MyWiki:Help desk/Archives/2007 December 13

{| width = "100%"

|- ! colspan="3" align="center" | Help desk |- ! width="20%" align="left" | < December 12 ! width="25%" align="center"|<< Nov | December | Jan >> ! width="20%" align="right" |Current help desk > |}

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 13

Definition , antonyms, synonyms

I need the definition , the antonyms, synonyms for words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.67.83 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You may find definitions in a dictionary such as our sister project Wiktionary, and antonyms and synonyms in a thesaurus. Wikipedia is neither. It's an encyclopedia. If we have an article about a word then it usually includes a definition. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jackass Number Two: Music from the Motion Picture

Jackass Number Two: Music from the Motion Picture Will someone please revert the page back to 04:40, 10 December 2007 Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poison the Well (talk • contribs)

Done, although I wonder why an experienced editor like you didn't revert it yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding Wikipedia search results

If I search for Halo 3 on Google, the wikipedia entry reads: Updated facts and data on the Halo 3 game. Pre-release and multiplayer beta included. That text does not appear in the article itself. Where does this summary come from, and how can we change it? (after all, no one cares about the beta now that the game itself has been released.) David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Google gets many of their descriptions from the Open Directory Project, including this one which is from http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/Shooter/H/Halo_Series/Halo_3/. Wikipedia has no control over ODP but you can suggest a new description by clicking "update listing" at top of the linked ODP category. A volunteer ODP editor will review the suggestion at some time (may take a while). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

hacked website

i very seldomly use this website but upon looking up "giant Sequioas" I A message said something about don't believe this site and said all who go there wwill get virused plz make this safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.252.237 (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It was just some temporary vandalism to the Sequoiadendron article, which has now been fixed. Please try again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

printing specific sections of article content

how do you print a part of an article without printing the whole article ? 63.215.29.80 (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First click "Printable version" in the toolbox to the left. The rest depends on your browser and is not specific to Wikipedia pages. Select the text you want to print, for example by "dragging" your mouse over it (move the mouse from one end to the other while right click is pushed down). Then select a print menu, maybe by first selecting a file menu (it's possible a print icon will just print the whole page). Then look for a box saying something like "selected text", and click it if it doesn't have a checkmark. Then look for a button saying print and click it. If it doesn't work then come back and say which browser you use. Or try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism.

On the article Seung Hui Cho. An user had put a message on the article: "DO NOT ADD TO SEUNG HUI CHO TO ANY AMERICANS CATEGORIES BECAUSE HE NEVER BECAME AN U.S CITIZEN". And now, I just delete the categories "American mass murderers" and "Korean-Americans".... so... Can you protect the article??.Frankedjsjs (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pages are generally only protected if there has been recent, repeated vandalism. This one wouldn't qualify. -- Kesh (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Page appears different when I am signed in/not signed in

What is happening is: I logged in, edited a page, and clicked "Save page". Now when I log in and view the page, I see my edits. When I log out and view the page, I see the old one.

Here is some information that might help. - Being a newbie, I negelected to add a subject. Does this keep my edits from taking effect? - The way I did the edit was to copy the code for the entire page to the sandbox, make my edits, copy all the new code, and replace the entire page in the Wiki page. Was this incorrect? - Should I edit a section at a time in the future? - How can I get my edits to take effect when I view the page as a normal user (logged out)?

If you can explain this, many thanks. The page was "whois". WWriter (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit [1] is registered correctly. You probably have to bypass your cache to see it when you are not logged in. Editing a section at a time is not necessary, but it reduces the risk of an edit conflict. This was not a problem here where the preceding edit was the day before. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. I thought I had cleared the cache, but maybe not. It is also impressive to view how the history page displays my changes compared to the previous version. That feature really works well - makes the subject less necessary but I will add one next time. Thanks for the guidance PH. -- WWriter (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Using edit summaries is recommended for several reasons. I do it extensively.[2] (and I appear to live here at the Help desk) Special:Contributions/WWriter shows you made one in [3]. The rest appear to be automatic edit summaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than think of revision diffs as a reason not to add edit summaries, I suggest thinking of the diff as a way to write better edit summaries. You can click the "Show changes" button to show the diff of your current edits before you save them, so you can remember all the things you changed, and write a nice edit summary. That will save time for other editors, who generally prefer to quickly scan the history page for descriptive edit summaries, rather than examine every revision diff to figure out what everybody did. See Help:History, Help:Contributions, and Help:Diff for more information. Yes, being able to see differences between revisions is very cool. Actually it's more than cool, it's an intrinsic feature that enables remote collaboration to work. Wikipedia is a type of Web site called a wiki, and integrated revision control is a standard feature of (probably?) all wiki software packages (at least, all the non-lame ones). Integrated revision control turns Wikipedia into "a glass house made of super-strong glass." Everybody can see what everybody else is doing, and since the revision control saves every revision of every page, users cannot really "break" anything. We can always revert any page back to any previous revision. Revision control technology is also essential for other types of remote collaboration, such as virtually every open source software project. It seems like all of them use a stand-alone revision control package such as CVS or (lately) Subversion. Programmers need fancier revision control features such as branching, but for documenting work (which is what we do on Wikipedia), very simple revision control will do. The MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia implements revision control so cleanly that most users don't even have to know that's what they are using. And by the way, Wikipedia's revision control system is probably the single most widely-used revision control system on the planet. --Teratornis (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

CVS articel vs. Walgreens Article

The article on Walgreens does not include any of the many many controversies involving Walgreens Corp. However the article on CVS includes many of the controversial instances they have faced. I think an online encyclopedia should be fair and balanced but the CVS article is biased and a misrepresentation of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.32.238 (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have verifiable sources about the controversies, feel free to add it to the article and cite those sources. -- Kesh (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

printing sections of article content

how do i print sections of article content without printing the entire article when using AOL ? my options seem to be file (tool bar) print, print (tool bar), or Ctrl + P. no icons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.80 (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is continued from #printing specific sections of article content. In the future, please make follow-up posts in the same section, by clicking "edit" to the right of that section. AOL is an Internet service provider and I don't think they have their own browser. To see which browser you have, try clicking "Help" and then maybe "About" (I don't have an English browser and don't always know which English names are used). Maybe you can experiment a little with printing a short page which only takes up one sheet of paper if you accidentally print everything. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it appears AOL does have their own browser. I know nothing about how it works but I guess it's capable of printing selected text. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the toolbox on the left of most pages, there is a "Printable version" link. Click that to make the page easier to print. Select the text you want printed. Most browsers include print functionality on the File menu or by pressing Ctrl+P, which brings up a dialog box. That dialog box usually includes the option to only print the selected text. Astronaut (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

how do you flag an article that is completly copied from another source?

This article Drivin 'n' Cryin appears to have been copied verbatim from the allmusic guide. Should I just remove all the text from the page or is there a special way to flag copyrighted material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckyg80s (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Chuckyg80s.

If the article is newly created, and the only content is a copyright violation that is blatantly obvious, tag it with {{db-copyvio}}. If the article is more contentions, it should be taken to appropriate forums as provided by WP:COPYVIO. Or just post at at a place like this if the red tape is too much :) I have removed the relevant text from the page as the present version is not substantially different enough to be a derivative work. I could hide the offensive posts from the page history, but it is complicated in this case. Leaving a talk page note. Keegan^talk 05:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and in the case of what I'm doing, it is something you can do for yourself. Happy editing to you! Keegan^talk 05:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Always be careful. I'm not sure it is the case, but I think allmusic could have user-submitted content like IMDB in which case it could be a copyright violation of Wikipedia and not the other way around. - 131.211.161.119 (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How to print and save Wikipedia pages with the font I want

I am using Mac OS 10.5 and using Safari to browse Wikipedia, I want to save some of the pages in PDF format, Safari allows this, however, all the fonts saved in the PDF format will be converted to Times Roman instead of Arial which is what my Safari displayed.. The same thing goes for printing. How do I choose the font that I want? --Seasurfer (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not really a Mac person but it might be that you don't have the font Arial installed on your system, so it is using another font. I think installing IE automatically installs a lot of fonts so you may try installing IE, opening the page in IE to see if it displays in Arial, and then opening in Safari to see if it displays in Arial. One again, not really a Mac person so sorry if what I wrote is complete nonsense. You may also try asking this at WP:Reference Desk. --Kudret abi^Talk 08:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't specify a particular font; instead, it specifies 'use a sans-serif font', and many computers follow that instruction by using Arial. The browser's save-as-PDF feature seems to be ignoring that instruction for some reason, because Times Roman isn't a sans-serif font. I don't know enough about Macs to solve the rest of the problem, though; I agree that asking at the Reference Desk is more likely to give you a solution to this problem, because there are people knowledgeable about computers (rather than about Wikipedia) there. --ais523 09:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

MINOR HELP

How do you on the userpage and talk page, add things like the status bot which tells you when I'm online or offline on the top right corner, in the same position where a hyperlink says "skip to the bottom" on the top of this page. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, but we can Search Help desk for: online status indicator; I see a couple of search results that suggest this question came up before. --Teratornis (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found this on wikipedia Activity Indicator and placed it on my userpage, however their's seems to be no script for placing scripts like the "skip to the bottom", i've spent awhile looking through the archives from the link you provided but theirs nothing expect for the Activity Indicator. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Try this: <div style="position: absolute; top: 0.3em; right: 0.3em; " >{{user around}}</div> PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, my watchlist didn't alert me that you've responded. I've placed the code onto my userpage and it works, the user status is displaying in the same position as the "Skip to the bottom" symbol, thanks for the help, i've also added a new subject on this page which is at the bottom, which I'm wanting to do. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

how long do I have?

Hi,

I just wrote a page and submitted it. Is there any way of keeping tabs on it? Is there anyone I can turn to for advice regarding improving the article? How long do I have before it comes under the scrutiny of one of the administrators? Can they delete it without informing me? Can I ask them to write to me first?

Thanks,

Alan.

Alansholto (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Alan Sholto

Keeping tabs on pages you've created is easy enough; one way is via Special:Contributions/Alansholto (the 'my contributions' link at the top of the page), which shows which edits you've done, whether anyone has edited the page since (the word (top) displays if nobody else has), and when; pages disappear from that list when they're deleted. You could also use your watchlist (see Help:Watchlist for details).

As for advice regarding improving the article, you can see Wikipedia:Requests for feedback for that sort of request. Looking at it myself, it seems to need wikifying and copyediting for style, it needs categories, and most importantly, it needs references. I'll put tags on the article that will let other editors and readers know that they can help with this; you can do the edits yourself if you like, or you can wait for someone else to do them.

About articles coming under the scrutiny of administrators: many administrators and other non-admin users watch the list of pages being created, so the article is likely to have come under scrutiny in that way already, but they'll have just been checking it for obvious deletability problems (for instance, checking to make sure it isn't vandalism or spam). Anyone can tag it for various sorts of attention at any time; for instance, anyone could start a deletion request on the article, but if there are no requests that require admin attention then administrators won't look at it acting as administrators (they may look at it acting as regular users).

Administrators can delete an article without informing you, but they ought not to. If you want to increase the chance that you are informed, mention this on the talk page; administrators ought to read it before deleting the article.

Hope that helps! --ais523 09:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I edited the following separate answers to your questions simultaneously with the above answer, so some of my replies may be redundant; I'll just slap them in here before I get another edit conflict:

1. You can watch your article and its Help:Talk page.
2. Yes. You can ask the Help desk for advice on improving your article; you may find a WikiProject that improves articles in the same subject area; you can find a mentor.
3. There is no set amount of time. Various editors review Special:Newpages, but with up to thousands of new pages every day, some problem articles may hang around a long time before experienced editors scrutinize them.
4. Yes.
5. Yes, you can leave a note on your article's talk page asking to be informed on your user talk page if someone nominates the article for deletion. But it's up to them to honor your request. I don't think anybody can force them to inform you. We do get a lot of people who ask Why was my page deleted?, so it's pretty clear the whole deletion process is not perfectly informative to the (often) new users who create articles that get deleted. Wikipedia has staggeringly complicated policies, guidelines, and procedures, so there are a lot of ways for new users to create articles with problems.

--Teratornis (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Speak with Ben Affleck

Hello, iám Michael b, Iám 17ears old, Iám not good speak english! Can You Speak Netherlands? i will speak Ben Affleck the film Pearl Harbor, Can i Speak Him?? Pleas??? I do a picture off my,!! Sorry that i can not good english i hope so that i can speak with Ben Affleck I willl His adres Pleas of What else That i can contakt coming pleas,!

i hope that i a answer from you back

My Number is[removed] Vgr Michael Baumann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.173.98 (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the help desk for the encyclopedia Wikipedia. We have over two million articles, inlcuding Ben Affleck and Pearl Harbor (film). But Ben Affleck has (as far as I know) not contributed to Wikipedia and we have no inside access to him or other people we have biographies about. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

email

I have requested a confirmation several times with no success. Dr Radical (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Dr Radical

Mh, it sounds as if the email you entered may not be correct. If not, you will need to adjust your preferences with the correct email, then find an automatic email to confirm it was you who registered the email. Hope this helps! Qst 13:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation emails can be caught in spam filters. Is that a possibility? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I checked out these possibilities, but no change. Here's my email: drchrischerpas@aol.com. I bet if someone emailed directly here, I'd receive it. Dr Radical (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Dr Radical

Template Table?

What's the template table to link subpages, and to organize the subpages neater, because I'm wanting to create a subpage for my talk page so that all of the wikipedia signpost editions to my user will enter the subpage instead of the actual talk page. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Including a template which links back to the current talk page. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you refer to. Subpages automatically link to the parent page at the top. User:SKYNET X7000/Archive 1 links to User:SKYNET X7000/Archive 1 at the top. If you moved it to User talk:SKYNET X7000/Archive 1 then it would link to User talk:SKYNET X7000. Here is something you could put on your user page to list all subpages of it: {{Special:Prefixindex/User:SKYNET X7000/}}. It currently produces this:

• SKYNET X7000/Archive

SKYNET X7000/monobook.css

SKYNET X7000/monobook.js

Change "User" to "User talk" to list subpages (currently none) of your user talk. Maybe Help:Archiving a talk page is of help. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

PD-text

How do I put a template on a page where text has been pasted as PD? Please respond on talk page. Miranda 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. Miranda 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism (Part 2)

Yesterday, I had put a question here about vandalism on the article Seung Hui Cho because an user adds Cho to Americans categories when another user had put a message that "Cho never became an U.S Citizen,so, DO NOT ADD CHO TO AMERICANS CATEGORIES". Also, I had removed (yesterday), the categories American mass murderers and Korean-Americans and today, the categories American mass murderers and Korean-Americans were on the article. I have removed these categories 5 minutes ago. So, what can I do?. Thanks. Frankedjsjs (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We revert vandalisms as they occur; but I wouldn't call this vandalism. This is a content dispute: naturalization is not necessary to consider Cho a Korean-American. You need to talk this out on the talk page(s) of these categories. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Redirect

Hello!

I was hoping someone could help me with this, as I am not confident in that I won't somehow mess this up! My organization's Wikipedia page is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOR_Centre_for_the_Performing_Arts. The title is wrong in that 'CENTRE' must be uppercase to properly reflect our branding.

I tried to rename the page to 'EPCOR CENTRE' but found that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOR_CENTRE_for_the_Performing_Arts does already exist, but it redirects to the incorrectly named page! (seen above). Is there any way to keep and move everything from 'EPCOR Centre's page to 'EPCOR CENTRE's? The redirect should be the other way around, yet with the content located on the misnamed page. Sorry, I hope this makes sense...

Thanks very much -- I appreciate any help possible!

Best regards, Sandy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epcorcentre (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's Manual of Style does state that standard formatting should be used for trademarks. In effect, the title should be "Epcor Center [...]". So, that is what the guidelines say – and guidelines are general rules to follow that may have some exceptions. Feel free to bring this issue up on the article's talk page. Gracenotes^T § 17:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting (considering your username) to try to avoid conflict of interest postings, which will most probably be removed. Regards, — Rudget _{Contributions} 18:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that Orange Mike has blocked the questioner: Although I agree with the block, IMO his {{uw-ublock}} message is confusing and bitey without a reason parameter. --teb728 t c 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

deleting edit history

I accidentally added posts while not being logged in. How can I delete from the edit history so my ip doesn't show? I don't care if it deletes my edits.

18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well you can't actually delete edits, unless you're an oversight. But seen as that is confusing, I won't go into that. If you don't like the edits, and it's not necessarily been edited by someone else, I'd undo the edits. Best, — Rudget _{Contributions} 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Threat of being Blocked for alleged Vandalism

I am new to Wikipedia, but I do not know of any rule or policy that allows one editor to censor the contribution of another. For the last few days I have been trying in good faith to contribute some concise, relevant and well-referenced material to four related Wiki articles on relativity theory,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity.

wherin I present criticisms of RT by qualified scientists. Another editor, apparently not knowing the difference between science and censorship, does not like this idea and always reverts my contribution. This morning I re-submitted it and soon received on my talk page a message threatening me with being blocked for "vandalism." What is wrong with Wikipedia? RAmesbury (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be content disputes between two editors, I am not sure where to go on this, but I am sure that another user that will look at this will know what to do. The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We are volunteers here, and you, being only new to Wikipedia, have been unfairly treated, especially considering you AGF actions. From the first article you showed, I checked the history, and it seems that the other editor may be in violation of the three revert rule, (or where you can't undo anothers actions unless it's blatant vandalism etc.) I understand where the other user was coming from but classing this as vandalism is inappropriate, I think what he meant to say was don't add original research, which the content you added did look like. I'd advise you to always add references to edits that you make, and make sure they are to reliable sources. It always helps if other editors can see what you're writing from. I'll have a word with the other editor for you now. Thank you for contacting the help desk. — Rudget _{Contributions} 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Expressions like when Einstein was in knee pants , super genius (referrring to Tesla) etc. don't belong in an encyclopedia. The theory of relativity is well accepted. To bring forth a slew of fringe theories attacking it is not the best of ideas. I would not include it in the article. At least not in its present oversized and POV gone wrong form. Dr.K. (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention whole chunks are repeated verbatim from article to article. This amounts to unnecessary duplication verging on article spamming. Dr.K. (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted the other user about this situation. Please keep in mind that consensus should occur before adding large chunks of material, and always cite to reliable sources, which verify any claims. And reviewing the other articles, I must actually agree with Tasoskessaris, some material may have been POV, which is against policy. But as you are new, I can understand that. — Rudget _{Contributions} 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really a content dispute between two editors; DVdm just happens to be the one who reverted the changes. There are a number of others who would have been just as quick to revert them: probably every member of WikiProject Physics, for example. This sort of material is entirely in contravention of policy and ArbCom precedent (WP:ARB/PS, mainly). --Philosophus ^T 13:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First, do not make more comments like [4] to editors you disagree with. Otherwise your next block will probably be longer. Physics theories are usually criticized (or ignored) when they are first presented. But if almost everybody accepts the theory today then early critique from top phycisists doesn't mean much when they didn't have access to loads of later supporting experiments and evidence. Presenting the special theory of relativity like there is considerable controvercy about it is in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Long ago there may have been controvercy about it among prominent physicists but not today, and many of the early objections have been convincingly crushed by repeated experiments. The objectors today appear to be a rather limited number of not very notable people. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI#RAmesbury offering to pay (or being offered to pay) to edit tendentiously is perhaps relevant here. --teb728 t c 21:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mobile portal??

Is there a mobile portal for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.54.227 (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See Portal:Contents/Portals. — Rudget _{Contributions} 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the questioner is using the word "portal" the way Wikipedia uses it. People who pose questions on the Help desk may be new to Wikipedia, and may happen to use words that are also Wikipedia jargon terms, but they may not be aware of the Wikipedia jargon sense yet. However, I don't know what else the questioner might mean by "portal." Maybe the questioner is asking about how to access Wikipedia from mobile computing devices. If so, then Wapedia and TomeRaider may be helpful. --Teratornis (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Capitalizing Headings

Dear Wiki

I created a page for a visual artist and did not capitalize her last name.

How do I go back into the page to capitalize the last name?

It seems I can only edit the main text of my entry...??

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcSFO (talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Make sure to add references to the article though, it looks promotional at the moment. Thanks. — Rudget _{Contributions} 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If an item/entry is incomplete, or hasn't all the facts listed, how do I contact wikipedia to get it done fully?

who/how do i contact someone at wikipedia?Researchr (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You have contacted Wikipedia. Simply edit the article yourself, by clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the article, and then adding the missing information, with proper citations of the reliable sources used. That's what Wikipedia is about. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You can always suggest or discuss improvements on the articles talk page (click "discussion" at top to get there). Other than that, you can for example place {{expand}} or one of the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance#Articles requiring significant attention and other issues on the article. Or contact a WikiProject the article falls under, often listed on the article talk page. Note that Wikipedia has more than two million articles and most of them could be improved a lot but it takes time so don't expect too much. If you really want something done then do it yourself! See Wikipedia:Be bold. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but most people would understand "edit" to involve making some changes that "stick" for a while. (Consider: when a scholar "edits" a book, the final copy will contain clear evidence that the scholar did something. On Wikipedia, it is possible for an editor's edits to be completely wiped out by other editors, leaving only entries in page histories that are not ordinarily visible. In real life, an editor who leaves nothing in the final copy probably did not need to be hired.) In that case, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can try to edit. One's chances of making edits that survive long enough to be worth making increase in proportion to how much one learns about editing on Wikipedia. The effort may be substantial. Thus, to be honest, we should adjust the slogan to: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but a lot of time and effort may be necessary to learn how to edit in a way that doesn't merely waste one's own time and the time of other editors. This is not an argument against making the necessary effort; Wikipedia's greatness is the direct result of the many editors who did invest time and effort. However, our answers to the question are somewhat vague and general because the question was not specific. If the questioner will tell us the name of the incomplete article, and perhaps some clues about the additional information the questioner expects the article should contain, we may be able to provide specific advice about how the questioner can locate and add the missing information. --Teratornis (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Page for Hammad Siddiqi

I am writing a book on Young Pakistani leaders in various professions. The page Hammad Siddiqi was created by myself and a colleague however there appears a message on the top of the page about a conflict of interest. how can this be removed because no conflict of interest exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makhanlal (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hammad Siddiqi‎ was created by Hammad1 on 11 September 2007.[5] The name makes a conflict of interest appear a definite possibility. Your account Makhanlal has only edited the article long after it was created, and the message on top was already there at the time. Is Hammad1 an account for you or your colleague? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

hammad1 is my colleagues sign on name which he created for use of creating the page Hammad Siddiqi. He and I were unaware of this possibility that this could be considered a conflict of interest. We both have posted information from our research on the writings and commentary of Hammad Siddiqi the Pakistani journalist and commentator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makhanlal (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved your reply here. Please don't create more new sections about the same matter. Hammad1 has made 31 edits: Special:Contributions/Hammad1. The first 30 were to create Hammad Siddiqi, his father Shahid Aziz Siddiqi‎, and writing about the two in these and other articles, for example as notable alumni from their places of education. That is an unusual obsession about two relatively unknown people. The message at top of Hammad Siddiqi says "may have a conflict of interest", and I think "may have" is a natural suspicion in these circumstances. It doesn't claim "has a conflict of interest". If an uninvolved editor goes over Hammad Siddiqi and possibly makes some changes then that editor may choose to remove the message - or to nominate the article for deletion. The 31st edit by Hammad1 is this gross attack on a historic person, repeatedly calling him a coward (7 times) and worse. It doesn't look like serious objective research to me, and I can understand it was reverted as vandalism with a warning at User talk:Hammad1#October 2007. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pages still locked

I'm wondering why pages are still locked for me to edit? I've been on for a while and have no intention of vandalism. Apartcents (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not currently blocked, nor have you ever been blocked as far as I can tell. Might the page you are trying to edit be fully protected from editing? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What are you referring to? Your account has never been blocked, you can edit all pages except a few which have full protection, and your account has many edits. Just click "edit this page" at top, or "edit" to the right of a section. Don't you see those links? Occasionally the software is unable to process an edit request. Just wait if that happens. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

conflict of interest

how do I remove a conflict of interest tag from a page that I created. there is no conflict of interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makhanlal (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

See my reply above at #Page for Hammad Siddiqi. Please make follow-up posts in the same section, by clicking "edit" to the right of the section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Contact system to complacted

Your contact system is so complacted that this is the only way that I could get through. I didn't find any other way to contact you other then this. You should have a central email adress that people can contact you at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.220.132 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you did get through and we received your message shows that it works. I think this is not too complicated once you use it a few times. It has also an advantage over email systems in that many people can respond and discuss things at almost the same time, something that you can't do through a regular email inbox. Dr.K. (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dr K, also you could have used the IRC Live Assistance feature, which more information is about on the top of the page. The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is also a convenient "Contact Wikipedia" in the menu to the left. Since Wikipedia is a project mainly driven by an awful lot of volunteers, the way of contacting someone really depends on who you want to contact. Legal matters need other eyes than a request to correct an article for example. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone who has never used a wiki before could legitimately complain about the number of wiki editing features a person needs to know just to post a question to the Wikipedia Help desk. Wikipedia works a lot differently than most non-wiki sites a non-technical user would likely have seen before. The MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia does not yet have true threaded discussion, nor does it have facilities for structured input (although with effort it is possible to hack up wizard-type interactive troubleshooting decision trees). The Help desk works quite well for the people who use it a lot (i.e., the volunteers who answer questions), but not so well for the substantial number of folks who seem completely baffled - notice the number of questions that have nothing to do with editing on Wikipedia (or even nothing to do with Wikipedia). --Teratornis (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I need help Editing certain false information in Wikipedia

Yuioplkjhga (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)I am sorry but I am not very computer literate, so I have tried to use the "talk" page and another page to ask how to rid Wikipedia of certain false information. I tried to edit these topics myself, but it has been reverted to original writings. These writings are very false and leading other people to think this information is correct when in fact there is no historical basis for these lies.

I am referring to the pages regarding Pope Nicholas V, and the supposed Papal Bulls he is alleged to have written: Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas.

I have consulted with Church historians, and there are no such Bulls nor have there ever been. The only Papa Bull is Romanus Pontifex, and this has nothing to do with slavery.

The only references that are made for "proof" of these "slavery" bulls is from anti-Catholic sources, whose authors give NO reference or documentation for evidence of these bulls. Just because an author says it is so in their books, does not mean it is historically accurate.

I am asking, since I cannot do it myself, and I don't know how to use the other means available, that you please delete these untruths. I have found these lies under Nicholas V biograhpy, and under List of Papal Bulls, and under the names of these two Bulls.

If you write the Catholic Church from Vatican historians and any museums, you will see that your wikipedia source cannot substantiate the existence of any of these Bulls supposedly written by Pope Nicholas V. They do not exist.

I appreciate any help in this matter. To leave untruths in this site when it has been addressed to your attention would be questionable then as to the efficacy and truthfullness of any article in wikipedia. I really like this site, but it is not the first time blatant error has been found in this site.

Sincerely, claire

Hello Claire. The problem is that there are just scads of published sources which treat these topics as real and based in historical fact. For example, there are 243 published books found through a Google book search which at least mention the Dum Diversas[6]. Do you have any reliable published sources which speak about the falseness/nonexistence of these topics? If you do, then (and only then) it would be appropriate to add information in the articles on these topics describing the alleged questionable historical basis of these "bulls", giving due consideration to weight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

article name

how do you go about changing an articles name? I would like Land Camera to be changed to Polaroid Land CameraLandcamera900 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Once your account is four days old, click the "move" tab at the top of the page. Since this could be a potentially controversial move, you may want to place {{Move}} at the top of the article's talk page (click "discussion" at the top) and see if other users support or oppose the move. If no one responds within a few days, then it defaults to "support". Otherwise, please honour consensus; move it if the move is supported and don't if it is opposed. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)