Hola. I have written a new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Burmann. Please tell me if it is alright according to Wikipedia policies. Xender — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xender Lourdes (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xender Lourdes. It's a start, but the answer to your question is "Not yet", I'm afraid. The problem is twofold (but the two aspects are related). The subjects of Wikipedia articles are required to be "notable" - which does not mean important, or significant, or influential, or popular, or famous: it means that people unconnected with them have published substantial material about them, in reliable places. If he has won the Goya, he probably meets that criterion, but the article needs to show it by referencing several such sources - major newspapers, books from reputable published, websites with a reputation for fact-checking: please see reliable sources. Related to that, an article (especially one about a living person) should contain no information which is not backed up by a reliable published source. At present the only information in the article which is cited to a source is that he won the Goya for Remando al Viento in 1989; and even that is just a listing, whose provenance is not clear. You need to find, and cite, reliable sources for all the information in the article: his nominations (if they are regarded as encyclopaedic, which I am not sure), and all the information about him personally. Sources do not have to be in English, though if there are English sources they are preferable. Please see referencing for beginners for how to cite sources. --ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColinFine. You have been very helpful. I will check the things you've written. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more citations, but someone who knows what they're doing could probably do much better. I can understand a few various words and phrases in Spanish, but I need help from translation tools. One of the citations I added is an interview, and it could probably be used to expand the article somewhat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But interviews are not regarded as independent sources, so they can only be used in a limited way for reference, NinjaRobotPirate --ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true, but they can still be used. But if someone says they were born in Madrid, that's legit. If someone says they won an award, then you can use that to search for more information and a better citation. Interviews are quite useful, even if you don't use them for citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NinjaRobot and ColinFine. With your improvements, I have written another article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Su%C3%A1rez_(cinematographer) using the code you have used in the Wolfgang Burmann article. I hope I am now following an improved editing. Thank you. Lourdes. Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, can you tell me how central locking system in Hyundai i-20 works - if the central locking system is based on speed sensor then at what speed the central locking system is activated thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biplovkumar (talk • contribs) 11:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 5 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 11:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page "Big Brother" appears to be a redirect from "Big Brother (disambiguation)" - yet is nothing more than a disambig page itself.

Even more confusingly, it contains a "See Also" section, which I didn't think were appropriate for disambig pages - and yet the "See Also" includes the "Big Brother (disambiguation)" link.

It all seems a bit odd to me - is this right? I see that Big Sister falls into the same page confusion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a number of See Also sections on disambig pages that make sense. Such as alternate spellings of names. For instance, John Smith might have a See Also for John Smythe. Dismas|^(talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chaheel Riens. I agree that the appearance in the see also section of links to dab pages that are redirects, and especially the snake-eating-its-tail link to Big Brother (disambiguation) that redirects back to it, should come out. Other than that, this appears unremarkable. When there's no primary topic, and a disambiguation page is needed, it occupies the base title, here Big Brother. It's not at all unusual for a redirect to exist at the unneeded parenthetically disambiguated title to it (though I don't know we should go out of our way to create them). Such redirects often arise when there's a disagreement that a title has a primary topic, so the article at the base title is moved to a dabbed name and then the dab page is moved from its former ("disambiguation)" name to occupy the base title. We almost always keep the redirect it was formerly at upon such moves. As for the see also, see MOS:DABSEEALSO. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded some image file that completely my own. In summary, author show in Red. Which means user page not available and when click it, it's open to create the page. Why is that my user page is not shows in author section. You can find it here File:Bogambara stadium.jpg Kindly requesting your help. (Price Zero (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You have not created your Commons user page yet. Commons is separate from the English Wikipedia, you can have a user page there too if you want, but it's not required. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Roger (Dodger67) for your help and it's very helpful. Appreciate it. (Price Zero (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

It turns out that the "encyc:" prefix can be used on an internal wikilink to link to make it link to Encyc. I don't see this documented anywhere (for sure, not at Help:Interwikimedia links), and I'm surpised at the implied endorsement. Is this an intentional feature? Where is it documented? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

giving question its own section. Dismas|^(talk) 16:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the best list is at meta:Interwiki map which lists a *lot* of them from dmoz: to BattlestarWiki: . Given that there is one for Battlestar Galactica, I don't think the barrier is that high.Naraht (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! Thin is, such links look like internal wikilinks, and don't have the externa llink icon to warn the user thatey're going to a different site. Looking through that list, there's ltos of broken stuff; maybe they were once trusted co-wikis, but now they're advertising sites, squatting sites, and other junk. What's the best way to help with cleanup? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any topics related to the word "Hybridies" This term refers to a group of islands North of the U.K., also to the former name of Vanuatu (New Hybridies) and also a concert by Brahms called "Hybridies". Not any link can be found. Can anyone write an article about these ? Thanks. Arnaud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.15.28 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Properly spelled as "Hebrides". And that page (which is about the British Islands) has a link at the top to a disambiguation page Hebrides (disambiguation) with links to other uses of the name including the former name of Vanuatu , the concert and a breed of sheep. Cheers!Naraht (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody tell me how and for what reasons WP:MEDRS guideline was set up in English Wikipedia? Эйхер (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To minimize the possibility that people (mis)using Wikipedia as medical advice will get hurt or killed by doing so when the information is wrong or does not apply precisely, basically.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "why" is summed up in the first paragraph:

As for the "how", looking at the earliest talk page entries indicates that it was originally set up as an offshoot from WP:MEDMOS. Rojomoke (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By asking "why" I mean: "why English Wikipedia cares about possible harm to people, when there are WP:DISC, WP:RISK etc?" Did someone propose such a policy because of pure moral concerns or it reflects some legislatory restrictions (like WP:BLP)? Did anybody oppose it because of fear, that basic principles of wikipedian freedom could erode? Эйхер (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an essay about why it was set up that should answer most of your questions. uhhlive (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear Help desk,

I was uploading images to the page of Lord of Miracles of Buga at wikipedia English version,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Miracles_of_Buga#/

and the first four pics uploaded well, but after that the system started to show errors saying that the image I was trying to upload was already in the site but the fact is that it doesnt appear at all visible, please can you assist me to see why is this happening? the file I was trying to upload was an image called Buga6.png or Buga6.jpg

Thanks,

Ricardo Blanco — Preceding unsigned comment added by RicBlancoColombia (talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RicBlancoColombia: You have uploaded these images to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. You can see the complete list of all the files you have uploaded here. File:Buga6.png is included there and you should be able to use it here on Wikipedia by pasting [[File:Buga6.png|thumb|Buga6]] into the article. Sarah-Jane (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing...I would LOVE to contribute to Wikipedia, because I LOVE Wikipedia. BUT (!!) I do not like to donate online. THEREFORE...If you gave an ADDRESS that someone could MAIL IN A DONATION, I bet you would get a lot of donations from people like me, who do not like to do much $$$ stuff online. Or at least you would get one from me. AGAIN...huge fan of Wikipedia, and esp for the small amounts you are requesting, would LOVE to make a one time contribution. But just not comfortable doing it electronically. Put an ADDRESS out there...I will be happy to SEND a cash contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.218.144 (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to tell whether you are inside US/Canada or outside, so both addresses are at WMF:Ways_to_Give.Naraht (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added:It is very infective, but only a few get the disease.

Dr Bernard Naafs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.233.191 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the edit you made to Leprosy. You changed the statement attributed to a cited source, and changed the citation so as to produce a red error message. Another editor has reversed what you did. Maproom (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why are there buttons for edit and edit source, and how come when I click edit it says my browser isn't right for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only answer the first question. Wikipedia, like other MediaWiki wikis, is based on wiki markup source text. Fundamentally, everything in Wikipedia, like other such wikis, is based on this source text. Originally, it was only possible to edit this source text directly. That proved too difficult for inexperienced users, so MediaWiki added an option to edit the rendered pages in a WYSIWYG fashion, in other words, people could see what their edits looked like as they did them, like in a modern word processor such as Microsoft Word or OpenOffice Writer. The edits will be saved in the source text anyway, but users no longer have to learn the arcane wiki markup syntax. But in spite of that, they can edit the source text directly if they want to, by using the "Edit source" button. That's what I always do, as I've edited the source code directly for over a decade, and have no wish to learn this new-fangled visual editor thingy. JIP | Talk 20:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What browser and version are you using? There are, for example, some significant limitations if you running version of IE before 9. Rwessel (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Edge, not Explorer. Should I avoid the visual editor and edit the source code instead? Kirk Leonard (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC) I've used both the visual editor and the edit source option, and they both seem to work for me.[reply]

See more information at WP:VE, including which browers are supported. RudolfRed (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I used a few YouTube videos as sources in one of the articles I've been working on. (The sources are reliable third-party sources, and the videos have standard YouTube licenses.) Anyway, I used the {{YouTube}} along with the {{Cite: AV media}} in the source reference. Did I do the right thing? SciGal (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SciGal. I think you know this since all I looked at (far from all included)) were okay (on this score), but just to be sure: a persistent problem with linking YouTube videos is that often, though the video source may be a good and reliable one, the uploader violated copyright in using the source, and we may not ever link to copyright violations. To illustrate, linking to a CNN news report uploaded by CNN is fine. Linking to the same CNN video uploaded by Randomuserkitty76 is not.

• {{YouTube}} is for external links in an external links section, not for citations—which cite AV media is for. Also, even were they equally useful for citations, there would be no reason to use two links to the same video by different methods. Get rid of all the redundant links made through {{youtube}} (some of which are malformed anyway;, e.g., the link through Cite Av media in footnote 80 is working, where the second is not).
• Both links in footnote 75 are non-working.
• Forever is a U.S. TV series and most of these videos are U.S based, but the citations are using an inconsistent mix of date formats. I would change all the dates to the U.S. convention, e.g., May 10, 2015, not 15 May 2015. Also, there's some weird date abbreviations going on like "Jun" for June, and some where there's a mix of non-abbreviated and abbreviated in the same citation; I'd just write out the complete months.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made the revert for the {{YouTube}}. As for footnote 75, I think that ABC had pulled the video off YouTube. The only one that I could find with the footage would have violated copyrights. SciGal (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you have any idea how to archive YouTube videos without violating copyrights? That was a point made during GA review, and I don't know how to do it. SciGal (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]