Wikipedia book creator is a groundbreaking service. How can I remove "external links", "see also" or other print useless portions of articles from the final document? Will users eventually gain simple formatting control over books they compile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npdbls (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any way to remove sections from articles in a book, and I know of no plans to add formatting control to the feature. The only thing you can do is add an old version of an article that is closer to the formatting you want. You do this by enabling book creator, going to the older version of the article from its page history, and then adding the page from there. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of worst case scenario for Wikipedia, where people are deprived from their hard earned money with false advertising.

Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars in Amazon.com with no warning in amazon yet as printed in 4th page of the "book" after you buy it

We require a huge task force that can put a warning to thousands of similar titles in Amazon.com as customer review so that people might be warned about this issue. Read VDM Publishing House for details.

Not sure right place to post, but feel free to move or duplicate the thread elsewhere. Where should I notice the foundation, admins and users who concern scammed customers. Kasaalan (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Alphascript. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We need some collaboration and wiki-wide awareness to deal with the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they comply with Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content, there is nothing illegal. The only thing you can really do is leave a review for each book (17,296 of them according to PrimeHunter). No one has reviewed Alabama Crimson Tide football, which has a soccer player on the cover. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Free Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars each in Amazon.com with no prior warning. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Inspired by you I will build some example cases with false covers of the books. Read the rest in discussions. Kasaalan (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where else to bring this up, but I was wondering if it has been suggested before that Wikipedia have a Collaboration of the Day feature similar to the Collaboration of the Month (or other length of time) features used and encouraged by WikiProjects. I think it could be a fun, productive, and interactive feature if the Main Page contained a link or icon to participate in a different collaboration each day. Articles could be nominated by users, with article requirements determined if needed. With so many contributors, an article could evolve from a Stub to GA-class within no time at all. Much like the DYK, On This Day, In the News, etc., I think the concept of a Collaboration of the Day could be an exciting new addition to Wikipedia (assuming it does not already exist or there are reasons the idea has been put to rest previously). Any thoughts or concerns? --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one concern might be vandalism, as a link to a specific article being addressed project-wide could become a target, but the article being improved could be locked so that only registered users could contribute while the article was designated as a Collaboration. --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion should probably be made at Talk:Main Page with maybe a link to the discussion advertised at the proposals section of the village pump (and if and when you do so, this entire section should be copied there with a note that it was moved from here). Though I haven't digested them, note some previous related discussion here, here, here, here and here, and probably the one to look at most closely, here. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we keep stats somewhere RE who has created the most articles? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 06:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Support Team,

Unfortunately, I have forgotten my the email id and the password I have given when creating the wikipedia account.

Please do let me know how can I get my account back.

Regards, --Kiran Chand Palakkattiri-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.229.132 (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you added an e-mail address to your account, then you can have a temporary password sent to you in order to access your account. To do this, go to the log in page, enter your username, and click "E-mail new password", and you will receive the new password in your e-mail. If you didn't add an e-mail address to your account, or you no longer have access to the e-mail address used, then there is no way to gain access to your account. You will have to create a new account in that case. For more help, go to Help:Logging in. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! I am so frustrated right now, because I cannot figure this out and I'm certain it's such an easy fix. I set up the following category: Category:Former WikiProject Cannabis collaborations. However, I cannot figure out how to remove the last two entries (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis/Collaboration and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis/Collaboration). Both pages use the template as an example, but I do not wish for the pages themselves to be placed in the category. A little help, if someone could? A huge THANKS to anyone able to assist me with correcting this. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I tried adding "|category=no" when using the template as an example, but that doesn't seem to have done the trick. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some templates do recoginse |category=no, but it must be explicitly coded for in the template; it's not default behaviour. I recently fixed this up for Template:Notenglish-section (see this diff); I'll try to look at this case, can't promise anything. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Turned out much easier than I anticipated! Sorry for leaving it so long - I have toothache, headache and a runny nose today so went back to bed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I don't think I would ever have figured that out on my own. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a box on the top of the page. In the box it states: This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator.

HOW do I "remove" the "template?" I don't understand how to do this. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookahhookah (talk • contribs) 09:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should press "edit this page" and in the top of the code (if the template is at the top of the article) there should be something like {{New unreviewed article|source=ArticleWizard|date=October 2009}} or {{Userspace draft|source=ArticleWizard|date=November 2009}} or, in the worst case, some of the code that you can see here. You have to delete that part of the code from the article.--Tired time (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Just wondering, which part of "someone other than its creator" do you have a difficulty with? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 10:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wiki tool that makes Wikilinking instances of a specific word more streamlined ? For example, I am interested in Wikilinking all appropriate instances of the word "narcissism" in any Wiki article. Obviously the process couldnt be entirely automated as each individual instance needs to be inspected before Wikilinking and a specific Wikilink needs only to be done once per article. It would be useful if a Wiki search for, say, "narcissism" could exclude all articles that already contained a Wikilink to "narcissism" so the remainder could be reviewed. This would also be useful in picking up newly created articles or new text in existing articles that contained the word "narcissism" since the last search.--Penbat (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these functions are provided through Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks i have now registered for Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. One more follow up question - I am involved in some Wiki articles which are very common words such as blame and criticism - those Wiki articles could do with more work and attention and they are fundamentally important subjects, but there are tens of thousands of Wiki articles containing words like "blame" and "criticism". Obviously it is OTT to blanket Wikilink all instances of "blame" and "criticism" but are there any guidelines anywhere about where to draw the line ?--Penbat (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK maybe? – ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but that looks like it is overlinking in the context of individual articles. Would anybody freak out, for example, if i Wikilinked the 24,000 instances of "blame" throughout Wikipedia ? If so, what is an acceptable limit ?--Penbat (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freak out-age (freakage out?) would be very likely if you did that, because of that guideline on the limits of overlinking in individual articles. In most articles there would be no need for the word "blame" to be linked: "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia" (quoted from WP:OVERLINK). In your first post, you note that you want to link appropriate instances of words: whether a link is appropriate depends on the context of the individual article, not just to check that the word has been correctly used, but to check whether a reader has anything to gain by diverting to read more about the word. Does that help? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks i appreciated that WP:OVERLINK might still apply on an individual article basis, and i think you are saying then that there is no upper limit to the total number of Wikilinked articles for a specific word as long as WP:OVERLINK is complied with for each individual Wiki article. --Penbat (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that words should not be linked for the sake of a link, the link has to be relevant to the context in which it is used. – ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I can learn how much hits a wiki article gets daily, monthly or yearly. Kasaalan (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go here and then click on any title, which will take you to a search screen.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, exactly what I am looking for thanks. Kasaalan (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partner A complains that partner B denies him access to the business records of their cattle farming business, by keeping all the records at home and he suspects that B is also involved in pineapple farming elsewhre.what is A's legal position where his contract with B provides for a joint business involving of cattle farming and also whether it would make any difference if their contract would provide for them to be involved as partners,in farming operations generally?196.6.221.4 (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact your lawyer.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do your own homework. TNXMan 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi a page I created was deleted because it was flagged as advertisement. It would be more helpful if someone gave feedback on why it's considered advertisement because it was meant to just give information about the company and not advertise. I also have some criticism and references to add in order to dissipate the view that it's an advertisement. How can I do this? I think this is a necessary page because the world of librarians needs this information and requests it. Please let me know a solution and please use concrete information, not convuluted jargon. This should be a space where anyone can freely understand without feeling overwhelmed. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katmichellec (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this page which explains the definition of advertising on Wikipedia. If you wish to re-create the article, please do so in your userspace, maybe at User:Katmichellec/Draft article, where you can work on over time without risk of it being deleted (unless it's a copyright violation). When you think it's finished, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback and ask for it to be reviewed. Alternatively, please consider using the Article creation wizard to guide you through the process. Also, if you are employed by the company or otherwise connected with it, please read the page about conflicts of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did you know that using wikipedia will make you dumb and you won't get any useful information out of it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.81.167.184 (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may teach you about proper capitalization though. TNXMan 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you have much to lose judging by your grammar. Asterix 13 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not speaking right now and I've gotten nothing useful out of this thread, so they may have a point. ;) No wait, then I would be getting useful information, but then it wouldn't be true, so I wouldn't be getting... Franamax (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Did you know and WP:USELESS. --Teratornis (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wikipedians, please inspect user CCTreadway's changeset: Special:Contributions/Cctreadway - highly suspicious, don't you agree? Thanks. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd revert each on a case by case basis, then pop either {{subst:uw-spam1}} or {{subst:uw-advert1}} on the user's talk page, whichever seems most appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am interested in replacing an incorrectly attributed image in a gallery of portraits with a correct one. Can you give me instructions for uploading and HTML replacement? Robander (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by uploading your image onto Wikipedia or Commons if it is a free image. Then you go to the page in question and click the "edit" tab at the top of the article. Find the gallery of images in the editing text box, which looks like this:

<gallery>
File:Image name.jpg|Image caption
File:Image name.jpg|Image caption
File:Image name.jpg|Image caption
</gallery>

Next, add your image using the same markup, replacing "Image name" with the name of the file you uploaded and ".jpg" with whatever extension you used. To replace an existing one, just switch out your file's name and extension with the one you want to replace. If you don't know which one it is, you can count the images in the gallery (they go in order from left to right, top to bottom), or you can click on the image and read its name from the file page. — Bility (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I'd try to edit articles by logging into my account (KPST TV). But when i do a click on "Edit this article". the browser (no matter which: opera, safari, firefox, chrome...) starts to download a PHP file. I tried this on different computer and at different locations and the same thing happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPST TV (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under your preferences, go to the "Editing" tab and look under "Advanced options". Look at the preference "Use external editor by default (for experts only, needs special settings on your computer)". If it is checked, uncheck it and save. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had add two articles published on a French website in "further readings" and these have been removed by someone. I wonder why. The website is an academic site, recognized in the academic world in France. If the quality of the articles cannot be discussed, was there a technical problem? I find this a little strange for I know my topic being myself a film scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draiocht50 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were removed as failing WP:ELNO, per the edit summary. Did you read this page? If you think your links satisfy the external links policy, I suggest you bring up the topic at the page's talk page so interested editors can comment on it. — Bility (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix this please?: the page I added is showing under my user name: Hubertadrian. Ditto for the page itself. The heading and listing should be under Lee Academy. Sorry about the mistake. Thanks for the help.Hubertadrian (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a page is in the wrong category, all you should need to do is edit the page and remove the category. They're normally at the very bottom, one line per category. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've created an article in your user space, so it won't be included with the other articles on the wiki. Keep working on it, and when you're done you can ask someone at WP:FEED if it's ready to be moved into the encyclopedia proper. Alternatively, you can try creating the article with the Wikipedia:Article wizard. — Bility (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:About

Do you know I can't actually contact Wikipedia?! How am I supposed to actually complain about how some of the site admins are jerks (and some of them are)?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjmott (talk • contribs)

You are complaining to Wikipedia. What exactly is your complaint? -- kainaw™ 21:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is complaining that he can't have his idea of humor inserted into wikipedia. Well dear Hjmott, you are out of luck. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I see on his talk page, he threatened everyone else with the standard "You can't do anything to stop me" that comes directly before an account block. -- kainaw™ 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might like Uncyclopedia. --Teratornis (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there is an audio encyclopedia within Wikipedia. If this is true, how is it accessed? Thank you, 216.164.39.244 (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, there are some articles that have audio versions, see WP:Spoken articles and Category:Spoken articles. – ukexpat (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.39.244 (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really quick: What is the save-a-BLP link (on toolserver)? Thanks in advance. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 22:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. – ukexpat (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I just don't know what it means, or if it's actually wrong. But I've noticed on a lot of pages for ships in the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II that it shows a date for when the ship is struck and then a date for when the ship is sunk. What I don't understand is why almost every single ship has a sink date before the stuck date. For example, on the page for the Japanese destroyer Kasumi, the struck date is 10 May 1945, while the sink date is 7 April 1945. If that's correct in the way that it was struck by something on 10 May 1945 and then sunk on 7 April 1945, it doesn't make sense. I'm thinking (and hoping that I'm not just too stupid to understand this), that there is some other meaning for the word "Struck".

Will someone please help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABickerstaff (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means "struck off the list", ie decommissioned. However, questions like this should really be posted at Wikipedia:Reference desk; you may get a fuller answer there. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I'm sorry. I didn't know where to go for help.--ABickerstaff 23:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABickerstaff (talk • contribs)

I am sure the good folks at the Ships Wikiproject would know, so please leave a message on the Project's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, a template such as {{Infobox ship career}} should document its fields, but the template documentation page does not define the specific use of "struck". However, I am 99.99% sure it means Struck off from a register of ships such as Lloyd's Register or the Naval Vessel Register. The infobox should probably link the word "struck" in the field caption to the Struck off article. --Teratornis (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]