O.k.: the situation is this, I have created a page which is included within the scope of a wikiproject I'm involved in. I wish to add the wikiproject's template (with quality, importance etc.). I have a feeling that it would be wrong for me to do it myself. Should I ask for it to be templated on the project talk page; should I edit it myself; what should I do? Fribbler (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be okay to add the template yourself per WP:BOLD. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add the template with no quality/importance at the very least --- but feel free to be BOLD and rate it. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of our conflict of interest guidelines, but I don't think that applies to involvement with a WikiProject - unless you are personally involved with the subject of the article you created. Incidentally, whenever you ask a question about a page on the Help desk, you should always link to the page. There are good reasons for this:

• The Help desk gets all sorts of questions from all sorts of people, from beginners to experts, and it's hard to know a questioner's expertise. It would be foolish for us to assume that everybody who asks a question on the Help desk knows how to describe a situation involving a page so correctly and completely that we could safely answer the question without looking at the page in question.
• There might be other problems on the page that the questioner did not mention.
• Since we have to look at your page to make sure our answer is correct, and that we did not miss any hidden problems, that requires Help desk volunteers to look at [[Special::::Contributions/Fribbler|your contributions]] and try to figure out what page you are talking about. That makes it harder than necessary for people to give you the highest-quality help.

--Teratornis (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! The page is: Polish minority in Ireland and I wish to template it as being part of Wikiproject Ireland. Fribbler (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I see (and it's a small one) is that Polish minority in Ireland does not appear to be any categories that seem to have anything to do with WikiProject Ireland. I've seen some WikiProject participants using bot programs to put their project template on the talk pages of all the articles in particular categories that relate to the WikiProject. So, if you can find a category in WP:IE#Useful categories that would logically contain the article, or maybe you would need to add a new subcategory if none of the existing ones make sense, then I wouldn't see any problem with adding the {{WikiProject Ireland}} template to Talk:Polish minority in Ireland. Of course, just because I don't see a problem doesn't stop someone else from seeing a problem, but I think you'd be on solid enough ground to argue your case if that should happen. --Teratornis (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added a relevant category (can't seem to remember why I didn't do it at the time...must have gotten distracted). And I'll likely add the template now shortly. Thanks for the help. Fribbler (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page looks great, go ahead and move forward. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And so I shall. I'm a newbie envigorated! Fribbler (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/200.195.3.5 is posting articles in the talk pages of articles. What is the appropriate message to leave their user talk page? —teb728 t c 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there are any templates specifically for this, such activity does not seem like it would be very common. Just come up with a message on your own, it wont kill you :) Or go sift through WP:WARN. - Icewedge (talk • goat) 02:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a vandalism or test editing warning, as these seem to be closest to what the anon was doing, or maybe ignore it as the user seems to be inactive now... Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A vandalism warning is appropriate (it's more akin to trolling though). Level 1 vandal assumes good faith and alludes to testing. I see that the anon's talk page has not been edited. If the user does it again, a warning should be given. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it’s a newbie mistake in good faith. He seems to be spamming his pet theory—probably OR. I gave him a message based on {{uw-chat2}}. —teb728 t c 10:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make a collapsible table whose header is recognized as a header, but isn't automatically bolded? ${\displaystyle \sim }$Lenoxus " * " 03:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the header thing is in the MW:Common.css (I think), and the code for the tables are in MW:Common.js, so I think an admin would have to change MW:Common.css to allow for that or something. The instruction pages certainly don't mention it. I think a starting a discussion at the village pump may be in order... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Bug is reported as fixed

Something seems to be wrong with my user page. When I try to view the page, all it comes up with is a blank screen with nothing else on it. When I try to edit it, it shows all of the text on the page, but when I try to preview this occurs. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing one of the pages you have transcluded is a big white rectangle. I'd comment them out, one at a time, to find the culprit. --barneca (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another guess would be if you've messed around with your monobook.css? Tiggerjay (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, apparently the culprit was {{Special:Newpages/20}}. I removed it, and now it seems to be working fine. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone check this diff? I'm at work right now and I don't think that the site that is cited is SFW, so I can't check it myself. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you provided was run of the mill vandalism. There's an image on the page (not vandalism, it belongs) that's sort of a tiny bit NSFW, but it has nothing to do with the vandal. Now, is that what you were asking, or did you want someone to look into something else? I don't really get the "reference" thing. --barneca (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you meant, could someone check the lukeisback.com reference, that site is blacklisted on my network so I can't see it. --barneca (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant the lukeisback.com reference. I know the article here, our article, is safe for work but I don't know about the site that is used for the reference. Dismas|^(talk) 03:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Problem has been fixed in code base

My adoptee – User:Elie plus has some problems with his/her talk page and it dosent seem to be coming up. Is this a server problem or what? Im a bit baffled on this one Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened there, I've reverted a few diffs back, but for some reason edits after this one were showing as a blank page. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Special:Newpages/10 was transcluded into the page as a template. It appears that this utterly crashes the Wiki renderer. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See two threads further up. --barneca (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and see new thread on WP:VPT :) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

User:KTC reports that Bug 14113 has been fixed now. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—i need a recipe for diet tuna mornay and i would also like any comments on the house pricess of adelaide in australias south. does any one see a dropin the price in tbhe near future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.250.53.197 (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a desk for questions about using Wikipedia only. I suggest you try the Reference Desk, but remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and that we will not give advice which you should solicit from a professional. Oh, and:

Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box (as shown to the left ←). Do NOT sign in articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps....... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Yes. User warned...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 08:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the answer in WP:Three-revert rule. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you need the 3RR on talk pages? It's for discussion. I suggest you both allow each other to have your say, and don't revert. It's a place to have all the arguments out on a table as it were. But in answer, I'm not sure, but don't! Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it apply?! Edit-warring on talk pages is as bad on talk pages as it is on article pages. If someone is using a talk-page inappropriately as a forum, then {{Uw-chat1}} through to {{Uw-chat4}} can be used to warn the editor in question. Bencherlite^Talk 07:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is concerning the talk page of today's featured article, Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is unconstructive and unfounded, and is definitely in violation of WP:TALK for use as a platform for personal views. There is nothing related to the page's content, except for claims that it was written by editors with a conflict of interest, which is entirely speculative. Warned for 3RR and inappropriate talk page comments, and a final warning has also been issued for a subsequent edit. haz (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would like to tighten up our page so that registered users can NOT edit certain parts of a page, but can edit other parts, in our case we are doing information about PC games and there is some static information that should never be edited by any end user, but there is also a comments section as well as links to walkthrough and cheat code pages for each game that we would like to let registered users add information to.

How do we go about doing this with wiki?

2. What command must I put in the localsettings.php (if there at all) that will give the full icon bar above the post box, it seems that our is truncated and doesn't offer as many options as is seen here at wikipedia.org.

Thank you for indulging me.

Kamidan (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Help Desk mostly attracts people who know about Wikipedia, not about setting up MediaWiki in general. You might get a more informed response by asking at the MediaWiki Support desk (mw:Project:Support desk) instead. --ais523 09:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For an answer to the first question: Transclude a protected page as the first thing on the editable page. Or create a protected page with a transcluded unprotected subpage.

For the second question: You have to include the extra icons via javascript, by editing the MediaWiki:Common.js file in your wiki. See how we do it in the "Extra toolbar options" section of the Common.js link I wrote above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tito, that is a clever answer about transcluding a protected page. To the questioner, also see: mw:Manual:Preventing access. --Teratornis (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that Tito's second suggestion to transclude an unprotected page onto a protected page might be more robust, because if an unprotected page transcludes a protected page, an unprivileged editor could edit out the transclusion on the unprotected page, thereby just removing the whole protected part. --Teratornis (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lately I can't upload images to Commons. The uploads go on for ten minutes or more and then I give up. Am I the only one having problems? If I have a virus in my system, could it affect uploads?

Sardaka (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'll be a virus. It sounds more like you were unlucky and there was a problem with the upload servers at that time. The images are stored at upload.wikimedia.org: if you go to Image:AugustusOctaviusBacon.jpg and click on the picture, you'll see it's actually stored at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/AugustusOctaviusBacon.jpg Just like the database servers periodically have performance issues and Wikipedia is slow or unavailable, so do the upload servers. The problems rarely last very long. As far as the upload to Commons goes, either just let it run - I can't remember seeing a time-out on an upload - or if it does time out, go back a page, wait five minutes, try again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that if you are involved in editing a section of an article for a long time (more than an hour or so) you get logged out of your Wikipedia account? How long is the timeout period? And is there a way to replace your IP in the History log with your actual username, when this happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.88.242 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is such a restriction, as I don't see a way it could handle someone opening the edit window but then exiting their browser. It is possible to replace your IP in the logs with your username, but it apparently is a major headache to do. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not and yes but difficult. What usually happens if I leave an edit window open for a long time - hours - before saving is that I get an error why I try to save. So it's not that your edit gets saved as an ip, it doesn't get saved at all. To attribute ip edits to an account is something only the developers can do, and they have better things to do than that. The suggested way of fixing this would be to make a dummy edit when logged in on your account and put "The last previous was by me", or whatever edit it was if it wasn't the previous one, in the edit summary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had this problem quite often. You get a message about "loss of session data". I find the best approach is to edit in small chunks, which has other advantages also: including that you can edit-summary each specific change, and that other users can more easily vet what you have done and undo your mistakes if necessary. Not that I ever make those  ;-) AndyJones (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I personally have experienced on more than one occasion, where I edit for a long time and I get logged out. Usually I try not to save when this happens, because I don't want my IP to be visible to the public, so I preview to prevent it. I've had times when I've had errors similar to "loss of session data", but I'm still logged in. Also, there've been times when I previewed and I was logged out. My browser cache causes me to be logged out on pages I've visited before logging in, for example, but usually I'm logged in when I click edit this page. Reading a page for a long time may also result in a logout, as I've experienced this before. Also, sometimes my userbar jumps to the left of the screen when I'm logged in, and this has happened while not logged in as well (but not from my house). Maybe edit a page that's semi-protected so it can't save when you're logged out. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It probably has to do with the PHP session limit. I don't remember what value we're using, but it might be 1440 seconds (24 minutes). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this happened to me again today and it's very annoying. It definitely happens when I've been in an edit for about an hour with no activity outside the text box. No message that I saw. I think "Preview" resets whatever timer is involved. I logged in again on another browser tab, and Previewed the first one, and then I was OK again. The question is, is this Wikipedia logging me, or is it something with my ISP that makes Wikipedia think I went away, or what? I have normal AT&T DSL and using IE7 under XP SP3. In most other, "polite" interfaces, when you're at risk of being logged due to apparent inactivity, you get a dialog popup telling you so and giving you a button to click to show you are still there. Rep07 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Direct question "has the foundation made any statements?" has been answered

I've been editing wikipedia for a while and was thinking of donating some money (not a lot but hey every little helps) but now I keep seeing reports on news site that the foundation has pro-pedophilia members sitting on the board (no I'm not going to get into names). I don't want to give money to a pro-pedophilia organisation. Has the foundation made any statements about this matter? thank you. --87.114.5.168 (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt the foundation has anyone who is "pro-paedophilia". I think you are misinterpreting the foundation's stance in regards to the allegations that wikipedia is full of porn. I believe the response from the foundation was that where there is a need for an encyclopaedic image, there is an encyclopaedic image, on the basis that Wikipedia is not censored. I suggest checking out the May 9th edition of the Wikipedia Signpost for more information. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be pointed out that the allegations were largely made by certain conservative christian groups who are infamous for their anti-gay stance, who were objecting to both descriptions of homosexual acts and illustrations of those. --neonwhite user page talk 16:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I have no idea what you are talking about? I'm referring to comments by one of the directors of the foundation in regards to adults having sex with children. --87.114.23.200 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...that's never happened. I think they may be talking about the Virgin Killer controversy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. No, anon is correctly referring to the story about one of WMF's former board member, and current staff view on pedophilia related viewpoints. And to answer the original question, no the foundation haven't made an official statement on this matter.

To anon, we are talking about the viewpoint of an individual here, rather than the organisation, even if said individual is a senior member of staff (and former Board member) within it. KTC (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some misapprehensions here.

1. The help desk deals with questions regarding the use of the English-language Wikipedia. This isn't one.
2. You can't donate money to Wikipedia.
3. If you really did want to discuss donations, the people to speak to would be the Wikimedia Foundation. They solicit donations and have their very own website which should explain how you can contact them.
4. The English-language Wikipedia has very little influence in determining the membership of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. There is this guy has a talk page here who historically had quite a lot of influence, but less today than he once had. You could ask him questions. I wonder how that would work out.
5. If the Wikimedia Foundation makes any statements, they'll be on the Wikimedia Foundation website, not here.

Did I miss anything? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism notice removed. Dendodge, I do not believe the question was vandalism. Please assume good faith. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 17:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what? how can a question be vandalism? I don't understand your usage of the term? Just as an aside - if you cannot donate to wikipedia, why does it say at the top of the page "donate to wikipedia"? --87.114.23.200 (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing Wikipedia board members of paedophilia is a personal attack, actually worse than vandalism!...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between accusing board members of pedophilia and asking an apparently legitimate question about numerous stories they've seen that involves a board member and pro-pedo topics. --Onorem♠Dil 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former board and current staff member. KTC (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term anon used was "pro-pedophilia", not "X is a paedophilia". KTC (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you'll notice I've avoid mention of any names and any asking about media reports and if the foundation has made a response - if I came on and said "X is a dirty nonce, what are you going to do about it?" then you'd have a point. Clearly this was the wrong forum to ask this question and I accept that but I've done nothing wrong here. --87.114.23.200 (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely asking a question here is not "wrong," but omitting essential details could be inexpedient (i.e., reducing your odds of getting useful answers), in that most people who volunteer to answer questions on the Help desk are not up-to-the-minute on every single situation and controversy involving Wikipedia. This is an enormous project, with 6,991,338 articles and 49,108,054 registered users, so it seems a safe bet none of us grasp more than a small part of it. If you have a problem or a concern that motivates a question on the Help desk, almost certainly you were looking at one or more Web pages when questions arose in your mind. Since Help desk volunteers are not mind-readers, we need to see the same pages you saw if we are to understand your question. To get coherent answers, you must ask a coherent question. As to the question itself, every large organization invariably has participants with a wide range of views, and almost certainly some of these views are highly offensive to some people. (To paraphrase Archimedes, give me a place to stand, and I will offend the Earth.) Most democratic governments, for example, have had their share of scandals, but that does not cause most people to withdraw from the democratic process altogether. Since Wikipedia is so large and diverse, with so many minority viewpoints among the participants, a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation would be an extremely inefficient way to support any particular minority viewpoint. If you assume, for example, that your point of view on some controversial topic is more in accord with all the facts than the opposing view(s), then you would stand to benefit by promoting the widest and most complete dissemination of all the facts on the topic. Well, that is Wikipedia's mission, to put all the facts out there and let the reader decide what to think. --Teratornis (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image (Image:Nypdpatch.jpg) was recently tagged by a bot for deletion as an orphaned fair use image. And the bottom does indeed have a lack of pages that link to the image. However, if you go to the article where the image would most likely go, New York City Police Department, it's right there in the infobox. Disregarding the fact that the image page still needs fair use rationale for the specific article, why isn't the article showing up at the bottom of the page? Does it have something to do with the "patch" attribute in the infobox? Is this what the bot reads to determine the tag-ability of an image? I'll let the bot's owner know of this dicussion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the bot, it's a wikiproblem. New York City Police Department doesn't show up in the what-links-here or the image-links. Bug? Feature? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug. Seems the entry in the imagelinks table that should've been there wasn't. We've had quite a few of these database consistency problems lately; I'm not sure why it's been happening just now, but in any case it certainly points to some room for improvement in MediaWiki's transaction handling. Anyway, I made a dummy edit to the article and that seems to have fixed this particular case. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot does two checks to see if the file is in use, one at the toolserver database and one by loading the page, all the mistaggings I've seen have been caused by the MW bug. BJ^Talk 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is anything being done to fix this bug? --Ali'i 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some people are stumped as to what to do now that they've reached an agreement. I think they need help. The link is here. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wageslave.
If you would be so kind as to reply to my talk page, I would greatly appreciate it. Monkeytheboy (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been finding references via google books search, but I don't know how to turn them into a proper link to the book. you can take a look at my references at the bottom of User:Merkinsmum/Theistic Satanism to see what's happening with the links. I know some people think these sort of links (a long chain of search gibberish, which however works fine, just looks ugly) are 'wrong' but am unsure how to change them for the better. I want to provide a hyperlink to the sources, as well as just listing what book a reference is from. I bet it's really obvious once someone tells me:) Hope you can help. Merkin's mum 15:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite book}}...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaah. And it's ok for me to use those refs- google books links, and just prettify them using citebook? Merkin's mum 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use a googlebooks link as the URL paramter, yes, although the author name and book title etc. have parameters to be filled in. Here is an example:

{{cite book|last=AUTHOR SURNAME|first=AUTHOR FIRSTNAME|coauthors=COAUTHORS|others=OTHER CONTRIBUTORS|title=TITLE OF BOOK|editor=EDITOR|publisher=PUBLISHER|location=WHERE?|date=DATE PUBLISHED|edition=EDITION|series=SERIES|volume=VOLUME|pages=NUMBER OF PAGES|chapter=CHAPTER|isbn=ISBN|oclc=OCLC|url=http://GOOGLEBOOKS LINK|accessdate=DATE YOU READ IT|language=LANGUAGE OF TEXT}} makes:AUTHOR SURNAME, AUTHOR FIRSTNAME (DATE PUBLISHED). "CHAPTER". In EDITOR (ed.). LINK TITLE OF BOOK. SERIES (in LANGUAGE OF TEXT). Vol. VOLUME. OTHER CONTRIBUTORS (EDITION ed.). WHERE?: PUBLISHER. pp. NUMBER OF PAGES. ISBN ISBN. OCLC OCLC. Retrieved DATE YOU READ IT. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Check |oclc= value (help); Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty ugly, so here's an example from Daz 4 Zoe, with some stuff added:

{{cite book|last=Swindells|first=Robert E.|title=Daz 4 Zoe|editor=Roy Blatchford|publisher=Longman|location=England|date=1996|series=Longman literature|pages=192|isbn=0-582-30243-9|url=http://en.wikipedia.org}}

That makes:Swindells, Robert E. (1996). Roy Blatchford (ed.). Daz 4 Zoe. Longman literature. England: Longman. p. 192. ISBN 0-582-30243-9....... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the standard footnote instruction trilogy: WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, and WP:CITET. You may find footnote editing easier if you use one of the citation tools: WP:EIW#Citetools. (For example, I have been using the WPCITE extension for Firefox, but that only works with {{Cite web}} and thus would not help with {{Cite book}}.) But lo, it seems we recently gained a new gadget in our Special:Preferences (click the Gadget tab) called refTools. I will have to try that. --Teratornis (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use refTools. It's great but only inserts specified parameters...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thanks for your help everyone. I'll go for it but find these things very hard work. Still, I suppose even I have to work now and again.:) Merkin's mum 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not the appropriate place to ask this question, please let me know what is. I'm trying to find out who is responsible for oversight of your entries. After seeing several mildly inaccurate entries when I first discovered Wikipedia a few years ago, I assumed no one was and stopped using it. But I now find out that an organization devoted to correcting inaccuracies in a particular area has been banned from Wikipedia for "plotting" to correct inaccuracies in your entries. Who decides what appropriate corrections are? Who decides what is a neutral point of view? 198.245.192.50 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Sharon[reply]

Hi Sharon, Wikipedia is edited and corrected by the general public at large. A rather large group of people also patrol the boards to ensure that edits appear appropriate and verifiable with reliable sources. Edits which do not meet these criteria are notified and the edits often removed. People who disregard the policies and continue to push their viewpoints and original research, are frequently temporarily blocked, and if an offense continues unabated, they may be permanently blocked. However, before this occurs, often several edits who are deemed administrators through a WP:RFA process. Individuals which are too close to the subject matter may have a potential conflict of interest and if they continue without using reliable 3rd party source, may also find themselves in trouble. With regards to your question regarding "who decides that is a neutral point of view", this is generally found by both the use of reliable 3rd party source, along with general community consensus. I hope that helps. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes. In actuality, not so much. For example, there's a page titled "List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war" which has been under dispute for months. While the dates and numbers of casualties may be accurate, the page is grossly misleading on a few counts. One example is that there are absolutely no references to Jews killed during the war, only Arabs. Also, the title incorrectly identifies casualties of war as victims of massacres. Although issues were raised in December, nothing has been done to correct this. When I added a comment pointing out the very NOT neutral point of view, it was deleted. Who decides neutrality, and why is it taking so long? There's an organization called CAMERA which exists solely to correct these sorts of errors/omissions of relevant facts, and some of their members have been blocked from Wikipedia. Why would a decision like this have been made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.245.192.50 (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERSIGHT explains the oversight user class if that is to what your query refers...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably who I'm asking about. Do you know of any way to reach them as a group to address general issues rather than asking for arbitration (which they make sound like a very last resort) on a specific issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.245.192.50 (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email them?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can also request asssitance at WP:RFO

WP:OVERSIGHT is wrong. See my comment below. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that OVERSIGHT is the correct group for your needs, but you can look into it further. Otherwise, I simply suggest you go ahead an edit, BOLDLY and be sure to follow WP:BRD. The nature of wikipedia is if you find something wrong, you have the power and ability to change it -- it is "your" responsibility to put the correct information out there. However, be sure to cite your reliable sources. If there is still problems, then you might try to get help through some of the other methods revolving around edit wars and conflict of interest. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely certain that WP:OVERSIGHT is not the appropriate place to go. The Oversight user class has the ability to delete content and revisions in such a way that not even Administrators can see it. That has absolutely nothing with the concerns raised by this user. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious as to what prompted your posting since it appears that you only posted one change[1] to the article which was clearly inappropriate - an article is not a place for commentary, talk or questions - you should address those on the discussion/talk page of the article. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon, you can read more about the blocking of some CAMERA-organized editors here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I was doing some blocking today, and I noticed that my signature doesn't format correctly on the {{Uw-block}} template because it has a pipe (|) in it. Sometimes it either renders the name part of my signature, or just the talk 14 March, 2008 (UTC) bit. Is there any way around this or am I just going to have to change my signature? Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try using <nowiki></nowiki> tags, but that might not work...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks. I'll try it. :) PeterSymonds | talk 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it nowikied my whole signature. PeterSymonds | talk 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! Check out here: Template:! - hope this helps! Tiggerjay (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yeah, Template:! should fix your problems. flaminglawyer^c 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses. :) I'll experiment with {{!}} and see if I can get it working. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If {{!}} doesn't work, | should do it. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Thanks all. I changed my signature in the end because I wasn't quite sure where to put the template, and none of them seem to have them! It was also going wrong in the {{resolved}} templates so this seems the best alternative. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page... I don't remember exactly when, but it was recently. A few minutes later, I realized that I had forgotten to put my link on there, so I went back and put a references section on there. I clicked the Save page button, but it came up with a notice saying that "Wikipedia is under a maintenance mode, no changes will be saved" or something like that. Anyway, I just ignored it and clicked Save page again. Then I went on to playing Runescape and doing other stuff like that. Today, I checked the page to see what had become of it. I saw that, just like the warning had said, I couldn't see my second edit's changes on the page. But, when I checked the Edit this page button for the wiki coding, it showed the code for my second edit. So I checked again on the actual article, yet it still displayed my original. What is happening/has happened? (P.S. I purged the cache on both Wikipedia and on Firefox, so don't tell me to do that.) flaminglawyer^c 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Database lockdown is perfectly normal, it just lets the server catch up with the workload. Just try again...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)  Fixed. You didn't put the </ref> at the end of the reference, so the reference formatting ran through the article in its entirety. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mainteresebs saidan caromishve gvari ყოლბაია? gtxovt damexmarot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.62.231 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This text - "ყოლბაია" is Georgian. More than that, I cannot say. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put {{uw-english}} on the user's talk page...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a request to translate the article: if so, go to WP:TRANSLATE. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But which article? DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgian wikipedia does not appear to have an article called "ყოლბაია". DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, what font is that using? I'm just getting blocks. -- Kesh (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is rendered with whatever your browser interprets as CSS "sans-sarif". No special font is used. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that's bizarre then. I'm running Firefox 3b5. Hm. -- Kesh (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, 3b5 strikes again, I've seen more problems with 3Bx than anything else lately... Try it in FF2 if you have it. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No help. Renders just the same in Safari, also. That's why I was wondering if it was a font issue, as I don't think I installed all the foreign language fonts on this machine. -- 74.245.150.21 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Safari and it looks fine to me. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely works on Firefox 2 for me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – moved to reference desk

pls i need to no how i can be helped to be a footballer in life becausl and i saw aspire site but could not get it righe i play welt am 14 yrs from nigeria pls help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seun olas (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. A response is very unlikely even there but...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 22:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: . Do NOT sign in articles....... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 22:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is now at the miscellaneous reference desk here[2] Julia Rossi (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]