Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 August 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

[edit] August 22

[edit] WP:CSD#R3

Resolved. Andy^reply 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[1]. Deletable under WP:CSD#R3 or no? I think not because it redirects from the template space to the user space, but I'm not 100% sure. ~ Wikihermit 23:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved in IRC - Page is being listed for WP:AFD Andy^reply 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RfD rather :-). ~ Wikihermit 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting images

Can you tell me how to request an image? Tina Armstrong article has no image above her profile.

Add {{reqphoto}} to the talk page. Also, please don't use {{helpme}} on the help desk. Thanks, --Werdan7^{T @} 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also see the links under:

User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Ima

specifically:

Needed pictures:
- Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation - inserting a request for an image into an article
- Wikipedia:Requested pictures
- Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service
- Category:Wikipedia requested photographs

--Teratornis 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am a professional writer

I believe there is a fundamental disconnect between Wikipedia and people like me, and I will sum it up by simply saying that I have spent quite a bit of time and energy improving your site (that is, your business venture) through the years, but have received no recompense whatsoever. Zippo. Not even a thank-you card. What is worse, it seems that the site is becoming less user-friendly than ever for good writers to make substantive improvements. 64.39.136.55 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, past, present and (I hope) future. Wikipedia is managed by a non-profit organization and is created through the efforts of thousands of volunteer editors. No tangible compensation will be forthcoming, other than whatever personal satisfaction you might derive from contributing (similar to any other volunteer activity). If you haven't read Wikipedia:Overview FAQ in a while, you might want to read it again (feel free to improve it while you're there). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a business venture. You're not supposed to get compensation for your contributions. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if you are a great contributor, you'll likely get your fair share of complaints. I've been called many nasty things and I'm barely a good contributor, nothing great. -- Kainaw^(what?) 02:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you create an account, you might get some Wikipedia:Awards or Barnstars on your user talk page, not that they have any real value in terms of cash money. However, if most of your edits are to articles, you might have to work pretty hard to get noticed. Accolades seem to flow more freely between Metapedians, if I may safely generalize from my personal sample of one (yeah, that's hardly statistically valid). For example, if you answer several hundred questions on the Help desk, somebody might say thanks. Obviously, the reward on Wikipedia is unlikely to be external. Those who knock themselves out here do so primarily for the enjoyment they get by contributing to the greatest online collaborative project around. To me, Wikipedia is more than merely an attempt to build a free online encyclopedia, it's a chance to take a deep inside look at a stunningly ingenious system for organizing the efforts of millions of physically remote unpaid volunteers and educating them all from scratch with no formal classroom training. Imagine that a time machine sent you back to 1997 and you tried to tell people about the Wikipedia that would exist in 2007. The more details you could describe, the more ridiculous you would sound to them. Nobody back then would be able to believe that a vast horde of unpaid volunteers could actually produce the scope and quality (admittedly uneven, but steadily improving) that you see here today. I don't know about you, but the astonishment I feel from seeing the seemingly impossible coming true every day hasn't really worn off yet. I guess after a few years I might start to feel jaded, and become a Deletionist or something. But for now the thrill is not yet gone, at least for me. Seriously, though, learning how Wikipedia does its thing could have practical benefits, for example, if someone wanted to organize a successful corporate wiki. People who learn to organize people on Wikipedia could probably organize people to do just about anything. Including a number of things that eventually do result in cash money, if that's how you want to roll. --Teratornis 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

First, welcome and thank you for interest and sincerity. Second, I too am a professional writer and I had my intial doubts. But like anything worth doing, and doing well, Wikipedia is not easy. There is a learning curve, and the system of operations writers in the professional world know is quite different (to say the least) from the "wiki-world". I encourage you to work through the tough and often frustrating parts for a while and focus on the pure, positive results Wikipedia can provide. Think of that time you logged on to read about the latest scandal or Harry Potter, and ended up learning about South African geopolitics or the Tang Dynasty. Honestly, as to the idea of "recompense", there is a bias towards users with accounts. If you sign up for an account, then the chances of receiving thanks in many forms is a near guarantee. Also, please note that Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, a U.S. non-profit, and is not a capitalist venture. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggest time and date in outward bound school?

hi there.. I don not know if how will i know how to find a suggested time and date if you go to outward bound sabah.. can you help me?.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.48.132.129 (talk)

Outward Bound provides the website Outward Bound (Sabah) Malaysia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summer sleep name

Some animals sleep in winter and some sleep in summer. What is the summer sleep called? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.96.33.150 (talk) 05:21, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Estivation. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You may want to check the reference desk in the future for general knowledge questions. The Help Desk (this page) specializes in questions about Wikipedia and help using Wikipedia, whereas general questions generally belong in the appropriate Ref Desk category. Just for future reference ^^ Keakealani 07:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Site not formatting correctly in Palm Smartphone

Hi,

I have a Palm Treo 650. The web browser is palmOne Blazer 4.0.

Blazer displays the Wikipedia one word per line. To illustrate, here's how the previous line would look:

    Blazer
    displays
    the
    Wikipedia
    one
    word
    per
    line.

On the screen, the left vertical menu is normal. Anything text in a chart is normal.

Wikipedia is the only website that this happens to. I have had the phone for almost three years, and 99% of its use it for is web browsing, so I've been to a lot of websites on it.

Is there a way to get Wikipedia to look "normal" on in Blazer?

Thanks!

Paul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulb104 (talk • contribs) 06:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

~~See comments on (your talk page. Astronaut 13:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)~~

No idea what happened there. My comments disappeared and there's nothing in the history/logs. Can only think I hit back or quit my browser before saving. Anyway, I wrote some thing about this and this Astronaut 00:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help creating a new page

My name is Sean Fetherston and I am trying to start the encyclopedia page for my late father, Brian Lloyd Fetherston. He was a famous American artist. I would like the right to have his name appear exactly as, Brian Lloyd Fethertson. I noticed that the name has already been reserved, but this might be for a different individual? Please help.

Thank you,

Sean Fetherston —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 123bluespirit (talk • contribs) 07:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you mean by "reserved" - articles either exist or they don't, you can't reserve an article. On the vein of creating your article, I would suggest you have someone else start the article - not only does it verify notability, but it helps prevent original research. It's not a problem if your father actually is notable, but it's something to be aware of. Keakealani 07:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newdegate Machinery Field Days - Western Australia

Hi guys, Peter Walker from the Newdegate machinery field days. I noticed that you had our old websites address on your site could you please change it to www.nfday.com.au thanks . Peter Walker Any problems please contact me email address removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.154.24.147 (talk)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -- Kainaw^(what?) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly is a revert?

I've read the definition of a revert:

"...in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined... as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article."[2]

So if X adds to the article, "Joe is a leading biochemist," and Y deletes that addition, Y has done a clear revert. But if X then tries again with a different phrase, "Joe is a well-known biochemist," or simply, "Joe is a biochemist," is that a revert? It doesn't take the article back to a previous state, but it does restore several deleted words. Is that "partially [going] back to [an] older version" or not?

It seems to me that if X's second try is considered to be a revert (un-revert) of Y, then it is going to be very hard to work out compromise wordings without accidentally reverting and potentially getting in trouble for 3RR violations. Am I missing something?

What if X tags an article "accuracy disputed," and Y deletes that tag. Y has done a revert, right? Now supposed that at some time in the future, editor Z, who doesn't know that the article was ever tagged, adds an "accuracy disputed" tag. Is that a revert?

Or supposed that X tries again to tag the article, but with a different tag, say "neutrality disputed" (instead of "accuracy disputed"). Can adding a tag which has never before been in an article be considered to be a revert, if a different tag was in the article sometime in the past?

I've searched quite a bit, but not found an answer. If this is covered somewhere and I just missed it, please forgive me. Thanks! 71.70.174.217 08:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a little subjective, but the policy indicates that "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted". --Old Moonraker 09:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Try thinking of it this way: A revert is something you do when you deliberately (for whatever reason) remove the contributions of an editor before you. If you go to a page, and find the last editor left a big line of swear words, you would use the "rollback" option, or the "Undo" option. Those are both "reverts" in the context of your actions. You're reverting the changes of the person before you. What the policy is talking about is you reverting any changes 3 times, regardless of the content or the person you're reverting. You're basically denying them the ability to add information, by continually rolling back their work. (Not you, but the hypothetical person engaging in a 3RR.)

Now, if the editor you reverted comes back, and makes a genuine addition to the article, after you've reverted their previous obnoxious edit, their edit is not considered a revert, that's considered a contribution, because it is assisting, not hindering. However, if they simply "undo" or "rollback" your reversion of their earlier work, restoring their work, that is considered a revert. (Hope that makes sense, sounds better in my head!

)

While this is a simplified way to explain it, it covers nearly all of the reasons you'll hear the word "revert" on Wikipedia: It is removing someone's edit, for whatever reason, but if it is for a valid reason, (i.e. vandalism) as long as you fill out the edit summary box, explaining your actions, there should be no problem If something you're reverting is obvious vandalism, that's not going to get you a 3RR notice, because you are keeping vandalism off the article (and I mean obvious, like cursing, racial slurs, rude pictures, personal attacks, etc.). If you've reverted someone for those actions four times, and you've notified them on their talk page that their actions are not appropriate, asking them to stop three + times, then you can report them to WP:AIV following the instructions there. But be sure they're genuinely vandalizing, that's not for reporting things like content disputes, or spelling errors, or anything of that nature. If you're interested in the Recent Changes side of Wikipedia, helping to assist with vandalism, I would be more than happy to give you a resource that covers the things to know before you start, how to warn users, what's considered vandalism, etc. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page and I'll give you the link.

What if X tags an article "accuracy disputed," and Y deletes that tag. Y has done a revert, right?

Yes.

Now supposed that at some time in the future, editor Z, who doesn't know that the article was ever tagged, adds an "accuracy disputed" tag. Is that a revert?

No, if they did not use the "rollback" or "undo", and had no idea the tag had been placed there, that's a contribution. Now, if user Y then deletes editor Z's tag, that's a revert. He's again reverting that change.

Technically, there are situations where you may be in the 3RR area, without the reverting of the same person repeatedly, but for the purposes of your question, I wouldn't really stress it. Just the fact that you're asking what it is, would tell me you're not someone who is about to go around edit warring people.

Just think of it like math. Revert is subtraction. Anything you're taking away that someone before you did. Edits and contributions are additions. Anything you're adding to (or augmenting) an article, to improve it, is a contribution. (Of course, some contributions remove information, such as when you condense overly long articles, but you're not just "rolling back" the edits of another user, you're contributing information to improve the article.)

Sorry for the verbosity, but I hope that helps you understand! Ciao, ^Ariel♥Gold 09:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, ArielGold & Old Moonraker!

So, in my first example above, if X adds to the article, "Joe is a leading biochemist," and Y deletes that addition, and X then tries again with a different phrase, like "Joe is a well-known biochemist," or simply, "Joe is a biochemist," has X done a revert? My guess is "no, it is not a revert." Am I right?

But suppose that X tried again to add the exact same phrase to the article: "Joe is a leading biochemist," after Y had reverted/deleted it. ArielGold, you said that reverting is like subtraction, but wouldn't this be an example in which an addition is a revert?

But, if so, what about this case? Suppose that X tries to add a slightly larger snippet of text to the article, which includes the phrase, "Joe is a leading biochemist." Perhaps it is the sentence, "Joe is a leading biochemist, specializing in peptides." Y reverts it and in the edit summary says that though Joe is a biochemist, he's not a "leading" biochemist. So X tries again, and adds almost the same snippet, but deletes the word "leading" to address the objection. The modified sentence is "Joe is a biochemist, specializing in peptides." Has X done a revert (regardless of his intent)? It doesn't resemble "subtraction," but several words that Y deleted are now back in the article. Does that make it a revert?

Similarly, in my second example, what if X tags an article "accuracy disputed," and Y deletes that tag, and X then tries again to tag the article, but with a different tag, say "neutrality disputed" instead of "accuracy disputed." Can adding a different tag be considered to be a revert?

Ciao, 71.70.174.217 10:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm getting out of my "comfort zone" of wikipedia knowledge, but removing legitimate tags (or indeed adding unjustified tags) without dealing with the problem can be a form of vandalism (abuse of tags) and therefore wouldn't count. The practical answer is to sort it out on the talk page, along the lines of your illustrative edit summaries: it's the same, but you do it before rather than after the edit! Best. --Old Moonraker 13:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I think that you're really over-analyzing it. In the context of people using the word "revert" here on Wikipedia, 99% of the time it means to "rollback" or "undo" a previous person's contribution, for whatever reason. (Most usually done in cases of vandalism, but also happens during edit wars.)

Don't get hung up on the vernacular, if you have a legitimate reason to revert someone's changes (i.e. "undo" their contribution, without typing anything into the article yourself), then do it, such as finding vandalism. If someone is removing valid tags from articles, feel free to revert them after you verify that the tag is still needed. If an "unreferenced" tag is on a page, and someone goes and adds in some valid references, they are free to remove the tag when they are finished. So be sure that they didn't simply fix the problem before you replace the tag.

Don't sweat the small stuff. You're obviously concerned about doing things correctly, and that's a good thing, but you're also worrying about things that probably won't end up bing a big deal; if you have come here to ask what reverts/3RR are, then I would doubt you're about to engage in an edit war, lol. Just don't revert additions that you personally don't agree with. If they are sourced, if the source cited is reliable, and if it is written neutrally, then there's no reason to remove it. If you see someone engaging in an edit war, or if someone else is continually removing your contributions, with no explanation, (and again I stress the need for using the edit summary for all edits, no matter how small) then go to their talk page, and ask them nicely to stop removing your edits, and request they discuss any issues they may have with the additions you've made on the article's talk page. 9 times out of 10 that will get the lines of discussion going and the issue can be discussed, rather than simply reverted over and over. Hope that helps, ^Ariel♥Gold 22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive my persistence. Let me offer a concrete example.

Editor X removes a {{pov}} tag from a long controversial biographical article.

Has X committed tag vandalism?

Editor Y then adds a {{TotallyDisputed-section}} tag.

Has Y done a revert?

Thanks! 71.70.174.217 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This should answer your question:

If the POV tag is under dispute (some believe the article is POV, others do not), what X did would be more like edit warring than vandalism

In the technical definition, no, Y did not do a revert. However, this would, in any discussions about a possible 3RR violation or edit warring, be considered a revert. The totally-disputed tag still disputes neutrality like the POV tag does. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 13:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm still confused. How can the very same thing be "in the technical definition... not... a revert," and also "be considered a revert?" It seems that it must be either a revert or not a revert (or else be a "gray area" or ill-defined case).

The general question seems to be, if an editor deletes something from an article, and another editor tries to replace the deleted text with new text which has different wording, has the second editor done a revert? Consider the first example I posed:

If Y deletes "Joe is a leading biochemist" from an article, and X then tries to replace it with a different phrase, such as "Joe is a well-known biochemist," or "Joe is a biochemist," is that a revert? It doesn't take the article back to a previous state, but it does restore several deleted words. So, is that "partially [going] back to [an] older version" or not?

It seems to me that these cases might not be well-defined. On one hand, reinserting a lengthy passage with just a token change "seems like" a revert to me. But, on the other hand, if just having a similar meaning and/or some words in common makes the new version a revert of the delete, it seems that it is going to be very difficult for editors to "try out" different variations of a passage without risking censure for edit-warring or 3RR. In the extreme case, if just having some words in common is deemed to make the new insertion a "revert," then if X ever again inserts text that uses the word "Joe" he could be accused of a partial revert.

So, getting specific again...

If Y deletes "Joe is a leading biochemist" from the article, and X adds something in its place, which of the following "somethings" would be clearly reverts, which would clearly not be reverts, and which are "gray area" or arguable?

1. "Joe is a well-known biochemist."

2. "Joe is a biochemist."

3. "Joe is a professor of biochemistry at Oxford, and holds the prestigious Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky Endowed Chair for Peptide Research."

4. "Joe is married with three children."

Also, regarding the gray-area/arguable cases (if any), I have a second question: If an accusation is made of 3RR or edit warring on the basis of such an edit, who should have the benefit of the doubt? The accused or the accuser?

I realize I'm being a bit of a pest. Please forgive me. I really appreciate your patience with me! 71.70.174.217 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Does nobody know? 71.70.174.217 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess not. Summarizing what has been said so far, and extrapolating, my best guess/understanding is that:

Ariel Gold would not consider either Y's tag insertion or any of the four "Joe" examples to be reverts, because they were all "additions" to the article rather than "subtractions."
Old Moonraker is unsure about the "Joe" examples, but thinks that Y's tag insertion would not count as a revert, because X's removal of the other tag could be considered to be a form of "tag vandalism." But Old Moonraker suggests that Y would be on firmer ground if he discussed his tag insertion on the Talk page first.
Mr. Z-man didn't comment about the "Joe" examples, so he is probably unsure about them, but he says that Y's tag insertion is not technically a revert yet could be considered to be equivalent to a revert in a 3RR case because the meaning of the new tag is similar to that of the tag it replaced. Also, he agrees with Old Moonraker that if X removed the previous tag without consensus that might be a Wiki-offense, but thinks it is more of a case of edit warring rather than tag-vandalism.

Is all of that right?

Additionally, though nobody has said so, I'm going to assert that "4 Joe is married with three children" is plainly not a revert, even though there are a couple of words in common, because the meaning is completely different from what X had deleted. But I guess the other three "Joe" examples and Y's tag insertion must all be "grey areas," neither clearly reverts nor clearly not reverts. Is that right?

What's more, since nobody has tried to answer the question about who is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt when one editor charges another with 3RR or similar on the basis of "gray area" possible reverts, my guess is that nobody knows. Is that right?

71.70.174.217 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

<-(UI)I'm sorry that we were not able to sufficiently answer your questions. I still think perhaps you're analyzing it a bit too much, and that you probably do not need to worry about it to such a specific extent. If you're in a revert war, I'm pretty sure you'll know it, because you'll be intentionally reverting another person's changes. The WP:3RR pages and the Help:Reverting pages are honestly pretty thorough, but they also probably imply that common sense must be used. If you want a hard and fast rule, then take it from the Help:Reverting guideline, that states: "In consideration of the harm of reverting, Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a very strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily." (obviously this is not applicable if you're removing obvious, harmful vandalism). I hope that helps. ^Ariel♥Gold 20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that repeated reverts are verboten, Ariel Gold. I also understand that simply deleting what another editor added is a revert, and that clicking on the "undo" link in the history to restore something is a revert. Those cases are clear. My question is, what else is a revert? If, after one editor has deleted something, another editor tries to replace it with something similar, is that a revert? E.g., what about those "Joe the biochemist" examples and Y's tag insertion example (above)? Does anyone know which (if any) of those examples are reverts? 71.70.174.217 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what Y is objecting to. I'd imagine 1. yes, 2. yes, 3. arguable, but probably yes, 4. no. But as ArielGold writes, you're asking the wrong question. The right question should be, what should X be doing here? And the answer is, X should be bringing the question up on the article talk page.

Joe the leading biochemist

I added text saying that Joe is a leading biochemist, and it got deleted. Why is that? Is the objection to the "leading" part, or to the "biochemist" part? --X 2007-08-28

Joe is a well known fraud and a complete waste of space --Y 2007-08-28

What? But this article from Micronesia Today says he led the ABC biochemistry project --X 2007-08-28

(and so forth, until ...)

OK, so we're agreed, we'll write "Micronesia Today calls Joe the leading scientist in the ABC biochemistry project,^[1] though Micronesia Tomorrow accuses Joe of improperly usurping that title from Fred.^[2]"

And the article gets better than if merely one editor had written it. Don't split hairs about interpretation of rules, try to get actual agreement from other editors. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C & P move

Hi. What is a C&P move when an admin moves a page without discussion in WP:Requested moves. Thanks Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 10:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry let me rephrase the question to make it clearer. Why is it that some admins move possibly controversial titles listed in requested moves with no discussion? Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 10:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 10:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10 main pages?

What's the purpose of having 10 copies of the main page? [3] -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 10:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It means that a compromised admin account would need to unprotect eleven pages in order to affect the main page. --Cherry blossom tree 11:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Is it acceptable to create a redirect from the adjective to the related noun? Also, is there a fast way of making wikilinks with plurals like this: [[word]]s that works also with word ending with "y" without having to pipeline it? -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 10:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good thing to create any redirect that people might actually search for. If you wikilink any part of a word then the whole word turns into a link, so if that's possible with a word then you can do that. There's no way to do it with more complex forms, though, since English isn't sufficiently standardised. --Cherry blossom tree 11:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So, one could potentially combine the two things and wikilink an adjective (without pipelining) relying on its redirect to the noun? But I guess that's just a bad practice; I'm not going to do this, I'm just curious. Also, where are redirect pages discussed? Can they be deleted even if the article to which they point isn't deleted? What is the appropriate space for discussing creation/deletion of such redirect pages? thanks -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 12:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are created without discussion, but I suppose you could suggest it on the target talk page if you anticipate a problem. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for deletion of redirects. It's common to link to a redirect although a direct link is preferred in most situations. Avoid double redirects. PrimeHunter 13:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] overwriting article; is this a candidate for RPP?

In vandalism patrol, I've come across an article, Aswamedham, that is being consistently overwritten with a similarly named topic. The first time, I restored the old article and requested on Talk:Aswamedham that the contents not be overwritten. I also gave detailed instructions for starting a new page; even for moving the old one if they felt their "Aswamedham" was more notable than the existing one. (Hard to say, since neither article offers any sourcing whatsoever.) The second time it happened, I left a note at the page of the registered editor who overwrote the article with the same request and instructions. This is day 3. Overwriting editor overwrote again; another editor added more. Nothing has been written on the discussion page about it. I've never encountered this sort of situation before. Would one request page protection for the page? Begin warning the editor for page blanking or unconstructive edits? Invite mediation? This a new one in my Wikipedia experience, and I would be grateful for guidance. --Moonriddengirl 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't have an answer for you, but I've put the page on my watchlist. The new material is probably spam. AndyJones 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear other people's opinions, but my first thought is that you go ahead and make the existing page into a disambiguation page by moving it to something like Aswamedham (TV show). Then you edit the redirect into the disambiguation page, create a new page called something like Aswamedham (newspaper) and post the text they keep trying to overwrite there, using a descriptive edit summary noting where the text came from to comply with the GFDL. Note that in writing this, I have not studied the pages to see whether the subjects appear inappropriate to have areticles at all. Little use disambiguating that which will be deleted soon after through some process.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would happily launch a new page for them, but I can't find any third party reliable sources for their newspaper. They may be out there, but Malayalam is Greek to me. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Overwrite #4. I've reverted it again. I've decided to hold to the blanking policy, which mentions "removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." I gave the guy a kind of cobbled level 1 warning at his talk page, with a specific offer to help him start a new page if he can provide verification. If he persists (and persists in offering me absolutely no response), I suppose I'll escalate warnings per policy. --Moonriddengirl 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wiki hostels free listing

About wiki hostels- i really tried to list our hostel there but there is no such a link to do it. How to list my hostel in wiki hostels? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haloe (talk • contribs) 14:07, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Please see external links. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making a page for a family member.

We are supposed to make a wiki page for school on our family members or ourselves. How do i start my own page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GiovanniPetersen (talk • contribs) 14:36, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Go to a wiki which allows this type of material and explore there. This is list of Wikis which you might provide you a place to start. You may not post pages on your family members on this site, as Wikipedia (a particular wiki) is an encyclopedia, and is thus only the place for material that is verifiable through citation to reliable independent sources such as newspapers, magazines and books, We also have a prohibition against people writing about themselves and people they know as that presents a conflict of interest. This goes hand in hand with our policy that material must be written from a neutral point of view, which is very hard to achieve when the writer is not at some remove from the subject being written about. If you write such articles here they are likely to be deleted within a short time after posting.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That school project seems to misunderstand the puropse of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site and such pages probably will get deleted. Unless that is the lesson your teacher is seeking to convey, you might want to suggest to your teacher a better school project, such as creating a Wikipedia page for a historical figure who does not yet have a Wikipedia page. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless your school itself has a school-wide or town-wide wiki, in which case you want to log on to that, not wikipedia itself. Kuronue | Talk 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Watchlist

Hey. If I click 'Clear Watchlist' will it delete all the pages on my watchlist or will it just delete the log of changes? Thanks. (Oh if it just deletes the log, do most people clear it when they have read through the changes so they know which ones are new when the next look at watchlist). Thanks Tiddly Tom 16:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It removes all the pages from your watchlist. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats annoying :( Tiddly Tom 19:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] names of God

What are the different names of God written in the Bible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.215.120.53 (talk) 17:16, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

This is the help desk, for inquiries about Wikipedia. You probably want the humanities reference desk. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This google search might help. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You could start by reading the Yahweh article and following links from it. Also see:

--Teratornis 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finding an item in OTRS

As someone not otherwise involved in the OTRS system, I once used Wikipedia:OTRS to get an OTRS number that was missing from its corresponding article filled out; however, it seems that the page has been repurposed.

Right now, I'm hoping to find whether proper permission has been obtained and archived with regards to the contents of one particular article. What would be the current procedure for doing so? (Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission is merely a redirect that provides no information on actual confirmation.) –Unint 18:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] workbook on stopping smoking

could you please help me source a workbook on stopping smoking i can use for my stopping smoking campaign —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.87.122 (talk) 19:01, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia - you might like to look at Smoking cessation as a starting point however, and from personal experience I can recommend the series of books by Allen Carr/ Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accents / special characters -- searchability

I recently created a new article for Tr'ochek, a heritage site near Dawson City, Yukon.

The correct spelling for the place is actually Tr’ochëk (note accent on the "e"). When I created the article, I did not use the accent. When the article was published to Wikipedia, the accent "magically" appeared in the article's title. How did this happen?

Accents also seem to affect your search function. Type in Tr'ochek (no accent) and you get a "No page with that title exists" message. I assume that most Wiki users won't enter special characters when conducting a search.

How do you normally deal with special characters in article titles? 207.189.243.118 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special characters. --Silver Edge 20:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't access new account

Yesterday I created an account with username "orrice" specifying password (strong, but including a space in the middle) and email account. I then was unable to log on to this account, with "incorrect password or confirmation code" message. Today I tried again, with same result. I asked for a new password, but the error message said there was no email address associated with orrice. I then created a new account with the same username, password, and email. Again I couldn't log in--same error message. I then asked for a new password, same result as yesterday. What am I doing wrong?

Since I don't know how to reach the Help Desk page, please let me know so I can read your reply.

70.20.174.126 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:30, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ExtraWP help (Firefox search engine plug in need)

This is an odd request. I would like to add the Encyclopedia of Chicago search engine plug in to my Firefox browser so that I can better serve WP:CHICAGO as its director. I don't know how to create it at http://mycroft.mozdev.org/ Can someone help me out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this --h2g2bob (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added it here using their nifty form. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internal co-linking possible?

Hi everyone. Just made a small addition to the "Structure" sub-heading 0f the Odyssey article. I mentioned the fact that the in media res style was later also used by Alexander Pope and, on searching, noticed that, whilst there was an article on his mock-heroic style, there were no references to the equally-common synonynmous label of "mock-epic". Do you consider this important and, if so, is it possible to link the two terms to 'point' to the explicating artucle on mock-heroic? Tamsyn 23:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I added your post to the Odyssey talk page since it may receive a better answer there. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism

When I revert someone's edits, how do I identify it as vandalism? Is there a button that I need to click? Or do I type it into the edit summary box? Thanks. Oidia (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Reverting. --Silver Edge 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.