Hi. I would like to know how to start a new project in Wiki, like Project: electric vehicle. Any help?---North wiki (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be redundant to WP:CARS, as this project encompasses all automobiles from small hatchbacks to large SUVs, regardless of propulsion: petrol, diesel, LPG, LNG, CNG, ethanol, electricity. It is inefficient and cumbersome to have a separate WikiProject for what is no more than a slight variation of an existing topic. What next, WikiProject: hybrid vehicles, WikiProject: small diesel hatchbacks? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's unfair and rude. It's also completely wrong. There can always be subprojects. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports has many subprojects underneath it. To be more helpful to the OP, the proper place to go to start a new Wikiproject is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, though you may want to look at contacting some of the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles to see how to work a new Wikiproject in, considering the likely overlap. I apologize for the rudeness of my colleague. I hope these links help you investigate starting a new project. It may be better to work within the framework of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles instead of starting a new project, but if you feel that doing so is necessary, please feel free to do so. --Jayron32 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to Jayron32, and I'm sure OSX didn't mean to come out so negative. We all get fretful at times. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ---North wiki (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to copy helpful information regarding Health, Aging, Nutrition, Aids for Seniors and healthy food sources. My website theme will be all about health and well-being and nutrition supplements that are available to achieve this. There will be no charge for this information. So I would like to know exactly how I can copy text information from Wikipedia or Wikipedia Books and copy it into articles I would like to publish on my website. Not as my own published documents but somewhere, somehow making reference to the source (Wikipedia) as in fact the source and perhaps including a hot link to click on that would bring the reader back to the source.

Can I legally do this? If so, can someone outline the steps I would need to follow to accomplish this.

Warm Regards, Pumpsoil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpsoil (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:REUSE. – ukexpat (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd share something I recently discovered too - when viewing an article, there's a 'Cite this page' link in the toolbox on the left side of the page. Clicking that has a lot of useful information. CaptRik (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed History of art auction sales from an article about only history to an article about art auction containing the history. The article is not finished, but the structure/chapters is/are changed. Therefore, I would like to move the article to "Art auction", but I can not move the article, because Art auction redirects to History of art auction sales. Will somebody please move the article for me. Thank you very much. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done :) [stwalkerster|talk] 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very premature move! Only a few sentences have changed. Unless a lot more updating is done, it should go back. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Only a few sentences have changed" is not correct. As I have read above, the structure is changed (History of art auction sales is now just one chapter of the article). Please, see also that the {{Update-EB|date=January 2011}} is still in the top of the article. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favor? Could you help me write a summary for movie The_Seventh_Coin? Here's a summary from this site: http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/the-seventh-coin.html but I was wondering how to write in my own words. Can you help me? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some useful info at WP:PLOTSUM. Personally, I wouldn't write a plot summary without actually seeing the movie. Also - please keep it brief - there is often a tendency to write excessively long summaries with too much detail.

You might get ideas and inspiration for style from some of our featured articles, such as The_Boys_from_Baghdad_High#Synopsis, Fight_Club_(film)#Plot, The_Pit_and_the_Pendulum_(1961_film)#Synopsis, Sunset_Boulevard_(film)#Plot.

Others may perhaps know the film, and be able to assist more directly, but I hoped these thoughts might help a bit. Good luck,  Chzz  ►  02:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point me to policies and guidelines on disambigius pages. I've encountered a few pages which upon some considerable thought seem glorified disambigous pages. One such page is Box turtle for those wanting an example. The issue arises because two seemingly similar subjects are on closer inspect different things but the article either talks about them as two or more subjects duplicating what should be in other specific subject articles or the article talks about the subjects as one, misleading the reader. I'm looking for a policy or a guideline where I can read more and perhaps initiate (if appropriate) a recovery of the articles to disambigous pages. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 05:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAB covers this, I believe. --Jayron32 06:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken something it doesn't seem to mention the situation above. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 06:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not totally sure what problem you perceive: Are you thinking it needs a hatnote to the effect of “This article is mostly about North American box turtles. For Asian box turtles, see Cuora and/or keeled box turtle.” If so, WP:DAB was apt, for WP:DAB#Disambiguation links talks about hatnotes and has a main-page link to Wikipedia:Hatnote. —teb728 t c 11:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way. If the page did not yet exist. Creating the page as follows would be normal.

Now that is exists as a mixed article I am looking for information on if this should be resolved, and if so how. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual practice is not to create a disambiguation page for only two relevant articles, but to deal with disambiguation by hatnote. – ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The usual practice is to create a disambiguation page because neither of the names are the same as the disambigous page. If you think otherwise please provide an example where neither article titles are the same as the disambig term and the third common term is used for searching. Also if you just added hatnotes, I'd really like to know what you would do with the Box turtle article? Turn it into a red link? Leave the article as is and overlap content which would be a duplication of another article? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best option is to move this discussion to the talk page of the article, start a WP:RFC to see what others think about solving the problem. I think your solution of turning this into a DAB, and then splitting the text between the two resulting articles has legs, but insofar as you seek discussion to decide how to proceed regarding the proper way to manage that, that discussion should happen on the article talk page of the affected article, and not necessarily here. You may also want to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. --Jayron32 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was intending to take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Turtles once I had established what policy or guideline it came under. It seems now there is no guidance on what to do here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that rather than there being “no guidance on what to do here” you don’t like the fact that the advice doesn’t support your position. Simply converting the article to a disambiguation page would lose general information interesting and informative to non-biologists. If you were to split the information in already in the article into two articles, common name titles should be used per WP:Use common names: like North American box turtle and Asian box turtle rather than “Terrapene” and “Cuora” (The latter titles are OK for taxonomy articles.) I realize that the fact that a common name spanning two genera is unsatisfying to biologists, but most Wikipedia readers are not biologists. —teb728 t c 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Oh, and you asked for an example of hatnote use: A somewhat similar case is Thrush (bird) —teb728 t c 22:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason this was brought up was because the article Box turtle couldn't cover any information that wouldn't fit better in the two other articles. It just so happens that these two groups of turtles have the same common name, other then that they're pretty unrelated. Look at Styx, Styx (band) and Styx (disambiguation); the first two articles are related only because they share the same name, the disambiguation page serves to help readers find the distinct page they want to read about. I think a disambiguation page is the perfect solution for Box turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that putting a polyphyletic group is not that sound and in this case there should be two articles; and it is good you brought the issue with this article up. Now the thing to evaluate (before you propose anything on the talk page) is if there is a "box turtle" (the american or the asian one) which is encyclopedically more "important" (because it was named much earlier, because people think about that box turtle normally when they think about a box turtle, because it is much more abundant, etc). If so, that orgasism should be at Box turtle with a hatnote as suggested above (e.g.: this article is about the American Box turtle, for the species Cuora, see Asian box turtle). A disambiguation page with only two different options is generally not suggested (even if taxonomically these species are on the same level; as that carries little weight here...) L.tak (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand the sense in that. My question at the beginning is where is the policy or guidance on this? Can you point to any. If there is none, then fine it can move to a talk page discussion on a case by case basis. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it says above, the policy or guidance is WP:DAB, which talks about primary topics, hatnotes, and the choice between hatnotes and disambiguation pages; and also WP:Use common names, which says the article titles should be the common (in this case English) names rather than the names of the genera. —teb728 t c 01:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you seem to have given the subject little thought and therefore your posts make no sense. I'd love to think DABS actually said anything that would resolve the situation, however reading it does not suggest that. Let's say you got agreement and changed the two topics to common names North American box turtle and Asian box turtle. You hat noted them to point to each other, I'm with you up to that point. But, here is the issue: What would you be doing with the third Box turtle article? Would you 1) leave it alone? 2) delete it and make a red link? or 3) make it a disambigous page? And the answer to that third article is found where in the WP:DAB guidance exactly? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think actually I have given it more consideration than you. In answer to your question I would remove from box turtle anything that doesn’t apply to Terrapenes, adding a hatnote reference Asian box turtle. I would move box turtle to North American box turtle (as the source of that article), keeping the resulting redirect from box turtle, for as the article says, the American genus is the most common meaning. (So in summary box turtle would be a redirect.) I would also give consideration to each of the articles at Special:WhatLinksHere/Box turtle to see which links need to be changed. I see no need for a disambiguation page. —teb728 t c 02:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC) To put it a little differently, box turtle should be the primary article or a redirect to the primary article. (And I believe the primary article should be the one on the American genus. —teb728 t c 02:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd move Box turtle to North American box turtle, but what would you do with the article Terrapene dealing with the same subject matter? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Box turtle should not be a separate article, bottom-line. It appears to be an incorrect or not totally agreed upon common name. Thus, only certain readers would expect it to discuss North American box turtles while the rest of the world would expect it to serve as a disambiguation page that lists both Terrapene and Asian box turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Terrapene: it is only a taxonomy stub. Box turtle contains the most of the content on the genus, and it is mostly about that genus. —teb728 t c 03:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Oh, in direct answer, I would keep it as a taxonomy stub. —teb728 t c 03:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's incorrectly named! The state of the other article is immaterial at this point.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a matter of where the content is not but how it can be effectively be re-arrange. Also the suggested move Box turtle=>North American box turtle would be against WP:COMMONNAME, because if North American box turtle was common it would not currently be a red link. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So would you be happy with taking London (United Kingdom) and London, Kentucky and having a combined topic dealing with both locations of the same common name called London? I don't think you would, and you won't because it's not logical and thus you have the same situation with the Box turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your multiple choice question two sections above: my choice would be: 3: have the primary topic (according to WP:DAB) at box turtle (that is the american OR the asian, up to the experts). To answer your rethorical question about london (to make the policy clear): No, I would hate to have both on one page. Just as I (and everyone it seems, you make a good argument!) agrees with that there should be proper disambiguation. Your example is very informative. Let's take that case:

• we use WP:DAB as the guideline (so we have a guideline to follow now)
• there is a primary topic (the city london in the UK)
• Thus London is where the main UK topic is situated
• other uses are at London (disambiguation), because there are many more London things (not just two).

Now in your case, we have to do the same.

• reading WP:DAB as the guideline
• determining if there is a primary topic (and put the primary topic species under box turtle.
• determining if there is an alternative topic (yes) or multiple alternative topics (no)
• put at box turtle the primary topic with a link to the secondary topic in a hat note (similar to the hatnote in Lonond)
• If this is a sensitive or non-straightforward matter: first discuss it as a suggestion (with arguments) on talk:box turtle.

Should you wish help in doing that, you are free to ask me! L.tak (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both choice 3 and the London example. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to know how to get an online wikipedia app for nokia 5233, instead of visiting the site everytime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.84.8 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? --ColinFine (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a policy question.

For example, say I make three separate editing contributions to an article. Assume that over that period of time, no other edits were done by others. Thus, the View History tab would then show the three successive edits I made as the three most recent entries listed.

Now, say for some reason I decided I wanted to revert the article back to the state it was in BEFORE my three edits took place. In other words, take it back to the state it was in BEFORE I chose to start editing the article. Say I elected to do this, reverting it back to its state prior to my edits.

Q. Given that the article would now be fully returned to the pre-edit status, IDENTICAL to what it was in before my edits were done, will my three edit history records be deleted as a result, or will this last action incur a fourth edit record in my name?

Thanks for your advice.

Graeme Dennes (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last action would be a fourth edit. Contributions are recorded in the edit history and will continue to be thus recorded unless subject to oversight, although oversight is a fairly big deal and is only used in narrowly defined circumstances. What you're saying makes some sense, given that it returned to the original state, but in practice the software doesn't distinguish between edits, but simply records changes. - Bilby (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, your edits will be preserved; reverting to a prior version of the article merely creates a completely new version with identical text of the earlier version. See Help:Reverting for more details. It is technically possible to remove edits from public viewing using two tools known as Wikipedia:Revision deletion (or RevDel) and Wikipedia:Oversight. Revision deletion is done by administrators, and the RevDel-ed pages remain viewable to admins, but not to other editors. Oversighted edits are done by a very tiny number of elected admins called "Oversighters", and are only viewable by them and other select Wikipedia functionaries. Edits are not normally RevDel-ed or Oversighted except in very limited, well defined, situations. --Jayron32 06:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So oversighters can see oversighted edits? I thought it removed them from the database entirely. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why oversighters shouldn't be able to see oversighted edits? What if they want to undo an oversight action? As far as I know, oversighted edits cannot be seen by non-oversighters. HeyMid (contribs) 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find the edit history of just one part of a page? It might be a section, a paragraph, a template, or just one word. I've been banging my head against this for days, trying to find who added a merge template to a page. On a heavily edited page it can take a long time going back one edit at a time. One would expect the Edit Summaries to be helpful, but often they don't provide the detail needed to zero in on one part of a page. No doubt it'll be as obvious as the nose on own face, but I sure can't see how to do it at this point.

Thanks in advance, Michaeloqu (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WikiBlame (link). Enter the name of the article and in the "search for" parameter, put {{merge}} (or whatever template you're looking for). The system will return the revisions containing that string. See the manual for more detailed instructions. Goodvac (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Unfortunately I'm unable to do it myself, because I intentionally locked myself out of my account for schoolwork purposes. Maybe someone would like take care of it? Thanks, 75.4.194.121 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handled by hatnotes. --ColinFine (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My mot d'passe is perdu and I don't know how to retrouver it. Can you please aider me to help me retrouver it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.157.201 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you avez registre with un email address, vous can demander un email avec the password. Sinon, bad chance. Desole. --ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure you are at the right Wikipedia. Si vous recherchez la Wikipedia français, il est a cet URL: http://fr.wikipedia.org. Cette Wikipedia est la Wikipedia anglais, et le mot de passe entre le deux est différent. --Jayron32 13:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I crois that this person is looking for the Franglais Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on whether to merge 'Voltage optimisation' or delete article which is a persistent spam magnet and seemingly created as the result of spam. Voltage optimisation comes about, from the electrical engineer practising his skill of designing any electrical power supply system, in such a way that it ensures that any equipment or electronic device drawing power from it, is supplied at a voltage which is within the tolerances that the equipment is designed and rated for when operating at the point of use in the circuit. This also included minimising unwanted effects, such as phase lags, from running rotating machinery and other power quality problems. However, over the last decade, sales and marketing departments of some companies it appears, have high-jacked the term to mean simply the installation of their mains power conditioning equipment and so we have a parallel article titled Voltage optimisation . This is also at the expense of excluding the VO work that needs to be done when designing low voltage electronic circuits and so is misleading readers of this article at this level too. Because of this marketing effort, any editor that googles for 'optimising voltage' will find only the phrase 'voltage optimization' and all references leading back to the websites of companies selling this equipment. Worse, because many editors don't understand the subject they are inclined to believe the sales lingo and it add to the article together with the outlandish claims for cost savings. That is not to say that the equipment is a scam, it isn't and it can help in a few situations, but the explanation of all those that I've read over the years amounts to pseudo-science and misinformation. Worse than that, if any sales and marketing nonsense does get noticed and removed from the article, it get put back by anonymous editors who we believe are representing these manufactures. Googling “define:Voltage optimisation” shows that Wikipedia is appearing to give legitimacy to their marketing effort at the expense of more responsible and honest companies that offer equipment that does the same thing but using more correct terms like power conditioning equipment. Lastly, I have brought this here because I alone cannot turn the tide and need some input from current practising electrical engineers. Unfortunately, wikipedia appears to be the only online reference tool granting legitimacy to this sales and marketing push, Google “Define:Voltage optimization” and see. This is the sort of nonsense that puts WP in a bad light. I would have no objection if the article was really about VO and about choosing the right wire gauge to prevent undue voltage drop and how to work out the right heavy duty power capacitor to correct for lag occurring in a large factory etc. Instead , it is becoming apparent that by having two articles about this equipment, it is allowing misleading non encyclopedic rubbish to be transferred over to WP under the radar of other editors who would otherwise spot it if it turned up under the proper term power conditioning. --Aspro (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good discussion to have, but what you should do is start a WP:RFC at the talk page of the article in question, and see where the consensus lies. Its a complex issue, and there are a few noticeboards you may want to notify of the RFC, like Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You'll want to maintain the discussion at the article talk page, but notifying appropriate noticeboards tends to attract the attention of editors that specialize in resolving conflicts about specific issues. --Jayron32 17:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will start following that when things around me become less hectic.--Aspro (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a page (Sam Darcy) where the vast majority of edits are made by users who have neither User: nor User talk: pages (check out all those redlinks). Finding this unusual, I checked the contribs - and noticed that most of these users have edited this page and no other. Is this a sock farm? What should be done? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find the oldest apparent sock (usually called the "Sockmaster" and file a report at WP:SPI under that name. Provide an explanation with links and diffs, in this case you'll probably want to use the checkuser=yes parameter, as this situation could benefit from the use of checkuser, and sit and wait for admins and checkuser to complete the investigation. --Jayron32 16:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I can't do that - the article was speedied a minute before you posted the above. It would be an admin task to recover the necessary info. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, I'll file the SPI, and you can make additional comments on it as needed, given that. --Jayron32 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you file it, I'm ready to post the results. :) TNXMan 17:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll file it, if you like - I deleted the article and have just finished boggling at the contributors' list - at least a dozen SPAs. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NaSTATV. --Jayron32 17:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have registered as a user and have drafted the content of my article/references ready to copy into wikipedia I have read the many instructions which suggest I can enter it in draft form, save it to work on later (it will take me several goes to put in all the references etc) and only 'go public' when I am ready - how do I do this? It also seems I can submit a finished draft for editorial comment before 'going public' which would be most helpful - how do I do this? Thanks Lakpha (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've left some introductory links on your talk page. To create a draft article, I recommend the Article wizard; and once your draft article is ready for review, the instructions are here. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whom do I contact to find out how and why a category name has been changed? Category talk:The Los Angeles Times people. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history of Category:Los Angeles Times people, User:Good Olfactory was involved, so I would start with them. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was done via a WP:CFDS: here is where the request was raised. Looking at the next few raised after that, it looks like a general change. The code C2B is explained here. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a real person to the Myasthenia Gravis page, someone notable who, I know, had the disease, Tony Randall. I met him almost 30 years ago at one of their National Association events in NYC.

Hi,

In regards to the above subject line, as a first time account holder, I thought I could add this information easily to the other 'real' notable people who had this disease. At the time, Elizabeth Dole, was Chair of their organization, which was right before she chaired The American Red Cross, which was well before she became a senator. My concern is that I don't think I entered it properly because after I hit 'save this page' the type didn't match the others. Does that occur later? Again, I'm very new to this & not very computer savvy. Sorry for this inconvenience. D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.228.14 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could have tidied up your edit, by adding a bullet & adding a link, but instead I have reverted the edit as you gave no evidence that he had the disease. He become chairman of the association, but any info I can find suggests that he did not have the disease but had been invited to support the association. If you have a reliable source for him having the disease, please quote it as a reference. Please read WP:V and WP:REF. I hope you will forgive me for slightly tidying up the format of your question and shortening the header. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this is perfect example of why reliable sourcing is so important when adding facts to articles. You had a good faith, strongly held, but anecdotal belief that a fact was true, which it turns out appears to be incorrect or at best, very dubious.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Chartered_Accountants_of_India has a tag "needs to be expanded" since Apr 2010. It has been substantially expanded since then that I think the tag should be removed - I am unable to remove the tag correctly and furthermore I am not sure if we are entitled to remove the tag at all - is this a Wiki Admin task ? Can someone review the page and decide or then leave a note as to what needs to be done ? It has much more information than, for example, the AICPA article - also can someone review the "essay" tag - ? I don't think it reads like a personal essay any more. Any help will be appreciated. WikiCpa (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag. Anyone can do it if they think the issue(s) has been resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - thanks for doing that and moreover thanks for cleaning up the article - just what was needed!WikiCpa (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not a party involved in the ANI case, i.e. not the editor who report to ANI, not being 'accused' in ANI or a party named within that ANI. I came across a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. An editor is accused of Sockpuppet/vote recruiting here. I notice that any editor can comment on that investigation at that page. However, I'm uncertain that if I, without admin right, can or is appropriate to make a comment at ANI. ---North south E W (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have more examples, or suspect more sock puppets, or something similar, then you sure can weigh in. CTJF83 chat 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no place on Wikipedia where the opinion of an administrator counts more than the opinion of a nonadministrator, period. This is a fundemental principle. Administrators are entrusted with certain tools that allow them to do certain things, with the consent of the community, but all admins are equal to all non-admins in every other way, and non-administrators are invited and encouraged to contribute to discussions on the Admin noticeboard and indeed anywhere else on Wikipedia. Your opinions matter just as much as anyone elses. See WP:NOBIGDEAL. --Jayron32 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. ---North south E W (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you have something to contribute to ANI, by all means do so. However, based on my own experience (for what that's worth), ANI is a particularly contentious forum, so don't be surprised if you receive responses you don't like. I know I have and was sorry I said anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to put text vertical in a table. Could you help me with the code?Jrats (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) See this help page. Apparently one has to use an image file for each fragment of vertical text, because browser support for rotated text is so unreliable. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For an infobox location map,

What are the numbers I'm supposed to put here?

| latd= |latm= |lats=|latNS=N | longd= |longm= |longs=|longEW=E

The coordinates from Google maps are: 32.782198, 35.935543

fallingrain: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the provided link I'd try :

| latd=32 |latm= 46|lats=52|latNS=N

| longd=35 |longm=56 |longs=5|longEW=E

CTJF83 chat 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was perfect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. CTJF83 chat 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there an option to use the decimal format too, or is that only in {{coord}}? – ukexpat (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be only in CORD -- but I'm not sure. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in some infoboxes, at least, if you put the decimal coordinates in the "latd" and "longd" fields and leave the other fields blank (or delete them), the decimal coordinates will be correctly displayed. It seems to depend on how the particular infobox is coded. Deor (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes do vary - some allow deg/min/sec form, some allow decimal degrees, some allow either. In most cases, those that allow the deg/min/sec form will accept decimal degrees in the |latd=|longd= fields (or their equivalents), provided that the min/sec fields are omitted. So, |latd=32.782198|longd=35.935543 should work.

(For the converse situation, where the infobox only permits decimal degrees but you have deg/min/sec values, put these through {{decdeg}} as in |latitude={{decdeg|32|46|52}}|longitude={{decdeg|35|56|5}})

It's always worth checking the documentation for the specific infobox to see which forms it permits. {{Infobox settlement}} has the deg/min/sec form (|latd=|latm=|lats=|longd=|longm=|longs=), but if both |latm= and |longm= are omitted (or blank), allows decimal degrees to be passed through |latd=|longd=. The {{Location map}} template itself has both sets of parameters - there are |lat= and |long= for decimal degrees, and there are also |lat_deg=|lat_min=|lat_sec=|lat_dir= with |lon_deg=|lon_min=|lon_sec=|lon_dir= for the deg/min/sec form. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]