikipedia has many articles, I'm wouldn't be too surprised that there would be a few that would decently provide some facts in this.Civic Cat (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am in perfect agreement in the removal of the question, but for the editor to delete your question about it on his talk page is incredibly rude. Granted, it's hard to tell if you were trying to be funny with the way you phrased it (it sounds kind of rude itself), but Ghostexorcist failed to assume good faith in this case. As for the information you were originally seeking, try rephrasing it as a search for references or sources, and try to keep your inflammatory thesis out of it as much as possible. —Akrabbim^talk 18:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So noted. I will consider my actions. It might be that I will have to search through Wikipedia and other sources. Perhaps it is time to set up my own webpage and pose a question, do a few hours of research, and post my results and conclusions to the question.
:-D
I will monitor my postings of this question in Answerbag and RationalWiki
:-D
Civic Cat (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from being more philosophical than factual in nature (and thus not suitable for the reference desk), the phrasing makes it read like you were trolling, rather than seeking actual information. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The question was ill-posed, since few people could agree on what constitutes a "glorified welfare recipient". Presumably you understand that a "welfare recipient" is under no obligation to do any sort of work in return for receiving money, whereas soldiers have to perform many duties. Next time, try asking a question using something other than loaded language, and stating a premise that most educated people can understand. In other words, try to separate your personal value judgments from the questions you have about your personal value judgments. You could unravel your personal value judgments into preliminary questions, for example. You might ask about what constitutes a "welfare recipient" and whether it is possible for a "welfare recipient" to be "glorified", and what that might mean. --Teratornis (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why am I not an "Autoconfirmed User" yet?

MY account is now more than 4 days old and my preferences state that I have made 22 edits which is more than 10. I still can't upload an image in the English wikipedia because it says I'm not autoconfirmed yet. What else do I have to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTallacksen (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and autoconfirmed your account. Let us know if you have further issues. TNXMan 19:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason you weren't autoconfirmed before is because your account isn't 4 complete days old yet. That will happen at 21:30 UTC today. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up with new articles

Is there a page on Wikipedia that lists recent article additions or changes to articles? I was reading about WikiGnomes and the like, and some of those involved active participation in new content. How do people keep up with the new content? Sheeeeeeep (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean Special:NewPages and Special:RecentChanges? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing an article

Hello,

I'm trying to review an article. The message at the top of the page says,

This page is a new unreviewed article. This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup.

I am not the creator and wish to review the article so this message can be removed from the page. How do I do this?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.193.25 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Which article are you seeking to review? I'm not sure if perhaps you need to be a registered editor to handle that. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That template is added automatically to articles that are created by the wiz. Anyone can review and remove the template, except I guess the creator of the article.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm trying to review an entry titled "Carbon lock-in". I'm pretty sure I'm not a registered editor. I did not understand that that was the process. If that's the case, how does this article ever get reviewed? Thanks again for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.193.25 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Carbon lock-in - you don't have to be a registered user to edit an article, so just click on the edit tab at the top of the article and have at it, but please read WP:EDIT first. – ukexpat (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello - Okay, so I've followed your recommenation and I've gone to "edit this page" however, I don't have any edits to make I simply want to "review" the article so the "unreviewed" message box is removed from this entry. I've searched the wiki FAQ's along with the document you've shared but I've been unsuccessful. Am I missing something? Thanks!

[edit] New Topic

Sir or madam,

I wonder if you could help me. I am considering writing an article on Wikipedia about a new political party my friend is setting up. He has no idea how to use Wikipedia so thats why I am creating the article.

The party is not registered at the moment, but hopes to be within the next 12 months. Would I have to wait until the party is registered in the UK, or could we upload an information section about the political party beforehand?

It will be a UK based party, it is currently very small, however my friend says he is expecting to create "many waves" in politics so there will be a fair bit of coverage on his party.

Would Wikipedia be interested in letting me upload his information about the party?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithster1001 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A new political party is almost certain to fail our notability requirements - please take a look at WP:ORG and WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And see WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:ALTOUT. --Teratornis (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, followed these instructions, however, when I go to the edit page another page comes up asking for edits, and I've commented I'm not making edits, simply reviewing, hitting "save change" and the message box is still there. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarazb (talk • contribs) 22:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Those pages that were linked by Teratornis and ukexpat should be read, not edited. Or am I misunderstanding your question? Xenon54 / talk / 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, don't. It is likely to be deleted as failing notability requirements and if it is heavily edited by anyone with a conflict of interest that person's edits will be subject to even more scrutiny. Instead, wait until the party is officially running for at least one election and add it to List of political parties in the United Kingdom. Do not create an article or red-link at this time unless the party clearly meets the notability requirements. Once the party gets enough mainstream press someone with no connection to the party will try to look it up on Wikipedia, see that there is no article, and create one.

Wikipedia is, or ideally at least is a lagging indicator of notability. This lag may be only a few minutes, such as with major news events like celebrity deaths, or years, such as with celebrities on the C- or D-list. But it should never be a leading indicator. That is, there should not be an article about a subject that is not yet notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Patrolled

So I've been using WP for several years, but I keep running across this term "marked as patrolled" both on WP and in Huggle, but I can't find any information about what that is or how it's used. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol May help. Essentially, as a confirmed user if you are looking at Special:NewPages you can click the "mark this page" link which means that you feel it is acceptable in the face of it, and does not fall under a criteria for speedy deletion. The yellow higlighted items in Special:NewPages have not been patrolled, the others have. Does that help? Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I wanted to know! ^_^ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

When I look at unpatrolled pages, I do one of three things: if it is suitable for a speedy deletion, or a proposal for deletion, I will do that; if it is missing references, etc, I add any suitable tags; if I think I can improve it, I will - then I mark it as patrolled. Actually there is a 4th option: if I'm not sure which one of those 3 is applicable, I just leave it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia edit stats

Does anyone know of any statistics on the number of Wikipedia edits (per day, or whatever), stretching back over the past several years? 86.134.9.78 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

There are per month statistics for the English Wikipedia at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm#3. Wikipedia:Statistics has links to various statistics. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic ... thanks PH. 86.134.46.130 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 5

[edit] How to download and use a labeled image map

Where can I find information that will explain how to download and use a Wikipedia labeled image map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.76.88 (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

mw:Extension:ImageMap, and linked pages. Intelligentsium 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Days of the year RSS feed

How can I get an RSS feed for the individual 'Days of the year'? I have been looking for a good online almanac. This format is ideal:

    * 1 Events    * 2 Births    * 3 Deaths    * 4 Holidays and observances    * 5 External links 

¡Gracias! GBH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesee.gbh (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You can find that information by typing in any day of the year (e.g. 5 December) in the search box to the left. Unfortunately, it is outside the domain of this help desk to help you find something outside of Wikipedia, as this page specifically deals with questions about Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia does not provide the type of RSS feed you are looking for, so the next step is to ask this at the Reference desk, where volunteers are reading and willing to answer just about any question you can throw at them that doesn't have to do with Wikipedia. Xenon54 / talk / 03:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] linking new account (username) to old edits done under anon. IP address

I just created an account for myself, but have made about ten minor edits in the past anonymously under my IP address. Is there a way for my new username to show up on those past edits? Lynn Maury (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It was possible, but the page fell inactive in early 2005 and I guess the feature was eventually disabled, because it hasn't been restarted since then. Sorry. What you could do is create a userpage and write on it to the effect of "I made X edits as IP.ADD.RES.SS" just to let any interested parties know. If the edits were very minor, though, it probably isn't worth it. Xenon54 / talk / 03:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The page was at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you only made around 10 edits under your IP address I wouldn't worry about it too much. Rjwilmsi 20:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Auto archiving your user talk page

Can someone please point me to a page which explains how to set up auto archival of your user talk page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2 bots are currently in service for that purpose: MiszaBot III and ClueBot III. Directions are on the userpage of whichever one you pick. If you're having trouble deciding: MiszaBot runs once a day at a specific (but undisclosed) time. Conversely, ClueBot runs continuously, as far as I know. Xenon54 / talk / 03:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questions Comments to ensure Publication

As the owner/writer of the new submission, I have attempted to delete the Facebook link for our Windy City Blues Society (Chicago), even though I don't feel thi is a violation as it is our Facebook Page link. I am hopeful that the Page will now be published with or without the link without further "quick deletion" action from me. I am also hoping that I do not need to add links to help it become non-orphaned, but please advise. I also did not understand where to put {{hangon}}

BlackJack7861b (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)BlackJack for Windy City Blues Society

• The problem isn't the facebook link - it is the fact that the page is a direct copy from a website! It is also overtly promotional, it is not written in a neutral point of view - and those are just what I see from a quick glance at the article. I cannot find any significant coverage in the media (a Google News Search had 3 hits, all of which basically said "the Windy City Blues Society put on xyz event"). I cannot see anything to show that this society meets Wikipedia's Notability guidelines let alone Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organisations. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Author Page Publication

Hi. I'm a new author and would like a Wikipedia page. People who have read my book have posted to try to get a Wiki page, but it's never been published. Can you please tell me why and what has to be done to get one?

Thank you Melissa Foster —Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterFoster (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's principal criterion for inclusion is notability, further described for people here. I suspect, and no disrespect is intended, that you are not notable as Wikipedia defines it. Please also take a look at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Further to ukexpat's answer, as you have described yourself as a new author, I also suspect that you would not meet Wikipedia's criteria. The places that I tend to look at are Google Scholar (no hits about you); Google Books (which has one hit which I believe is related to you - assuming that you are the author of 'Megan's Way') and Google News (none of which appear to be about you).

Megan's Way was only published in July this year, so I think it is too early to be considered a 'notable' (as Wikipedia defines it) author! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggested article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Melissa Foster was declined for lacking reputable third-party sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Windy City Blues Society

Please undelete the page. I have removed Facebook link (which I believe should be allowed) so there should be no reason it is still deleted, and please see my other messages relating to this. Thank you. BlackJack (editor/creator/writer of page and Windy City Blues Society executive committee member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.38.68 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. That was a copyright-violating advertisement for a non-notable organization, and thus fell under three categories for instant deletion. Since you have such a blatant conflict of interest, you should never have created the article in the first place; a fourth problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The facebook link was not in particular a problem - there were two main problems with the article - firstly, it was advertising/promotion (which is not what Wikipedia is for); secondly, it was a direct copy from a copyrighted website. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with refreshing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old is refreshed by mathbot with the refresh link on that page. I just did that, and the bot removed at least one link to a discussion that has not been closed - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waka Flocka Flame. Any idea what's wrong? Is there a better place to turn to with such problems? — Sebastian 19:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

At the time of Mathbot's edit [3] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waka Flocka Flame had been relisted on December 5.[4][5]. Mathbot probably saw it was not transcluded on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 27 so it seems correct to remove it from November 27. If it seems a bot is doing something wrong then the first step should usually be to look for contact information for the bot operator on the user page or user talk page of the bot. User:Mathbot and User talk:Mathbot refer comments to User talk:Oleg Alexandrov. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unwanted bold-face in wikipedia table, bug?

The first table in List_of_National_Treasures_of_Japan_(paintings)#Statistics has entries which appear in boldface even though they should not be in bold-face. Also the table code does not contain any markup which would make it bold face as far as i can see. Bold-face seems to appear in cells which have dark background and don't have a "rowspan" (don't cover more than one row). How do I get rid of the bold-face?bamse (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found my mistake (using ! instead of |). bamse (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying bug

This may be a long shot, but I'm wondering if anyone who has any influence in such matters could press for a long-standing bug (and, for me, regular irritant) in Wikipedia's "diff" generation to be fixed. This is a typical example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nonsuch_Palace&action=historysubmit&diff=328327302&oldid=283689391

You can see that several paragraphs that are identical or substantially identical are flagged as completely different, due to the software getting confused for some reason that I do not fully understand. I believe this is logged as a known issue, and has been for some time, but is seen as low priority and appears unlikely to ever be fixed without a prod from someone. If there is a more appropriate place for me to post this request then please let me know. 86.146.46.190 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

Yes, it is known. One of the Village Pump sites, probably technical is the best place to discuss it further.--SPhilbrickT 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll move this thread there. 86.146.46.190 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Search bar

how do i clear my search bar?66.25.32.17 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the search bar located in your browser. General knowledge questions relating to computer issues are the territory of the Computing reference desk; this page is for questions directly relating to Wikipedia. Xenon54 / talk / 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 6

[edit] Contact

I would like to have my email removed from a number of pages in wikipedia. The email will (probably be visible) in the history, and when the removing (the text). (So I might need an oversighter.) Is there an email I can contact, or help otherwise?174.3.102.6 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How the person in coma will recure?

My friend had brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen for too long.Now she is in coma from last four years.Will she recure from this?How do i help her?Pls help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashank shinde (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

In project pages there are links to pages named New article announcements. I observe that these pages are not regular article pages. How are the links to new articles added to these pages ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Some WikiProjects have a bot looking for new additions to categories covered by that project. For example, the page history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity shows it is updated by User:Jitse's bot. There it says it relies on the work of User:Mathbot, who lists all the mathematics articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See User:AlexNewArtBot for a bot used by many projects. It can use other things than categories to search for relevant articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HTTPS with HTTP content mixed

Please fix that type of mixed content, thanks. (see here) --84.44.153.128 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You would be best to post this request at the Village pump. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a rather eternal point. Those elements are hosted on a different server system (media servers) and the media servers currently do not yet have a secure interface. It is on the TODO list, but unfortunately, that's a rather large list. :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Where to see this TODO list if it is public or how long does it take? --84.44.153.128 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been on the list for over 3 years. I think that says enough. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla:16822 and bugzilla:18496 and slightly related bugzilla:5440 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inserting messages in article namespace

Is there a policy for writing non-encyclopedic messages, good faith or not, in articles? For example, in a section of an article, putting, "Someone plz fix this section, it looks like it's been written by an 11-year old" or "I removed the stub template, there's nothing more to write. ~~~~" Just curious. If there is one, please provide a link. C Teng ^[talk] 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'policy' on this explicitly, but they should always be removed, made invisible with <!-- --> or moved to the talk page. Cenarium (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] adding

hi dear i want to add article in Wikipedia but don;t know how please advise me

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard. —Thank you.

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article, but you will need to create an account to use it. if you don't wish to do so, you can submit a proposal for an article at Articles for Creation. Xenon54 / talk / 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Name conflict

I just created a new article on an organization that is incorporated as Magic, Inc. Unfortunately this is already in use for the article on Heinlein's book. And although it is frequently called simply Magic, that would be even more confusing. So I have put the article for now at Magic (organization). I would like to propose that Magic, Inc. be moved to Magic, Inc. (novel) and Magic (organization) moved to Magic, Inc.. I think that would be clear? But I thought I should ask before being that bold.

Once it's clear where the new article is going to be, it obviously needs to be added to the Magic DAB page. I think General Magic, Inc. should be too. Thoughts? If the moves seem wise, I'd be delighted if someone did them while I hit the hay; I am late for bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think there might be some challenge tothe notability of the page you added. That aside, you'd need to show that the organisation was the intended result of searching for 'Magic, Inc.' much more frequently than the novel. The full details are at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You might raise it at the requested moves page if you thought the criterion could be satisfied. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal take on this would be that I would consider Heinlein's book to be the primary use of the phrase "Magic, Inc" (the novel was published in 1940, the organisation incorporated in 1979; I feel more people would be looking for the book than the organisation if they were to type it into the search book). There is also the fact (as AndrewHowse says) that such a suggestion may well be challenged - the organisation's article has existed for just under 2-1/2 hours, whereas the book's article has existed since August 2004! Is there any reason why the organisation's article couldn't be titled Magic, Inc (organization), and a hatnote added to the top of the Magic, Inc article referring to the organisation. In fact, I am going to be bold and do this! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Update:

1. Magic, Inc. (organization) is the article name (with Magic (organization) as a redirect to it - and with a hatnote about the Heinlein novella)
2. Magic, Inc. (the novella article) has a hatnote about the organization

I trust this helps -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it does, although obviously redundant, it separates it from the fictional organization (actually I'd never heard of the novella, and while newspapers seem to use "Magic, Inc." for the California organization, both long articles that I found use "Magic." The name conflicts (with General Magic as well) complicate searching, which may be why the notability is being challenged; I see it just got AfD'd. But on the title issue, I don't think there is an easy answer when a fictional work has exactly the same name as a legal name of an organization. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that there is a big difference between a fictional work and a work of fiction. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] search results give wikipedia.org link, but clicking doesn't link to article, but instead asks me to save the file

In the past few months, some Wikipedia.org article links found while searching for a subject will not open a Wikipedia page; rather, it asks me to download a file, of unknown file type. This happens about 10% of the time I try to click on a Wikipedia article link from Google. The latest, today, was a search for "nacirema" which gave me the link "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacirema

I have tried to save the file, but it will not open with any program. Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.171.166 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Several people have reported this problem when clicking on a Google search results page in Internet Explorer. Google attaches something to the link which can apparently cause problems in the communication between Wikipedia and your browser. It should work if you manually copy the url to the browser address bar instead of clicking the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] reviewing an article

How do I review a new article? MJCope (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of reviewing? If you refer to the article rating on the talk page of many Wikipedia articles then see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. This is the first edit of your account. Maybe it would be good to become more familiar with Wikipedia first. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 7

[edit] Lansing crusaders

How to process this new page? It's external link is a mirror of Wikipedia that is used as a source? I think I'm missing something or this page has been deleted before. I marked it patrolled before I figured out what was up. Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to describe a high school football team. Usually, high school football teams are not themselves notable enough for an independent article. Since the entire thing is unreferenced, you could simply remove all of the text and WP:BOLDly redirect it to the appropriate article on the high school itself. --Jayron32 03:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. Its not about a high school team, its about a "semipro" football team (read: amateur), and likely could be prodded or AFDed as a non-notable sports team. Having a winning record is not in itself notable. My church softball team won its league the past two years, doesn't mean it gets an article. --Jayron32 03:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, an article at the correct capitalization was deleted via prod in May 2007. That article's what the mirrors picked up, apparently. Deor (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citing legal documents

I'm wishing to cite legal acts. When using the citation template, what parameter(s) would I use to insert the chapter, section, and subsection? Furthermore, would the publisher by the government that published the document, or the department of that government? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the entries at Category:United_States_law_templates? I've not looked at them (and I've not got time to at the moment), but one of those might help. If not, let me know and I'll look into it tonight (UTC) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Inserting an image

I have loaded a new image to replace the old but the old image is still showing on the page. Why can't we delete old images and why is it so difficult to insert a new image on the page??? I don't have the time to read through pages and pages of garbled information explaining why - just a simple answer in response will do Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetha Griff (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

have you cleared your browser's cache? (if you specify what article you're talking about, preferably with links to the article and to the new image, so we know what we're supposed to be seeing, that might make it easier to help) Sssoul (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

okay, it appears you're talking about the Ray Vanderby article, and this image: [6], which is what's showing on the page, but too small to be a very effective illustration. i hope some image-literate denizen of the help desk will now find it easier to assist you Sssoul (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ps: i've replaced the "gallery" parameter you were using with the plain old [[image]] style, and it looks better to me now. is that the effect you wanted? Sssoul (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] source problem in college

hello, i am a college student and my professors say that wikipedia is not a real source, why is that? i do not understand why, is it something simple or because some information could be false? either way its outrageous because this encylopedia has everything and has helped me over the years in numerous ways. if theres any explanation for my professors not accepting wikipedia as a viable source please come forth, because it is very confusing.

thank you,

jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.35 (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Jim,

Your professor is right. Wikipedia is not a source. The reason for this is that anybody can edit it. Not only can the "source" change in the time between you using it and your professor reading it, but it could have been vandalized before they read it, and before someone could revert it.

However, what wikipedia Is, is a summary of sources. In articles that are reliable, the information should be cited. The citation will more often than not be a real source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To get a little bit deeper into it; if you take information from Wikipedia, it IS a source for that information. What the professor meant of course, is that it isn't a TYPE of source that he accepts. There are many types of sources, and much like your professor, Wikipedia doesn't accept all of them either. There are reliable vs unreliable sources, transient vs. fixed sources, primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of a transient nature, and it's reliability depends on how well it sources the information it provides. Your professor is looking for sources like those we use in Wikipedia. Mostly reliable primary and secondary sources of a fixed nature. Note that a source is almost never forbidden in academics, they are only forbidden in certain usecases. (If you research Wikipedia, you are likely to have to use Wikipedia as a primary source). Knowing when to use which source of which type is a skill you should be developing in college (and this is all stuff that your professor should be teaching you, instead of a random person on Wikipedia). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia#A caution before citing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Never cite Wikipedia in a paper. Because, as explained above, it is a transient tertiary source that anyone can edit. However, what you CAN do is use Wikipedia to FIND other sources. The information on WP is only as good as its sources, anyway. Use WP to point you to the sources and then use the sources. Think of this way: I might ask a friend to recommend some books on a topic and use those books. But I don't cite my friend in my paper. Professors want to see scholarly sources such as books and journal articles. These are peer-reviewed, meaning they are reviewed by other academics. News and magazine articles are also often cited. For more information, see WP:RELIABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.216.24 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Voluntary translation of a German wikipedia page to English

Dear Wiki people,

there is a short german Wikipedia page about a village in Hungary called "Szirák": http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szir%C3%A1k. I would like to offer to translate this page into English. For the time being, the information in the German page is sufficient, although as the village has an intersting history, I would be able to expand upon it in both English and German.

I am an English native speaker, but I have lived and worked for over 30 years in German speaking countries and I now live in Hungary, so I am familiar with both the language of the article to be translated and the subject matter.

Unfortunately, despite reading all the FAQs etc.l, it is still not quite clear to me as to how I should do this.

1) As the English page does not exist, do I have to create it first? 2) Do I then use the translation template to make sure that the copyright is attributed correctly to the German page?

I look forward to getting your response.

I am already registered with Wikipedia as a user

Psymmo (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you must create the page at the English Wikipedia. Create it at Szirák or Szirak and make a redirect at the other. Maybe you have already seen Wikipedia:Translation which mentions {{Translated page}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Psymmo. Yes, create the page with translated text and I suggest using a similarly situated page here, such as Diósjenő, for examples to use for some matters such as what infobox to place and how to format in place of the foreign. Then create a talk page for the article and place there {{translated page|de|source page title|version=123456789|insertversion=987654321|section=name}}. See the template link for how to find the information to fill in in the parameters provided. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cherokee Studios - wtf!?

I asked this on the talk page of the article, but I'd appreciate someone taking a quick look at it now to be sure I'm not going crazy. Is it just me, or does this article contain a massive portion of Wikipedia policy (for no apparent reason) sandwiched with an odd spam-like article? There has to be some purpose I've missed, surely, and if anyone can enlighten me as to its purpose that would be great. SMC (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

{{WP:ARTSPAM}} was stuffed in there, causing it to transclude the guideline. I would presume the editor meant to add {{cleanup-spam}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for that. If I see any such odd behaviour again, I'll be sure to check the template syntax very carefully :P SMC (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Saul Ewing Page

The logo on the page is incorrect. Is this something that I can change or should I send you the image and you post it. I can't find where to change the logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulEwing (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Only autoconfirmed accounts can upload images to Wikipedia. One of us can do it if you give a url. Is it http://www.saul.com/images/misc/print_logo.gif? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As for where to do it, clicking the logo on Saul Ewing leads to File:Saul Ewing logo.png where autoconfirmed users have a link saying "Upload a new version of this file". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Text search in category and its sub-categories

Does anyone know of a way to search the articles in a category and its subcategories for a text string? Using the standard Wikipedia search tool, I could search like this: "America incategory:Foo", but that won't search sub-categories of Category:Foo at the same time, which is what I'd like to do. Using the text-search function in AWB is limited to 1000 hits. I could, I suppose, search each subcategory in turn using the standard search tool, but that would be very slow. Thoughts?

[edit] Use of WikiProjects for improving and creating articles related to Oxfam

Hi there, I'm trying to get together a small group of people to try and improve the information about Oxfam on Wikipedia (both the main article and other articles connected with it). I get the impression that WikiProjects would be the best place to organise this but I'm slightly confused about all the different categorisation within that.

Would the WikiProject on 'Organizations' be the best place to start or would Oxfam and related information be better placed under a different parent project? Should I be adding myself as a participant to that project then adding tasks related to Oxfam?

389melanie (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oxfam seems a too narrow topic to get its own WikiProject, and it doesn't have enough similar articles to set up its own guidelines. Perhaps it would be best to simply ask for interested editors on a relevant WikiProject talk page, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International development. Some WikiProjects have task forces but Oxfam also seems narrow for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to store a document for reference material

I have a word document that I would like to use as a reference. But, it is not on a web server. Is there a way to store a document and then use it as a reference in an article? GloverEpp (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Has the word document been published before in a reliable source? Has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, or a major newspaper or magazine, or been published in a book released by a major university press or reputable publishing house? If none of these, then it cannot be used as a citable reference in a Wikipedia article. If it HAS been published before, then you would cite the original publication. It need not appear online, if you have the bibliographic information for the journal or book, you could simply cite it per standard MLA or similar formats. --Jayron32 16:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)