My editing windows is less than half the width of my monitor, and the rest is a light blue. Why can't I get it to widen up. Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the editing tab of your preferences. Modify the size. Mine is set to 80 columns 25 rows. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mine was set at 60x25, but the window seemed smaller than that. I'll try it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I updated the picture and rationale for File:Don Flack.jpg, the picture turned out fine, but the rationale didn't change from the previous one. Since the source is different (it's all in the Comment section under File History), it needs to be changed. How do I do that?Jaguar766 (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just needed to edit the file page and replace the content. I did it for you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I didn't even think of doing it like any other page. Now I feel stupid. Thanks again.Jaguar766 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I report a case for what I think Qualifies as WP:Wikihounding? QuAzGaA 01:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best solution would probably be WP:ANI. I don't have any information about the facts of the case, but if you could in any way be in the wrong be careful. You don't want to have a case of WP:BOOMERANG. Also remember to notify all involved parties. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing at Territorial Revival architecture and realized that there was no Territorial architecture article. It's silly (opinion) having an article about a revival style without having one about the original. So I set about collecting resources to do one. However, I discovered that clicking on a Territorial architecture link gets you a redirect to Territorial Revival architecture. I am not sure how to remove a redirect (maybe find the link and delete it?) so thought that I would ask here, because, as we all know, that is no such thing as a stupid question. Just stupid question askers. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you created Territorial architecture in your userspace? If you haven't and you are able to create a viable article in one edit you could just edit the page (click this link to go right to the page) and create the new article there. Otherwise you can create the page in at User:Carptrash/Territorial architecture and place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much of a User Space creator, but will head off to the link that you have provided and start writing. Thanks for your prompt and useful response. Carptrash (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a picture to a page about me. I own it. The rules related to adding pictures are just to complicated to wade through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.212.196 (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you have read the polices about conflicts of interests. If you have taken the photo yourself, feel free to upload it to commons.wikimedia.org. The upload form is here with the old version of the form available here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the easiest way to view the deletion log for a page? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the easiest way but I generally click on "Special pages" in the toolbox under the Wikipedia logo, find/click on "Logs", and then put in the name of the article. Dismas|^(talk) 04:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) On any given (created) page, Click history, then "View logs for this page". ^Avic_ennasis @ 04:13, 10 Av 5771 / 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is exactly what I was looking for. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the userbox Template:Sioux City IA. How do I make it so that whoever (more than likely just me) adds the userbox has a category added to their user page that says Category:Wikipedians in Sioux City? Joe Chill (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steal the code.  :-) In other words, see how others have done it and put their code in your template. User:Patricknoddy/Userboxes/Albany seems to do what you want. Dismas|^(talk) 04:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the template so that it works. You may need to create the category though. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks. Joe Chill (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to add categories. Most of my time is dedicated to articles. Joe Chill (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can figure it out. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the category and it appears blue at the bottom of your page. You have not been added to the category yet, which is natural. If you still aren't added to the category tomorrow leave me a note on my talk page and I will see what I can do. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template really should be in Userspace somewhere. ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:08, 10 Av 5771 / 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw userboxes outside of user space relating to a user's city. Joe Chill (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you want here? ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:04, 10 Av 5771 / 10 August 2011 (UTC)

hi! I have tried to remove my own personal incorrect page ... then, I tried to correct it ... neither were successful! help! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flames2011 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to Flames2011's request for help on their talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 06:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please enter your account password. Your password and registered e-mail address will be checked against the accounts on other wikis to confirm that they match. No changes will be made until you have confirmed that things are in order.

What I get is . . . The home wiki for this account (listed below) has a different password to the one you entered. Please enter the password for the home wiki.

The password and e-mail address set at this wiki will be used for your unified account.

pt.wikipedia.org (home wiki)

Problem is that I'm not Portuguese and this is not my account.

The user name Auriel is registered there but it is not me and doesn't have an email registered to the account.

I'm registered with the same id and password on several Wiki projects and just thought it would be a good idea to consolidate them into one id and password if possible.

I know for sure that I'm currently registered as Auriel on . . .

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/
• http://meta.wikimedia.org/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/
• http://en.wiktionary.org/
• http://en.wikiquote.org/
• http://en.wikibooks.org/

Can someone help me with this?

Auriel Kitsu 06:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auriel (talk • contribs)

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Auriel shows the pt account has 204 edits and none of your accounts have more than 41. The right to unification normally goes to the account with the most edits. See meta:Help:Unified login#Someone is using my name on another wiki, how can I get that account? The pt account has not edited since May 2009 and will probably remain at 204 edits. If you pass the pt edit count at one wiki and the pt account has not requested unification by that time then you should automatically get the unification right. If you want unification without passing 204 edits and without changing your account name then it's tricky. I'm not sure of all the rules and possibilities but I doubt you can get the pt account renamed without the owner agreeing, and that's a problem if the owner cannot even be contacted. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry if this request is in the wrong place - please tell me where to post instead if it is.

I'm desperate to find statistics on the proportion of edits made to different namespaces in wikipedia. Mainly, my question is what proportion of total wikipedia edits go strictly to articles, as opposed to talk pages, the user namespace, the wikipedia namespace and all the other namespaces? A breakdown by section would be ideal. And obviously the more up to date the better.

Please don't point me to a general statistics page, I've spent ages looking everywhere and I can't find anywhere that has the answer. Please reply if you know somewhere with this specific information or something approximate, or if you know a better place to post the question. Thedarkfourth (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea you could try: go to Special:RecentChanges and use the "namespace" filter to view the most recent 500 changes in each namespace, and use the timestamps to see the relative editing rates. When I tried this just now, 500 edits in the article namespace had spanned just 9 minutes, in Talk, 115 minutes, in User 57 minutes, and so on. Any use? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a 2009 doctoral thesis which analysed this. It's here, the bar-graph on page 113. Annoyingly, it doesn't show the actual figures, I don't think - but it looks like about 40% articles, 15% talks, 25% user talk.  Chzz  ►  12:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both excellent suggestions - thanks so much (and sorry for slow reply!). Thedarkfourth (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I think that there is a big issue with Wikipedia: students can easily copy information directly from the articles for homework. I see this very often, and find it very dishonest for other students who do their research themselves and really get involved in the homework. I know that it is impossible to completely prevent people from copying information, but it is possible to prevent right clicking for example (using javascript), and probably highlighting too. Maybe this could dissuade some of the students. Ideally, this could be applied to all the articles on Wikipedia, or at least on the ones that are copied most often.

Please consider my idea,

A student — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.204.4.233 (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Disallowing copying also makes it harder from editors to improve the articles. On the upside, since Wikipedia is so visible in Google, anytime a professor or teacher searches for part of an article that was copied from Wikipedia, it will show up in the results, so any cheaters will be caught if the teacher makes an effort to unmask them. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a teacher, I can tell you its easier than that. I would estimate that 75% or more of the students who chose to cheat by copying text from Wikipedia didn't event bother to make any effort to hide that they were doing so; to the point where the work they turned in even had blue words in it. Cheaters are interested in getting credit for work at the lest effort possible; at some point it becomes easier to just do the assignment correctly... --Jayron32 14:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If everybody knew how to look things up on Wikipedia, we almost wouldn't need the Help desk, because the answers to most questions here already exist somewhere on Wikipedia. Thus at least some people (those who have questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia) could benefit from getting better at looking things up here. If students are going to consult Wikipedia anyway, perhaps some of their assignments could be specifically to do that. Looking something up on Wikipedia is trivially easy if you know the exact title of it. Lookups become difficult when someone has a need but does not know the specific terminology Wikipedia uses to describe it, or when someone fails to articulate their real goal while focusing on what is merely the path they have chosen to pursue their goal. If a better path exists, no one may realize that is what the questioner really wants. Thus an educator might assign students the type of ill-posed or misleading questions that are common on the Help desk, which often defy easy lookup even when the answers exist on Wikipedia. Given the spread of free question-answering resources on the Web, maybe students should not train so much to look up answers, but how to ask questions the smart way. In any case, the whole point of Wikipedia is to make a large subset of human knowledge easier to look up. The effect on traditional education may be similar to the effect of the calculator, which has made it less necessary for people to maintain their own arithmetic skills such as long division. --Teratornis (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've absolutely no idea what the above means.

We won't disable R-click, because it's useful to copy paste.

If people use our content for good, or bad, that's not important; it's free. Copy it.

People copying it verbatim, for school - is crazy, but, not our problem.  Chzz  ►  22:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is unfeasible. A lot of people use Wikipedia, not only students. Disabling right click would disrupt a lot of people. Miguel AG (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was wondering if there were any rules or guidelines about incorporating information regarding current, ongoing lawsuits into articles. I recently added information to the Judas page about the lawsuit that has recently been launched against Lady Gaga for copyright infringement. The information came from here, here and here. However the information was removed by an editor who said that "Untill and unless lawsuits are proven, we dont add them as they would be CRYSTAL". This to me does not make sense as I made no allusion or suggestion to the outcome of the lawsuit, I simply stated that the lawsuit had been made. The fact there is a lawsuit out there is irrefutable, there is absolutely no WP:CRYSTAL elements whatsoever. Can anyone advise on the correct procedure in this case? Do I have the 'right' to include this lawsuit information in the article? Many thanks! Paul75 (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next step is to start a discussion on the article talk page. I'm with you on Crystal, not buying it, although I would be more sympathetic to a WP:NOT#NEWS argument, especially in a GA.--SPhilbrickT 12:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., particularly, any idiot can start a lawsuit on the flimsiest of grounds, or on no grounds whatsoever. Unless the suit has made a really significant splash in the news, it's extremely unlikely to be notable, and mention of it is likely to fall afoul of WP:UNDUE as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is a lawsuit isn't relevant. The consideration is, whether this information is worth including, or giving undue prominence to something that, in the context of the biography, is a trivial event. Personally, I tend to think it is too trivial to mention; I'm sure all big stars have lawsuits brought against them all the time. I appreciate that it's mentioned on a couple of news-websites, but it's hardly a big headline; plus, the news articles aren't actually saying anything at all about Gaga, other than she's named in the suit.

Still - as SPhilbrick said, you could start a discussion on Talk:Lady Gaga, if you wanted.  Chzz  ►  12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin take a look at File:Dresdnerbank logo.png and tell me why this file was deleted? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unused fair use image, so it was deleted in 2010. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it - it was in use, but some page blanking / redirecting obviously confused the bot. Bencherlite^Talk 09:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs to be deleted again; I found File:Dresdner-Bank-Logo.svg on the Commons and it should be used in the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added the commons file. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dresdnerbank logo.png looks like a pretty clear {{PD-Textlogo}} to me so I have replaced the FUR with that template. In any event the file on Wikipedia should probably be deleted now that the svg exists on Commons. – ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will somebody please change the name of the category Category:Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court to: "Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court of the Austro-Hungarian Empire"? --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For technical reasons, this isn't something that can be done as easily as an ordinary page move. You'd do better to post at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it is not something that can be done easy like page moving/renaming, but I am hoping that an administrator or another experienced user can do it. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what you want is one reason why we have Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Dismas|^(talk) 10:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this does not qualify for speedy renaming. You will have to make a proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. A 72-character category name with zero Google hits except a Wikipedia template is likely to meet opposition. However, the category page should at least say it's about Austria-Hungary. I have added it.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, every other one of the subcategories of Category:Royal Warrant holders clearly shows which nation it is for. Given that, I don't think changing the name of the category is unreasonable.Naraht (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But look for a shorter name. "Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court" is already the longest name in the category, and making it 31 characters longer is not a good idea. Category names of that length are very rare. A suggestion like "Purveyors to the Court of Austria-Hungary" (41 characters) may have better chances. Austria-Hungary ended in 1918 and didn't speak English so I don't think we need a very long "official sounding" name which has actually never been used as far as I can tell. "Imperial" and "Empire" in the same name also sounds like something out of the Department of Redundancy Department. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone crop the whitespace from File:Oyster Burns.jpg? Thanks, Albacore (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Is there a way to include an email address in an article section showing example computer code?

Today I wanted to write an example JSON-RPC message that has an email address in it and this triggered a wikipedia warning.

Please advice, Vdzhuvinov (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Which article and what was the exact text you tried to add? It allowed me to make this change on the Json2Ldap article… — Bility (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain this;

We have an 'edit filter' which warns only users with few edits when they try to add an email address.

But, it was a warning; it said this;

Your edit has triggered an automated warning because it looks like you're trying to add an email address to this page. Doing that, especially with a personal email address, is usually a bad idea as it can attract large amounts of spam. Though there are a few legitimate reasons to include an email address, in most cases Wikipedia will remove email addresses that are added to articles or discussion pages.

If you want to communicate with a particular user via email, Wikipedia has a built-in email function you can use. If you would like to request general assistance, the fastest way is usually to post a question at the Help Desk. Wikipedia also provides a guide to asking for help — including via email — if you feel that is necessary.

If you still wish to continue with your edit, you may hit "Save page" again below, and it will be submitted as is. However, we would encourage you to consider carefully before posting a live email address on this site.

So, Vdzhuvinov could have ignored the warning and hit 'save' again, and it would have worked.

It worked for you, Bility, because you've made lots of edits.

Next time, Vdzhuvinov - if you know it is a reasonable use of an email address - ignore the warning and click 'save' a second time.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but, it stops a lot of people from inadvertently adding an email address, and thus getting loads of spam. It's filter 247, for anyone interested.  Chzz  ►  19:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! Vdzhuvinov (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Maria Montessori, the "citation needed" here can well be explained by what follows the section: "Montessori was exiled by Mussolini mostly because[citation needed] she refused to compromise her principles and make the children into soldiers. She moved to Spain

At the AMI Montessori Centennial Celebration in Philadelphia PA, Dr. Phyllis Applebaum and I, Dr. Denyse DuBrucq, picked a table in the back for lunch after Mrs. Sitterly, heading the then Atlanta Training Center for Montessori Directresses, had finished her address. She came and sat with us and a few others. Phyllis was completing her dissertation on the life of Maria Montessori and had questioned her as to what happened in 1937-8 in Italy. To our surprise, Mrs. Sitterly broke out in tears. Upon getting her composure, she told us this recollection of the events: Mussolini had called Maria Montessori to his office for a meeting. Since she was an outstanding educator in Italy, he demanded she teach his political philosophy to the children. She, on principle, refused and he first sigged his lion on her and then had her arrested. Dr. and Mrs. Sitterly were visiting and working with her in Italy at the time. They were British citizens. To avoid Maria Montessori's imprisonment, Dr. Sitterly volunteered to serve her sentence. He remained in prison in Italy while Mrs. Sitterly accompanied Maria Montessori to Spain.

At this time, I am not sure of the spelling of the Sitterly last name. Times can be tough even for educators. Phyllis Appelbaum is on the education faculty at New York State University on Long Island. She may be retired by now, but getting ahold of her will verify this report of the experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.174.225 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article's talk page. But in any case, information must be verifiable through published references. It may well be that Dr Appelbaum can verify the information, but she is unlikely to be willing to do so for every Wikipedia editor who wishes to verify it, and in any case at some time it will become impossible to do so. --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages ticked in my preferences, yet the **** thing still keeps appearing on pretty well every page. HELP!! What's worse, I'm mainly working on stubs, which in my view shouldn't be rated anyway. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bypass your browser cache? – ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I first set the preference, but that was a week or two ago. I've just done it again and it works. Do I have to do this every time I restart Windows? I use Firefox 3.6 with XP SP3. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 20:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. It still keeps doing it. [Ctrl-F5] removes it but it reappears a few pages later. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 20:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe the techies at WP:VPT can help... – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

above dialogue copied to WP:VPT, as suggested Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 20:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on??? It now keeps forcing me into the mobile version of the site. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 20:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, close your browser and restart the issue seems to be resolved now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the author of a number of books about films and filmmakers, and I've been looking at some of the entries for some of the films I've written about. My books are usually cited in the bibliographies (for which I am always grateful), but I'm somewhat dissatisfied by the level of discourse in the "reviews" or "critical reception" categories. Since I know these films very, very well, I'm wondering what the wikidefinition of "review" is. Must a "review" be published in a newspaper or magazine (for instance) as the response to a film that is being shown somewhere at the time, or is the definition broad enough to include the opinions of - well - ME! as I state them in critically successful biographies? Thanks, Ed Sikov — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdSikov (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review is like any other source, it has to meet the guidelines at WP:RS. So they can be reviews in the mainstream press, established websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, or indeed books that meet RS guidelines. I would, however, caution you against adding references to your own books (if that's the genesis of your question) as that could be considered spamming. A better idea would be to use the talk page of relevant articles to discuss. – ukexpat (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Wikipedia has its own jargon. What you call an "entry" is probably what Wikipedia calls an "article". What you call a "category" might be what Wikipedia calls a "section". The word "category" has a specific technical meaning on Wikipedia - a navigation feature for grouping related articles together. It would help if you linked to the specific page where you saw the word "review" (if there is such a page) so we know what context you are bringing into the question with it. That is, you could link to one of the pages containing the discourse you find dissatisfying. Confusingly, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Review page which seems to use the word to mean something different than a critical review of a film. Instead that page seems to refer to review by Wikipedia editors of an article about a film (i.e. the quality of our article rather than of the film). The articles we think are of the highest quality we call featured articles; you could peruse the featured film articles and see if they satisfy you better. In principle, any article which is not yet featured needs to be improved, so we would expect dissatisfaction with non-featured articles. On the Help desk the first people to respond tend to be generalists, who may not understand domain-specific nuances - the film experts might not see your question here. I suggest reading the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film pages to learn about the guidelines specific to film-related articles, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film might be a good place to get the attention of people who have more detailed knowledge. --Teratornis (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Whoever deleted the following: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuss%C3%A3o:Encontro_da_Nova_Consci%C3%AAncia ...has absolutely nothing to do with it and we (the event people for Nova Consciência) want it back. As far as we can tell it was deleted by folks that have nothing to do with our event.;

It there a process for recovering this? The president of the organization (Vinicius) has requested my help as he has not had luck.

Sincerely,

Matthew (Mateus) Berigan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Campina Grande, Paraiba

Sorry. This is the help desk for the English-language Wikipedia. You will have to ask at the Portuguese-Language one regarding the article deletion there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--> pt:Wikipédia:Contato/Fale com a Wikipédia  Chzz  ►  22:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the policies of the Portuguese Wikipedia are, but if they are anything like those of the English Wikipedia, your wanting or not wanting the article to exist would have very little weight in arguments whether or not to keep it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page was a talk page of an article deleted by this Portuguese AFD (translation). —teb728 t c 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I have no idea if this is the correct place, as I seldom need to address technical issues. I use the Google Chrome browser, and since about 15 minutes ago, most articles and pages are coming up as "mobile version". Even hitting the "permanently disable" button doesn't change this. Its happening at commons and at meta too (haven't check other projects. The weird part is happens in some places (like the main page) but not others (like here). Firefox works fine as does IE. The issue seems to be Chrome only, at least for me.--Cerejota (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure why that is, but you may get a better response at the technical village pump or the computing reference desk. Of course, one of the regulars here may know too. TNXMan 20:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am using chrome as well. I closed and re-opened my browser. The problem appears to be fixed. I assume this happened on the server end. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It happened to me too - in Firefox. Clicking the "permanently disable mobile site" link at the bottom of the page fixed it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a mistake when rolling out an update to the mobile site code. It's fixed now, bypass your cache if you're still seeing the mobile version. the wub "?!" 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The wub! It appears to have already been fixed indeed. Marking as resolved...--Cerejota (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The word "hell" is replaced with "@#!*%" in nearly every religion article I read today. Is this Wikipedia policy? Also, if I click on "@#!*%" it takes me to the article on the "@" symbol. I've never seen another word replaced like this in Wikipedia. Please advise. Thanks!

208.115.146.149 (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this going on? That's not permitted by Wikipedia policy; I'll get to reverting it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

apparently the Net Nanny software on my wife's computer automatically replaces this word to "protect" the kids from such vile language. Sorry to waste your time!

208.115.146.149 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite; I can't imagine this being a Wikipedia concern. Thanks for telling us it is fixed.  Chzz  ►  22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have some fun, go look up Penistone and tell us if anything happens. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time, I have no problem with sound files. However, when they are grouped together in charts like this one, the charts rapidly become crowded with once-played files. I have started to wonder: why is there no way to close sound files after use? Or is this just an issue with my computer? Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 22:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is when you're done listening, click "More..." then at the bottom click "no player" to make the big grey bar retract.

The more complicated answer is that Wikipedia really does need to completely redo their native support, since its lacking in a few areas. Problem is that doing something like that takes a ton of resources, resources that the WMF is unwilling, or more likely unable, to expend at this time. Unless it breaks, the media suite is at the low end of a very long list of priorities for the technical staff.

If someone could find the Bugzilla report asking for this specific issue to be fixed, I would say that you could go to Bugzilla and "vote" for it to become a priority, but I'm not sure how much of an impact that actually has. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I watched an hour show this afternoon titled WORLDS STRICTIST PARENTS and I want to get a copy of it to show my friends who have kids like that. Thanks. Frankie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.12.130 (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728 t c 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]