Hello, I'm working on the article for Victoria band Nomeansno. I'm trying to find a picture of the band that can be used for the article, but am concerned about fair use/copyright issues. Can I use promotional photos released by the band as part of a press kit? If not, do you have any suggestions as to how I could procure an acceptable image?
Thank you,
Stu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StuIsCool (talk • contribs) 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You should be able to use a photo released in a press kit under Fair Use rationale. Policy states (at Wikipedia:Fair Use#Images) that There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead. From that link, you will see that promotional material is included in this, providing that a free image cannot be used. If that is the case, you will want to use the tag {{Promotional}} for the image. Wikipedia:Publicity photos also gives you good information. Let me know if you have any other quesitons, -- Natalya02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I am new to WIkipedia (listing an article that is) and I was trying to create one for our business. Our company is a second tier call center and online travel company (just below Orbitz, Priceline, Expedia etc many of our executive staff are from these companies). Our company has over 1 million customers in our database plus over 5 million visitors a year, it has been in existence for over 10 years and is present in over 152 countries.
During the creation of the article, I accidently hit save, before I could finish and resubmit it was already marked for deletion as spam (within 30 mins). I went ahead though and posted the new information (the new article was about 4x as long) and then went back and checked again a few hrs later. I saw that it was re-marked for speedy deletion, so (per your guidelines) I disputed the speedy deletion and requested a re-read. I went back expecting some information, some discussion, some suggestions, but instead there seemed to be no discussion and they did not seem to re-read, but instead the comments indicate the article was just deleted it because it had been deleted before. Maybe I am misreading something, but that is how it appears to me.
So I am confused, the new article was written in neutral language and in a similar method to others in our class. In addition, our financial backers are listed in Wiki, so added them as part of the article with links to their information. I might understand you not deeming us worthy if all of our competitors were not already in Wiki, but since they are I cannot help but wonder why they are approved and why our site is listed as spam while no discussion on its merit took place. What, if anything, can I do about getting our site listed? I appreciate any assistance you can offer as it took a lot of time to write up the article and I was trying to follow your guidelines.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Travelworm Marketing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelworm (talk • contribs)
Hi Travelworm Marketing, it is hard for someone working for a company to write an article that does not look like advertising or a press release. Perhaps you should ask someone to write the article for you, and you could get some practice writing on some other topics in wikipedia.
GB05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A senior user shamelessly removed all my info and no one says anything. But if I do slightest mistake I am flamed. How can we stop such losers from removing cited info? He always abuses my language citations.Vishu12319:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would discuss this as calmly and politely as possible on the article's talk page. You can maybe find out why the person removed the citations. If they don't respond soon, you can leave a note on the editor's talk page. People have removed citations I added because they felt that there were too many of them and it made reading the article difficult. If s/he was removing content, maybe there's a reason the content isn't encyclopedic. e.g. maybe they thought it was copyrighted content, or they felt it didn't meet WP:NPOV. The best way to find out is to ask. Hopefully the two of you can come to an agreement about what to do. There's no such thing as privilege from seniority here, so your opinion is as valid as theirs as long as it's in line with policies and guidelines. It's understandable that you're frustrated, but I'd strongly suggest being as friendly as possible during this process, since any rudeness is likely to be used against you later. I'm glad to help in any way I can. It'd be helpful if you can show me the diffs of the edits in question. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot | talk21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a terrible example of the problems of Wikipedia. You no doubt worked hard to put in your citations, and people shouldn't just take them down. And the idea that too many citations are not good because they make the article less readable is also poppycock. Citations add to the academic merit of an article--articles shouldn't just be somoeone's unsubstantiated opinion. Good luck, Vishu--Dr.michael.benjamin19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way that I can search wiki by edit date? For example, I just noticed (in the Portugal article) a recent (Jan 1) addition "One curious fact is that Satanism is growing." I deleted it. I wonder if someone logged in January 1 and added a similar line to several national pages. To determine this, I'd like a utility (similar to SQL) along the lines of: search for the word "satanism" in article edits dating from Dec 31 to Jan 2
But wiki's "help search" shows me only pattern matching (e.g. searching for "satanism") with no references to metadata (e.g. "...with edit dates in this range..."). Is this possible?
You can probably tell I'm new at this.
Thanks Peter H. St.John, M.S.03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only possibility I can think of, would be to download the datadumps, and set up your own copy of Wikipedia. This would require some time, not to mention disk space to do though... Another possibility, would be to look in the history of a page where you found vandalism, find out who inserted it, and have a look at the contributions of that user. For example, you can have a look at all my contributions, and see all the changes I've done to articles. Bjelleklang - talk03:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new page about a month ago Tree marriage and it disappeared. I cannot find the original text or history on this item. I also no longer see it in my contributions list. I don't think I was in violation of any of the deletion rules nor do I see history of it being deleted. Will you let me know what happened?
I find that hard to understand because the only topic that was discussed was a description of a paragraph to a topic in The Golden Bough which happens to be listed in Wikipedia The author of the book also listed citations where he gathered his information from. Perhaps that book should be deleted as well? Another place on the web doesn't find it so hard to believe. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073280/tree-marriageBruffner
I have informed Eagle 101 and asked him to comment here. It may have been done in error. But the best thing is always to cite some reliable sources so that the article becomes credible. The Britannica link looks good. I think you should not have a problem getting the article restored — Lost(talk)09:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised not to be able to find the deleted item in Bruffner's user contributions history page. I'd like to suggest that if he decides to rewrite it, or arrange for it to be restored from backup, that he submit it for peer review promptly. Is there a way I could make such a suggestion to multiple users (like, CC in email) instead of editting each user talk page? And FWIW, I commiserate with Eagle_101's deletion, the topic does appear patent nonsense, prima facie; however, there is real anthropology going on. One way to view Tree Marriage is the symbolic responsibility (husbanding) of an icon (a special sacred tree) practiced widely in antiquity (the Golden Bough is the famous original study) not unlike modern nuns referring to themselves as "married" to Christ. Unfortunately I can't explain this on the talk page of the deleted item. Peter H. St.John, M.S.15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the boost of support PeterStJohn, I found it a hilarious topic but an ultimately true one. This was my interest intially as I read that couple of paragraphs in The Golden Brough I couldn't believe my eyes and started to research further. The difficulty in being able to find the referenced documents that The Golden Brough citations left me with the ability to only cite and quote from that book. It was with the help of our local library I found one of the additional citations and was going to add it to the first I added when I found it missing. I hadn't thought to make a backup of what I wrote here so no way to resubmit. Anyways, have fun and try to avoid marriage to a tree (seems this goes on in some remote parts of india which im trying to find a "Real" reference to. HAHA) Bruffner
WP:DRV normally provides copies of deleted material on request (see the 'content review' section), if given a sufficiently good reason. --ais523 17:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I am more then glad to go ahead and put this in User:Bruffner/Tree marriage. If this is not nonsense, and is indeed a legit topic, I am willing to undelete. Just the article as given, looks and feels like nonsense. The topic certainly did not help! Anyway, if I did make an error, please explain that to me. You might also want to see our manual of style, for some ideas on how to write a good looking article. I am glad to be of help here, and if you have any questions Bruffner, feel free to ask me. —— Eagle 101(Need help?)22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Eagle101. I only left the article so sparse while I tried to gather more information about this wierd subject since the references are all quite old they are requiring some research in very old, rare books and periodicals. Hopefully in a week or two I will have a more complete version that will be deemed more believable. Bruffner
I'm not really new to Wikipedia, but I thought this would be a fast way to get input from editors more seasoned (and experienced with this kind of thing.) I've read the guidelines on writing about fiction, especially as it relates to this page I'm trying to clean up (in-universe and such.) But I'm having problems. I fully understand the whole 'sources beyond what (in this case) the player of the game sees, and no inferences from that' but frankly, I'm getting annoyed with it. Rewriting all the passages to make it 'out of universe' gives the writing a strained feel- not to mention repetitive. However, I do also want to know if providing references, I don't know, somewhat... absolves you of some of issues? Regardless, does anyone have some tips to make out of universe stuff sound better? Check out the article for what I mean, reference-wise and all. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with the article is that it continues to be in-universe. Imagine the Flood had indeed existed fifty or sixty years ago, and you are doing a documental about it. Check Goldmoon or Riverwind for examples. Try making clear in every paragraph that you are talking about something fictional, and it should be fine. -- ReyBrujo02:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first off, sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Secondly, for creating a new article, simply type in the article name in the search box to the left. When it tells you that the article doesn't exist, you can create it as prompted. Please note that not everthing is okay to put on WIkipedia, so check out WP:NOT to see if the rules apply. Otherwise, you'll wake up and your article will have been deleted. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'm sure it must be here somewhere in all your pages of text but I find no information on how to submit a writer's biography. I'm not interested in editing anything only submitting something. As I say it is here somewhere but after reading your site for the last half hour I cannot find it. But then I'm approaching 80 years of age so I am probably going too fast for things on this site. If you can tell me how in a handful of words I would be glad to follow your instructions.
thanks,
hunterb4
The easiest way is to type the name of the writer in the search box on the left and then hit Go. In big letters you will see "No page with that title exists." Below this will be a red colored link that says "create this page". You can follow that link to create the article. Please be aware of our inclusion guidelines for biographies. It is also not consider entirely kosher to write about yourself as this can create conflict of interest issues. I have left a note on the original poster's talk page. —WAvegetarian•(talk)15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is when there already IS an entry with the same title then the 'No page with that title exists' does not appear. What to do then?
Hi, I am from London, England, united Kingdom. I am very much interested in your site. I understand you are a television channel and I would very much like to watch you show live via the internet. I am particularly interested in watching 'The Oprah Show' since we are unable to view her show in London. Can you tell how I would go about this. Thanks my email details are as follows: commented out to prevent spamming I hope to hear from soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.115.253 (talk • contribs)
I assume the edit is this one. I don't think it's an appropriate link and there have been problems in the past, at least on Wikia, with many people spamming their own petitions on wikis in order to get more votes for them. An ongoing petition doesn't add anything useful to the article. Angela.19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an article on "Mackay Libraries". Somehow I have created it as 'User:Mackay Libraries' rather than just 'Mackay Libraries' & cannot locate the editing area to fix this.
You can create a new article by following a redlink (like this one) to it (edit one into an existing article first; if you type the new name into the Search box and click 'Go', you'll also get a temporary redlink to it near the top of the screen that you can use). See Wikipedia:Your first article for instructions. For more general information about creating articles, see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Tutorial. --ais523 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
How do I (or you) remove the two flags on my contribution?
I received a message that I hadn't tagged the appropriate copyright info on a picture that I uploaded. I think I've fixed that and all the other pictures I used.
But there are still two flags on the top of my article (and the article isn't found in the search window).
So how do I go about getting them removed and the article included in the search index?
Thanks,
Frank Tobe
The Glendon Association
The tags on top of the article you've been editing (Robert W. Firestone) are {{wikify}} and {{sources}}. These are maintenance tags, which will help in the improvement of the article. Wikify is a warning that the article doesn't contain enough internal links; this is an internal link, which links to the help page about linking. You can link a word by placing double-square-brackets around it: [[word]]. {{sources}} is a warning that you must provide your sources; if you don't, the article might not be verifiable and might be deleted. You can remove these tags by editing the article and removing the {{wikify}} or {{sources}} code that places them there, but don't do this unless you improve the article to solve the problem (especially with 'wikify', it's likely that someone else will solve it eventually, but you're the only person who knows your sources so please provide them yourself). As for the image's copyright info, it's correct, but I've converted it into a form that the image-copyright-checking bots can understand. --ais523 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
how do I contribute new words.
the new word is "catbiscuit",It's the round blob made when a cat pee's in scoopable,or clumping cat litter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.79.167.106 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
See Help:Starting a new page for information on how to start an article. However, you really need to note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You also should note that Wikipedia does not allow original research, and terms you invented are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please take care to source your work and don't add things that are against policy. Welcome to Wikipedia, though, and we look forward to your contributions! —Keakealani·?·!·@05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that, even if converted to png format, that all images are supposed to be as small as possible to keep low resolution. Ive seen the New Orleans Saints gold fleurdelis logo and that bigger image appears with better colors, not faded, not to mention transparency. And the uploader has obliged to the png format uploading since he got alerted of it. So why do you still prefer logos like the one now missing great RadicalBender that were 100 x 100 from June 2004? Thanks 71.99.87.24201:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images aren't necessarily meant to be low-resolution (for instance, see Wikipedia:Featured pictures). However, fair use images have to be low-resolution to avoid infringing their owner's copyright. See the fair use criteria for more details. --ais523 09:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
umm hi. i was wondering why sometimes images listed on a page like in the format thumb|caption don't show up in the page, and instead of showing the picture, they show a link that redirects to the page Keops198808:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that the image was one commonly used for vandalism; in such cases, any use of the image must be approved by an administrator, or it appears as a link. --ais523 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A cat What exactly do you mean? Using the syntax [[Image:Sleeping_white_tabby_cat_yawning.jpg|thumb|A cat]] produced the image you see to the left. -- Natalya15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the template you called existed. Either way, I swapped it with the CVG template and filled in the correct info, that appeared to have set things right. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for me to edit a category? I tried to add Chipotle to the "Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange" category list but there's no way for me to edit it. If I don't have the privileges to do so, how could I go about having something added to a category? Any insight is appreciated. Thanks!! Lollipop0901:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can. Just type [[Categories:Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange]] at the end of the article, or whatever it's called. Xiner (talk, email) 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a featured article which generates reams of heated discussion. In my naive newbie innocence I think that I could improve it and perhaps clear up some of the heated disputes. I'd like to take it and do a whole rewrite. I certainly do NOT want to then delete the whole article and dump in my rewrite.I'd like to put it out there and let the community incorporate what (if anything) they wish. Is there any way to do that? I COULD make up some other head ("the common misconceptions about x") and then let somebody merge (or let people discuss merging).
I know a revert is easy but I'm sure that my work would disappear all at once. I won't be suprised if most or all of it disappears gradually but then it will have been looked at. I think appending a rewrite at the end would probably also not be well received.
I recently had a go at creating my first template, in response to a post at Requested templates, however when I click "What links here," it gives a bunch of links that, alas, don't actually link there. I thought this might be normal, but I'm not having that problem with a more recently created template. Any suggestions? thanks in advance, Danielfolsom18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just read about doing a signature, and I wanted to try it out. I actually haven't seen what it looks like yet, but my real worry is the source code, could someone tell me if I should shorten it (or do anything else)--DanielfosomT|C|U20:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks, yah I really like what you've done with your letters there, I think I should try to do something like that.
Ok I need to find some fonts, but for now I couldn't resist copying you (don't worry I will change it eventually, it's not so much stealing as temporary borrowing). --Daniel()FolsomT|C|U05:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Legitimate question~ I really have never known! And I need this answer for a project I am doing for the Deaf And BLind. I have never played cards or any one in my family. I don't know where else to look for the answer! that is why I came to this page looking for some kind of infomation. How many cards total in a deack of playing cards? and how many of each kind?
I hope to get the Answer TODAY!! JAN13 2007~~
Can someone E Mail me the Answer? to TXANGEL4Real at aol com Thanks So much!! I know I sound like a looney bin!! But I am not!! I am a trainer for the Deaf Blind and need this for a project we are doing for them!
~~FingerJivinLadyFingerJivinLady
The primary deck of fifty-two playing cards in use today, called Anglo-American playing cards, includes thirteen ranks of each of the four French suits, spades (♠), hearts (♥), diamonds (♦) and clubs (♣), with reversible Rouennais court cards. Each suit includes an ace, depicting a single symbol of its suit; a king, queen, and jack, each depicted with a symbol of its suit; and ranks two through ten, with each card depicting that many symbols (pips) of its suit. Two (sometimes one or four) Jokers, often distinguishable with one being more colorful than the other, are included in commercial decks but many games require one or both to be removed before play.
hello i published an article called "tgup" it is supposed to describe the new unattended technology i developed for software applications on windows systems. but it seems not to be accepted by wikipedia. please inform me how i could change thist article to make it accepted. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ckislam (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
For an article to be on Wikipedia, it needs to be considered "notable" enough. For information on the various notability guidelines, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Notability. Feel free to ask more questions. -- Natalya00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't post articles about what you've done, unless you can make sure that all the information comes from sources and not original knowledge. So unless you've told someone about this article and you can cite it, it will be very dificult to keep up. --Daniel()FolsomT|C|U00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've edited a page from Articles that need copyediting, what do I do? Should I remove the copyedit tag, or leave it so that someone will proofread it? It's my first one so I'm not sure if I've edited it enough. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drupelet (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If you think it might need more work, you can just leave the tag on the article. Improvement is a continuing process, so people will look at it later, and remove the tag if it is no longer needed. --Sopoforic04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed the Jon Bon Jovi page requires clean up, and I don't have the required knowledge to do it myself. How do you go about marking a page for clean-up? I've looked through the help pages and can't find it. Thanks. Eastlygod03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's possible, and I can't imagine when it'd be a good idea. Is there some particular effect that you were trying to achieve? --Sopoforic18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of, I was thinking I could have on the background for a Illegal immigration template I'm creating. Hmmm... --Daniel()FolsomT|C|U18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's a bad idea. Loading images takes a lot of time on slower connections (several seconds on a slower dial-up, at that size, and longer for larger images), and we want to be as accessible as possible. Plus, if there were text on top of that image it'd be impossible to read. It's only my own opinion, but I rather like the nice, simple templates we have now for most things: they're functional and load instantly. It's a nice change from some web pages (like this one). --Sopoforic19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have this template, and I want the links to be a different color (all the same but different with regards to the standard color) - and I'm not sure how to do it, any suggestions? --Daniel()FolsomT|C|U21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain what you are trying to do? For example, by "all a different color," do you mean for all of the links to be "not blue?"
In that case, My take on that would be that it would be strange for an article to have a different color scheme than the other 1.5 million articles on Wikipedia, and that readers could be "taken aback" by your use of color. Please ask for more information if you need it! Root205:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I should have clarified; now that I read it [ my response] it seems that not even I could understand it! Okay, my interpretation of what you wrote was that you wanted to create an article with links a different color; i.e. yellow for instance. Is this right? Root205:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order to do this you would need to override the Wikipedia CSS sheet, which AFAIK you can't do for individual bits of text. In general it's always best to leave Wikipedia to sort out colours and styles, and focus on content. — QuantumEleven14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upload the article? Can you clarify as to what you are trying to do; i.e. put a word document onto wikipedia? This will allow people to give more specific feedback, more on how to exactly carry out what you want to do, instead of general procedure. In the case that you are attempting to do what I said in my example, the solution would be as follows:
1. Use the search bar to find out if the article already exists.
2. Add a page with the title of the article, and then copy and paste your document in. (there should be an empty edit box that automatically pops up, and a notice that tells you that the article has not been created; which asks you if you want to "create the article."
Hello I am new to wikipedia and I wanted to add this thing about the new DVD of the 24 tv series that came out yesterday but the page said that new members could not edit that page. Can someone please send me a comment about why I can't edit that page? I haven't edited any pages yet but I noticed it would let me on all the other pages I saw except 24 tv series. Thanks.
I stumbled on this article, which lacks any references and contains some confusing and perhaps inaccurate statements, and was tempted to edit it. However, it soon occurred to me that the article covers two issues that are not particularly related:
1) Construction of modern compasses and errors introduced thereby;
2) Making turns by compass as part of aviation instrument training.
What do I do to refer the issue of splitting the articles to whoever decides such things?
Best,
Jay Parsons
I suggest you look at the following: WP:SPLIT, for the actual splitting, and WP:SS, which discusses summary style and when to split pages. However, while the above article might be on two different subjects, perhaps it is better to just source and clean it up before merge, so you don't end up with bad stubs. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David Fuchs, and further suggest that you utilize the talk page to tell other editors about your intentions. Root200:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia´s code is easy but isnt there something like an editor for it like "frontpage" is an editor for html?
I´ve searched for this in many faqs. Am I blind or is it bad organized? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leontolstoy2 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If you're looking for a WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia (which I think is what you're asking for), no, it doesn't exist. If you're interested in contributing, you'll have to learn the basics of Wikicode, which shouldn't take long as it's designed to be very easy. — QuantumEleven14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,
I M Nikhil From India.I M a student of MBA First Year(Finance).As there are so many sectors in finance i m Quite Confuse Which is more Better For Me.So please Suggest me .
Plz Send Ur Views At
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. --ais523 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles (for the most part) aren't written by any one individual; lots of different people contribute. If you are looking for the person who contributed one specific fact or sentence to the article, then searching the history page for the contribution in question as Xiner suggests should suffice. If you elaborate on why you are looking for the author, we might be able to offer further advice. —PurpleRAIN20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to update Tracie Spencer's information on the internet because a lot of sites have the wrong info. on her. She is going to be releasing new projects soon and I would like to know how I will be able to make these changes and not have them deleted everytime it is changed. The two sites that you have listed are wrong as well. I look forward to hearing a response from someone soon. Thanks for your time.
(edit-conflicted)Having a look at the article, I presume the wrong information on Tracie Spencer that you mentioned is her birth year. Well, currently in the article there're two different references [1][2] which specifically state that her birth year is 1976, not 1978. If you believe the sites are mistaken, you need to provide a reliable source for the material you added, as per WP:REF and WP:V. Otherwise your information could be regarded as original research and will be removed. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you do not have a reliable source for this 1978 birth, it had to be changed back. Besides, I already find it hard to believe she recorded Make the Difference when she was only 13-14. Jjmcspooh23:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently joined the Wikipedia community. I use Wikipedia all the time now to look up general knowledge and even have it as my homepage. A month or so ago, I found out about a certain religious group and decided to look them up here, but to my surprise there was no article on them yet. I negotiated the pages on how to request a new article, and since I had information to help start the article, I was directed to the Wikipedia Drawing Board. I made my request there with relevant information on the topic, and one editor had made a suggestion to verify the notability of the organization. I gave published articles on the organization for notability concerns but have not had any other editors comment on the feasibility of the article. In fact, I don't think that many experienced editors monitor the Drawing Board to help these new requestors/contributors. In looking at the Community Portal, I didn't see anything advising editors to monitor the Drawing Board to help newcomers to Wikipedia. I have already posted a request for experienced editors to help the Drawing Board on its discussion page. If experienced editors could be informed of their requested help in maintaining and monitoring the Drawing Board, then I think this will greatly aid Wikipedia in the creation of new quality content. Please let me know of any way to address this issue on my talk page--cgilbert14:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was told my article on the "American Cornhole Association" was nonsense by several users. Many of those users have no idea what cornhole is. For those who don't check out the article on cornhole. Cornhole is not nonsense!--Sportman203:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking on your website you have many articles talking about bad slang terms. You even have one which refers the butt as a "cornhole". First off that term has nothing to do with the actual game of cornhole. I grew up in Cincinnati and I never ever have heard that term before now. Though most everybody I know (at least in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana) knows what the "American Cornhole Association" is. So basically Wikipedia is saying rude slang terms aren't nonsense but professional sports leagues are! What?!--Sportman203:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You actually created an article "The American Cornhole Association" as indicated by deletion logs. I have looked at the website for the organization, and I sse that the Cornhole(game) article has refrences from three newspaper articles. If you can provide a reference specifically for the "American Cornhole Association" and not just the game itself, then it would be more difficult for editors to remove the article. A possible reference could be a newspaper, magazine, or journal article from a publisher other than the organization itself. This would verify the notability of the organization and hence, hopefully, that it is not nonsense. You can also discuss the article before creating it on the Wikipedia Drawing Board. I will copy this post to you user talk page as well. --cgilbert19:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you might want to consider using the article title "American Cornhole Association" rather than "The American Cornhole Association". --cgilbert19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just got done editing the article on Seth Swirsky and the spacing is off. I need each heading to be left aligned and below any pictures from the previous section and I need this to happen without a bunch of extra spaces in between each section. On my IE this looks right, but on my Firefox, it doesn't. How do I standardize the spacing so that it looks right on all browsers?
Unfortunately, theres no easy way to do this unless you have a lot of copy that acts as a buffer. My suggestion is to remove some of the images; do you really need pics of the albums, why not just refer them to that page? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very good at navigating this site yet,but a user keeps erasing vital information from a page. How can I stop this or contact the user directly? Can we send private messages to other users?
Dear friends,
i have back pain nowadays.6 mons back i got fainted,and fell down.we consulteda doctor he told that the end of my spinal cord is little bent,and also he added that there was nothing to worry about.but now got that pain again.what should i do for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geeth168 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Did he say how long it would take for the pain to go away? If it takes longer than the doctor said, go back. If it's still worrying you, ask the doctor anyway. Wikipedians are not qualified to give medical advice. - Mgm|(talk)09:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. — Lost(talk)15:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I go to Wikipedia with my laptop and my home computer. On the God page, they show two different images and responces. And the amount of money Wikipedia has raised is different. Do different computers show different things?
I cannot believe the run around from one webpage to another one has to endure,simply to point out a translation error.This must be on par with the Inland Revenue tax laws in volume and complications.
All I need to say that "Sturm und Drang"is not "Storm and Stress". I should be "Storm and Urge"!
That would most certainly result into Stress! Like trying to point out an error to Wikipedia.
Email: (removed to prevent spam)
User Name: ixora
You can correct it yourself, you know. That's what the 'edit this page' button at the top of the page is for (and incidentally why there's no place to report such things, as correcting it yourself would be easier than any reporting method). If someone disagrees with you, they'll change it back, and then you can discuss the change with them (probably on Talk:Sturm und Drang). --ais523 10:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a link in the menu to the left titled "Contact Wikipedia". If you click that, you can get to a page with relevant info within about 2 clicks. - Mgm|(talk)13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page will automatically be included in the alphabetical index, and will be indexed in the search function within about a week. To add it to a category, use the [[Category:category to include the page in]] syntax at the bottom of the article. Note that the article, at the moment, reads a lot like an advert, and as such might be deleted unless you tone it down, and provide sources and evidence of notability. --ais523 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Zeratul, I'm on the job, but like with any WP space project, it tends to get backed up a little from time to time. I'm usually doing 1-2 reviews a day, so I should be done with the current crop within a week. As for where everyone else is, beats me. Maybe they have lives. ;) Dåvid Fuchs [talk • contribs] 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How/Where do I download a template? Do I need a persons permission to write an article about them?
I have contributed an article on 'Malladihalli Raghavendrasvamiji' it is complete. i want to introduce the photo, which i have one or two.
Please help me to get the confidence,≈ to put it on your wikipedia main page. next time onwards i will read thoroughly and do the needful. the above article is of my revered guruji. please help.. ÷ 02:25, 28 January 2007 User:Radhatanaya
As for getting the article on the Wikipedia main page, it must become of such high quality as to rated as a featured article. In many cases that is impossible because the article is about someone or something that is notable, but not so notable as to be able to write a long article. You can find out more about featured articles here: Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. -- John Broughton☎☎18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created a new article on wikipedia, and it does appear on "my contributions." However, when I do a search for my article by its title, it finds zero results. Is there a certain amount of time that must pass before it is "published" for everyone else to see? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filajoe (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes,it dosen`t happen right away, though I`m not sure exacly how long.Try again in a few days. If its on your contrbutions list, then the page is there and should be listed soon. By the way, external search engines often work better than Wikipedia`s.24.20.69.24005:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed someone has deleted a page called "Bline" because it contained nonsense posting about a presumably unrelated subject.
BLine [note different cases] is the name of a bus operator in my local area and currently does not have a page, how should I make such a page as the page has been deleted and protected.
Jobie2920:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening ladies and genltemen. I would like to ask a quick question. There is an article known as "Tien len (VC)", which i have been working on since last year.
I would like to make sure this article is in tip top shape. If anyone can provide suggestions on improving the article, that would be greatly appreciated!
Taking a quick look, I'd suggest making a note of your references - at least quickly, at the bottom of the article, and ideally inline - see WP:REF. You could also improve it by linking some more key words, as currently only the very start and end of the article have links. In general, have a look at some other articles, to see how they are presented, for ideas on improving this one. Hope this helps, Warofdreamstalk03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article seem to have too much bolded text? Or is it sufficient for the reader?
Astronomy is a very interesting science that leaves any interesting party with urge to know more and extra more all the time.
Talk about the sun, the galaxy, the asteroids, the comets, the black holes, the planets of the sun, and the planets of planets, the stars and every thing up there.
Notably we are in a thresh hold age of space exploration. All nations are looking up with passion of at least throwing something up there that can send back some information to earth.
When I hear of some giant scientific sites like the GALILEO, the NASA, the ESA, the JAXA, the ISAS and others reaching up there, am tempted to throw a stone up there by hand or sling to hit something and fall back with foreign materials on it to study. May be the former Iraq could have thrown a scud missile up there by now. These are great adventures.
How ever, one scaring adventure to be solved by these gigantic scientific organizations is the physical constant of the earth in its orbit. Logically the earth maintains its orbit due to the centripetal force of its mass being held by the sun’s gravitational pull.
Recently, I was determined to hurl a stone at the moon when my little kid piped near me, “dad that stone will not come back!” I looked at the kid with dismay and reluctantly gave up the mission.
The major scientific and social questions that came to my mind were:
Is there any system of control as to how many satellites, rockets, space stations etc is the earth loosing to the universe and at what rate and value is the earth loosing its mass to these space adventures???
In this avalanche of space age if every country is competing in releasing a rocket to space from its launching pad, will the mass of the planet earth still be the same in the near future years to keep it in its constant orbit?
Incase the earth loses its orbit due to change in mass and comes closer to a neighboring planet will they repel shooting themselves to other heavenly bodies or attract to crash into one another?
In either case no life will remain on earth but what will become of earth after then?
Is there any leakage of gases between the earth’s atmosphere and the universe as these rockets puncture the ozone on their way up there?
In any case there is such leakage is it environmentally friendly?
After knowing what is beyond the earth what will the people and earth benefit from these launchers?
Are these viable projects?
Could these funds be deviated to improve living conditions on earth?
Could somebody comfort the world by answering these questions?
Hi there John! The best place to ask this kind of question is at the Science reference desk, that's where you'll find all the experts on such subjects. I've also taken the liberty of reformatting your question to make it easier to read, hope you don't mind! — QuantumEleven12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now we'd like to create an article for OUTLOOKS TRAVEL
Now, Id like to think that with years of experience online and in media dev, that id be able to work this out.
But for the life of me, I cant figure out how to CREATE a listing, only edit one.
Please advise!
Thank You
AJ
(e-mail and phone number removed)
Please first check WP:WEB to see if it meets notability standards. If it doesn't, you may want to create a section on Outlooks, the article for the mother company. To create an article, go here: WP:CREATE. bibliomaniac1501:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that some articels are being deleted such as couter stike maps of game descriptions. This seem distincly unecycopedic. The more minute the better. I have wished that some topics would have so much more inoframtion on certain topics!!! isn't that the point of an encylopedia, the more compeduious it is the more people will use it the better the stoer of knoweldge it represents.JUBALCAIN09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on Counter Strike maps are considered unencyclopedic because they usually can't be verified with reliable sources (verification of information is a key policy). Also, including most of them would pretty much mean allowing map creators to advertise their work - something specifically forbidden in WP:NOT. And then, I haven't even talked about the maps that have such a small amount of players, they're not notable. - Mgm|(talk)09:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, verifiable is an issue, but apart from that, isn't everyting a advert for something???? Every theory/fact/paper is pushing something. As far as notable goes, would not be best to leave that to the reader to decide simply because its no big deal to u or me...it may be important to someone?
Theories and papers push a certain POV, but facts are facts. They push the truth. As for notability. That has been established to stop everyone and their uncle to make entries for themselves and their own ideas in Wikipedia. If it is important to someone (for example Counter Strike players) there's nothing keeping you from posting to Counter Strike websites where people who find it important can find the material. There's always someone who will find something important. But we're writing an encyclopedia. Not a compendium of every bit of info in the world. Anyway, verifiability is enough of an issue to not allow it. Verifiability is key. -0 Mgm|(talk)10:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am obviously not a famous person (at least not yet). Is there any restriction on starting a autobiography of someone not famous though?
Bleung2bleung09:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Billy[reply]
Yes, relevant policies and guidelines are WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. If you hang around and edit other articles, people won't object if you put your own autobiography on your userpage, but remember that being here just for the userpage violates the rule that "Wikipedia is not a free webhost". People who work on the project are given a little more leeway on what they're allowed to have on their userpage. - Mgm|(talk)09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in contributing to an entry that would shine light on a topic, based on personal unpublished experience.
I know Wikipedia wants everything cited; how do I do this?
For example, suppose I was the first person to start a certain popular trend. And, suppose the trend is interesting, but not interesting enough for someone to have ever investigated or published my account. However, I think my anecdote would be very interesting for people to know. What is the proper way to enter this into Wikipedia? (How do I make this verifiable?)
If it is interesting enough, you can convince reporters to write about it. Then you have material for a new Wikipedia article. If you cannot convince reporters, then your experience does not belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe later but not now. Hevesli21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you would rely on journalists as reference for Wikipedia articles. From that point of view, we might believe Judy Miller that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction." Anyway, I appreciate the response.
Wikipedia is not the place to publish original material. Material can only be on Wikipedia when it's already published elsewhere (in multiple publications that aren't related to you). Also see WP:AUTO, WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:N for starters. - Mgm|(talk)10:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most relevant policy - one of three core policies in Wikipedia, is Wikipedia:No original research. You may think that what you experienced is absolutely fascinating to everyone, or that you've invented a perpetual motion machine that really works, or any number of things that no newspaper has ever reported on. But Wikipedia isn't the total repository for all knowledge and thoughts (see WP:NOT); we've chosen to limit ourselves to verifiable information. You may think that's a mistake; perhaps it is, but Wikipedia is so fundamentally based on WP:NOR that there is essentially no likelihood that it will ever change. You're free to publish your thoughts on a blog or social networking site or personal website or a discussion forum elsewhere, but Wikipedia, perhaps to our loss, is not an acceptable place. -- John Broughton(☎☎)02:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/Archive/Jan 2007
on the background for a Illegal immigration template I'm creating. Hmmm... --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)