Over the past week or so, I made a number of contributions to various articles. Now it appears that all my contributions have been deleted. Can you tell me what happened to them?

Michael Griske (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Michael Griske[reply]

All of the contributions made from this account can be seen here. You have one deleted edit made July 22 of this year. Were these the edits for which you were looking? Alternatively, you may have made edits while you were logged out. If you remember some of the articles you edited, you can check the page history to see if the edits came from an IP.TNXMan 02:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the OP is asking why WP:SPAM for his book was reverted. Michael, because you have a conflict of interest, you should not be adding citations to your book. The fact that you added them in multiple articles made made the additions particularly suspicious. Wikipedia is not for publicity. —teb728 t c 04:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User comments are welcomed, but is a Wikipedia administrator going to answer my question? 70.23.75.36 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Michael Griske[reply]

There are a lot of admins on this site, including me. teb728's response is correct - Wikipedia is not for promotion (see this page). If you have a conflict of interest, please read this page. TNXMan 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have recently heard of an upcoming artist, can I add this person to their own page? If so, how would I start that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjtoews (talk • contribs) 06:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For notability guidelines please see:WP:N, WP:CREATIVE, WP:MUSIC.

Before creating an article, 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 Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.--59.95.122.36 (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is as you say an upcoming artist, they almost certainly would not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. If the person is not yet notable, I am sorry to say an article about them would be deleted. —teb728 t c 08:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless by 'upcoming' you mean 'up-and-coming', in which case what 59.95.122.36 said above applies. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But read WP:UPANDCOMING first! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have mavis 9 and its not working in the windows vesta. can you assist A Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.68.30 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.59.95.122.36 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look at my question please:

Is David Ray Griffin a reliable source?

See Here 97.104.226.129 (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not request a message be read on an unrelated noticeboard, someone will reply to you when then they reply to you. It could be 2 minutes or 2 days • S • C • A • R • C • E • 08:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Scarce says, you shouldn't be asking here about a question asked on that board. You posted your question at 05:07 today, got a reply at 05:14, posted a response to that at 06:58. People answering queries on there are the same as people answering questions here - we have real-life commitments, we work on articles... we're volunteers... you will get a response on the RSN when someone there has the chance to do so - it may be that even as I type this, you get a response... it might be a couple of days before someone has a chance to respond... patience is required! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i changed to IE8 recently

since then whenever i search the web for info about - for example - joel mccrea then find a wikipedia article then try to open the article then i sometimes get the message above

i also got the message for the wikipedia article about wikipedia

the message box has in its title bar FILE DOWNLOAD - SECURITY WARNING 86.148.60.26 (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it only happen when you click the links on a Google search results page? Does it work when you manually copy the url to the browser address bar? I have not experienced this problem in IE8 but several others have reported it without a solution being found. See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 July 16#Question. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to direct me to the correct location on WP. A fellow editor has asked me about whether it is permitted for a newspaper to reproduce WP text. I was about to say yes, and point to the copyright info at the bottom of every content page, when I realised the newspaper article in question did not only 'plagiarise' WP text, but did not attribute the source. Is this still within the terms of the license? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source must be attributed. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Does anyone at WP want to be informed in cases like this, or are they too common to bother with unless particularly blatant or extensive? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom of Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content links to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. If the site only uses one Wikipedia page then I wouldn't list it at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Stu#T which is mainly for sites copying all or lots of articles. A copyright holding contributor to the article and the copied text could contact the site directly, for example using Wikipedia:Standard CC-BY-SA violation letter#Letter aimed at a specific violation. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cant seem to find then edit button in the Britney Spears main article. I think it skips some very relevant points which i would like to add, especially about singing style and recording process which is way too brief in the present article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riheg (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page you wish to edit is semi-protected which means only auto confirmed users can edit it. You can edit it after your account is four days old and you have made ten edits to wikipedia. If you wish to edit it right now:

• Lave a request on my my talk page.
• On the talk page of britney spears, make a new section and insert the template {{editsemiprotected}} and give the details to edit below it.
• You may request for unprotection (which is not likely to happen within a small period of time).

It is better that you wait for ten days and meanwhile make edits to some other unprotected articles.

See WP:SEMI for details. --${\displaystyle \xi ri\pi i\vartheta \alpha \xi }$13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you need to have Reliable sources for your comments, otherwise they will be original research and likely to be removed. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to make a page about a Social club that had just been formed and my page keeps getting deleated. Why is this happaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyfarrarjr (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention the page name and what the content is about so that I may check whether it satisfies with wikipedia's policies and guidelines and moreover with wikipedia's deletion policy.

One more thing I would like to note is that please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). --${\displaystyle \xi ri\pi i\vartheta \alpha \xi }$13:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary. The article (Knights of Ares) did not indicate any importance or significance of the topic and was therefore speedily deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please read our notability standards for organizations. The long and short of it is that an article must assert importance in order not to be subject to speedy deletion, and even if importance is asserted and thus renders the subject not amenable to that form of deletion, the topic must still be notable, i.e., be the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, and verifiable, i.e. the information in the article is not original research; announcing a new thing, but can be found in already published, reliable sources—newspapers, books, magazines (these sources should be cited in the article).

As an encyclopedia, we are a tertiary source, so all our content must be about things others have already published on, which is where we draw our content. I took a look at the article and it appears to me to be a subject that cannot have an article here, as you state the organization was founded two days ago, so no reliable source has yet written about it in the real world. Though we resemble many other online sites where anything can be posted, which fools people sometimes, and though we can go into more depth in many ways and have article on topics that would not be possible from a paper encyclopedia, we really are an encyclopedia, with all that that implies. If you wouldn't expect encyclopedia Britannica to have an article on an organization that has never been written about before, you shouldn't expect Wikipedia to have one either.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia won't accept MP4 uploads. How can I convert an MP4 to a format that WP will accept? Bubba73 (talk), 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried it but see Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Useful software. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It worked easily except that it lost the sound. Bubba73 (talk), 19:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Help desk talk page -  – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where a movie soundtrack article is merged with the movie article (as with Trailer Park Boys: The Movie), is it proper form to add the article to album categories (such as "Category:2006 albums" and "Category:Anthem Records albums") as well? -- WikHead (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a new member, I have quite a bit of information on a few topics that I've never posted - but could.

So I began to post, staying within guidelines as I understand them. Speaking of understanding, I have been in journalism and related fields all my adult life and understand things like attribution and what is and isn't commentary. A lot of what is and has been at Wikipedia is, by the way, disguised commentary.

I had some info on Magnum, P.I. that I had dug up for unrelated reasons a long time ago, and I thought it would make an interesting section. There is no commentary, and it is not original research - not unless I was taught incorrectly in college the difference between research and reference.

Within hours of my posting it, it was deleted with the citation that it was commentary and not in accordance with MOS. I put it back, challenging that assertion with stated reasons. Hours later, it was gone again - without explanation.

Editing is to be expected; this is censorship. Censorship will make this an untenable project for me, especially if it's by everyone and anyone here. I suppose a final arbiter is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's concept, but then again neither is censorship. If whether a post stays is determined by who is the more persistent in doing and undoing, I will choose not to play.

Having found nothing in the FAQs about this, I ask for factual unopinionated input about it. Patrick M. Sullivan (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the editor who removed the material, commented favourably on the WP:AGF nature of the submission but asked for verification. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Also, please note that there is no "arbiter" - we work by consensus so you should engage in a dialogue with the other editor(s) who reverted your edits. There are escalating levels of dispute resolution but the first step is the article's talk page.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your additions which were removed, I would say that it looks like a commentary on the show to me. There are a lot of programs on television that re-use actors - unless you can provide a reliable source of information that shows that the use of so many on Magnum P.I. is notably more than the industry average, then you could cite this as a source. It is not censorship for another editor to remove your work because it seems to go against what the encyclopedia is about - if I was to read that, I would have removed it for the same reason. Were you the person who left the comment recurring characters on the talk page in May? The stated reason you gave for reversing the removal was The speculated reason is listed as such. Sourcing can't be much better, the show's credits from its DVD. You can verify the same way I referenced. And it's interesting - so, you admit you have no external source of information for this original research? If you could find a reliable source (for example, a world-reknown newspaper article) that mentions this point, it could be counted as a relevant inclusion on the article. Having a I worked this out... isn't it interesting? section isn't really encyclopedic.

I could of course add (if I was that kind of person, which of course I'm not ) what it says below the Edit summary box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it". -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who removed the section the first time on the re-use of actors, Phantomsteve and Bzuk took the words right out of my mouth. It is an interesting point that they did use the same actors/actresses for numerous roles, but if it's just your commentary explaining your thoughts behind it, than it is nothing but Original Research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. That is unless you find other Reliable Sources and Verifiable sources that say (backup) what you are adding. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "arbiter", if we are to use that word, is the community, and now we're starting to see consensus, as you can count me as another who looks at your addition as unverified, apparent original research and who would have removed it as well had I been the one who came upon it. It's not that your journalism instincts are definitely off base, but that I don't think you have internalized our encyclopedia policies yet, which do not function in the same realm. As an encyclopedia, we are a tertiary source, and do not properly publish any material that has not already been published in a reliable source. This is far different from the first hand reporting in which journalists engage. Please note the subsection of the verifiability policy known as WP:BURDEN, which provides that when any material is added to Wikipedia and is challenged, it must be cited (in text through an inline citation) to a reliable source to be kept in the article. The burden is on the person wishing to add the material, not the person removing it. When you say in you post that much material here is already disguised commentary, please note that you can take little precedential value from the fact that there is much here that shouldn't be. For any problem you encounter in an article and which which goes against our policies, you will many other articles with the same problem, not yet addressed. This occurs because of the decentralized way in which content is added and reviewed. See What about article X? by way of analogy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your input.

As a Wikirookie, I hope you'll pardon me for forgetting to sign my, er, opening statement. I just noticed and (I hope) fixed that. (Having checked before saving, I see it results in a false time stamp, but oh well.)

That may also be coming into play in my perceptions; all I saw at the beginning of this was that the submission was gone and there was just a note in the edit box - but the first thing I see above is that the deleter commented favorably but asked for verification. I didn't see any favorable comment.

Still feels rude to me to delete a couple of hours' writing without saying a word TO me first - isn't that in part what the talk page is for?

So the reason I looked for an arbiter is that I found myself in a tug-of-war which I've since read we call an editing war. It has to stop at some point, and the 3R rule does nothing to go to who's right. And yes, I read the cute "mercilously edited" warning - outright deletion is in my opinion another thing, and while I am bound by Wikipedia's rules if I choose to remain a member I disagree with the proposition that anyone should be able just to delete a section without discussion. The deleter did not and has not yet posted a word at the talk page, at least last time I was there - which I thought was the logical thing to do BEFORE I read that it is Wikipedia's policy.

The first time this section went it was labeled commentary, a point you all reinforce. In fact, I put in those possibilities because Why is one of the five journalistic Ws - without which the piece is therefore incomplete. It is not "commentary" if it is stated to be a possibility, which it was. However, that being a journalistic point of view and since you all seem to disagree, I left it out of the last iteration. I really don't get that it's commentary on the show - who played who has nothing to do with the show as a presentation - my submission was about what it was about, that (I'll word it here as I wouldn't there) an astounding number of actors played multiple characters.

I also believe it's a testament to the skill of an actor when one sees him or her in the same show in different roles and does not immediately recognize him or her. This was true, for me, of several - especially James Whitmore Jr. and Lee de Broux. Why didn't I say so? Because THAT would be "commentary."

I am not particularly fond of pejorative phrases like "so you admit" and less fond of having words stuffed into my mouth (- so, you admit you have no external source of information for this original research?). Here’s what I "admit:" I became conscious of this phenomenon during the show’s run and, once its DVDs came out, I let my curiosity get the better of me and used them to check it out. (Even expecting "a lot," I was shocked at the results!) What better source is there than the show's credits? I stated this source within the copy, not footnoting it only because I couldn't figure out how to do so with a series of DVDs. There is no more credible source, and it's certainly "external" of both me and of Wikipedia. Perhaps what I don't understand is what we mean by an "external source?"

Nor is this piece original research - and that's not a journalism definition, it's what I learned in college Comp 101. Ironically, this proposal to find an industry average and see if Magnum is above it - THAT would take original research. (So would finding the answer to the now-missing W, Why - Mr. Bellisario, why did you recycle actors so much?) While this took a long time and therefore felt a lot like research, looking something up - even 170 somethings - is a work of reference, not of research. The article is simply a (now incomplete, being one W short) list of facts. Written as a narrative (because I like to write), true, but it's a bunch facts just the same.

Here’s something else I’ll admit: I have no training in encyclopedia work. I do have a dictionary, though – it defines an encyclopedia as a book of knowledge, and knowledge as a body of facts.

So, while you're right about having a consensus, I am mystified by it. Facts are the skeleton of an encyclopedia, and this piece is factual, sourced and verifiable.

In any event, I don't see why it's necessary to show that Magnum did this more than the industry average. There being more cases of this phenomenon than episodes of the show, I'm sure that's true - my point was never that it's more, just that it's a lot.

Also a fact. Patrick M. Sullivan (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I am not the person who posted on this topic at the Magnum talk page. That post did make it occur to me to submit what I had already found, but I've only been a member a couple of weeks. Patrick M. Sullivan (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is factual, sourced and verifiable. I see no sources accompanying your edit so it is demonstrably unsourced. You say it is verifiable but without actual citing the sources we don't know that that's true and it is your burden, as the person wishing to add and keep the material, to provide reliable sourcing, in text, utilizing inline citations. You say it is factual and thus not original research, but from what I've read looking at the edits in question, and what you've implied in your statements here, it's pure original research. It's not that we question whether certain characters have recurred multiple times, but the conclusions you draw from those fact, which appears to be a synthesis of published material that advances a position not stated in the possible sources (which again, you did not cite so we can't check ourselves). You wrote:I note the words "seemed", "probably", and "may" in this quote, which are incandescent red flags to many editors, screaming "delete-me,-I-am-original-research". Still even this can be sourced, if the sources exist, but I don't think they do. Do you have a source that says, explicitly, words to the effect "the recurrence of the same actors in minor roles in Magnum P.I. likely resulted from the sparsity of professional actors living in Hawaii available to the show's casting team. The recurrence of actors in major roles is attributed to the actors love of location as a "free" vacation"? Or do you just have sources substantiating that actor U, V and W appeared multiple times in episodes X, Y and Z? If the former, cite your source so we can check. If the latter, it is patent original research—you personally drawing unpublished conclusions from other published facts, and speculative conclusions at that. It bears repeating, If I am wrong about this synthesis, and I very well could be, all you need to do to show that is to produce the body by citing your sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we (meaning, the Wikimedia Foundation) own the Mobile Wikipedia site at mobile.wikipedia.org? If so, I think the Copyrights page is due for an update, as we are now dual-licensing our work and it still says only GFDL. Where can I go about getting this changed/updated? Thx! —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the official mobile website was http://en.m.wikipedia.org (which does have the correct license). Visiting the main Wikipedia page on a mobile device will cause a large banner to appear directing you to that site. Xenon54 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synopses for unaired episodes for the TV show “Make It or Break It”, including the season finale which gives away a plot twist have been added to the episode guide page for the show. Is it possible for these synopses to be removed? These synopses have no references or citations and has not been made publicly available. The synopses would of course be re-added after the episode has aired.

Is there an applicable guideline for removing this information? Does What Wikipedia Is Not and/or No Original Research apply in this case?

In the interest of full disclosure, my employer works with ABC Family and this is a request they have asked I look into. Thanks. Carolina Bluebird (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future episodes that do not have proper citations should be removed immediately, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Besides, we don't know that the details are correct or that they won't change before the episode airs. Xenon54 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I, or how can I, search for articles with Boolean operators, such as AND and OR. For example, suppose I want to retrieve an article I remember reading two weeks ago that had the words Lewandowski and Schubert in it.

My address is (redacted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.70.53 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting "Lewandowski, Schubert" without the quotes in the search box will work for AND. Alternatively, "Lewandowski, Schubert site:en.wikipedia.org", again without the quotes, is a valid Google search string; the AND is implicit. One can also use OR in a Google search, but not for search (using internal search) on this site--AndrewHowse (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, the search on wikipedia yielded 12 hits: Search on wikipedia -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I notify a picture for deletion from Wikimedia? Mumbai skyline2.jpg is a low quality image of Hong Kong, falsely placed around Wikipedia by User:Cockalot as an image of Mumbai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.63.216 (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:Files for deletion would be the place. I couldn't find a speedy criterion for this, and I don't think images can be renamed easily. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged Commons:File:Mumbai skyline2.jpg as a copyvio. —teb728 t c 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to delete the current picture of Vince Offer and would like to replace it with a new one. I am his publicist, and have had a lot of difficulty getting in touch with Wikipedia. Help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjill0190 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 August 2009

Replied on the user's talk page. By the way Cjill0190, you are very lucky anyone saw this here: You tacked it on to the end of a completed request in an archived section. And you made it extra hard by not signing your post. In the future you will have better success by creating a new post for a new problem and by signing your post. —teb728 t c 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I created a category for "Barges of France". I think it should really be a subcategory to "Barges" which already has subcategories for two other countries. I have no idea how to accomplish this. Can someone do it for me? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloverepp (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like this. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you'll want to add some evidence of Notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I go to log onto MIME? My computer will not access Wikipedia and says it does not recognize "MIME. Thank yoou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.180.152 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Computing reference desk. They specialize in answering computer 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 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.--AndrewHowse (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a browser problem. Which browser do you have? Does it only happen when you click on a link on a Google search results page? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know his history, when he was born his birthday where did he live etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.30.213 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have an article about him. Have you tried the Humanities section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]