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.
I'm feeling very frustrated. I know there are "superscript" notes like {{dl}}, {{main|articlename}}, and {{cquote|text}}. I've been searching for about half an hour for a page that gives a list of these templates, but I can't find one. What am I doing wrong? There surely must be such a list, since these templates are so useful! Can someone help me? David Spector04:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{main}} resembles several templates which belong to a group commonly referred to as "hatnotes" (see WP:HAT), although {{main}} is not itself a hatnote.
When I was a greenhorn (mid 2009) I would often come across strange templates, and sometimes think "that might be useful elsewhere". I made a list of them (off-wiki unfortunately) so that I could go back to them. Now, when looking for a template for a specific job, I go back to my notes; and if the one that I want is not there, I find something close, look at the template page, and check in three places:
in the template documentation, which often has a "See also" section
in the categories at the bottom
in "what links here" (found in the "toolbox" section of the sidebar)
If you know of a page containing an effect close to what you need, identify the template from that page's wikicode (say {{dl}}), and visit the template page (prefix the template name with "template", ie template:dl). Then go through my three ideas above. Note that "what links here" will show all the pages where the template is used for its intended purpose, so it needs filtering. In there, click "Hide transclusions" to begin with. Sometimes this list is still too long, so in the "Namespace" drop down box, select, in turn, "Help", "Wikipedia" and "Template", each followed by the "Go" button, to see what list pages might be available.
If you have a specific issue for which you wish you want to know the most suitable template, describe the situation here, and provide a link to the article in question. We should then be able to suggest something. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
how do i lock my own fucking page from editing here?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecaftnuc (talk • contribs) 07:32, 22 February 2010
Pages are usually protected if it is subject to continuous vandalism, and as per WP:OWN no one is entitled to own at least one article/page in Wikipedia. E Wing (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a page is being subjected to high levels of vandalism, a request for page protection can be made. However, this is not generally applicable for a content dispute. All pages (including user pages) can be edited by anyone usually. Also, as E Wing says, you do not have your "own fucking page". If you mean an article about you, then discuss it on the article's talk page. If you mean your user page, then you can request protection - but generally, only from IP addresses editing it; registered users would still be able to edit it. If you mean your talk page, it is very unusual for these to be protected. If you give us the page you are referring to, we can give more specific advice. However, given that your account had not edited before this question, and that the only other edit was vandalism (incidently, the commonly accepted answer is "no"), then this would appear to be a hypothetical question. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help with a new article: List of Colleges and Academic Departments of Human Ecology
I would like to ask for help to know what would be required to make the following article ready for the mainspace (I have moved an overly long list from the Human ecology article to a new userspace subpage): User:DoctorW/List of Colleges and Academic Departments of Human Ecology. I've been an editor on Wikipedia a long time, but I haven't done this specific thing before. Please comment on the article's Talk page. And feel free to edit the article! Thank you. -DoctorW07:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, for such questions, we have Wikipedia:Peer review, a.k.a. "article review".
Regarding your specific case: I can imagine that many people may want to find where they can study Human Ecology, but unfortunately Wikipedia isn't the right place for such a list; we have a principle that "Wikipedia is not a directory". Unfortunately, that page doesn't say anything about where else to put such directory information. Does anyone else have a good idea? — Sebastian17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appropedia might be an, uh, appropriate wiki for your list. See Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. The main problem with the list in your user subpage is the large number of external links. Wikipedia lists should link only to Wikipedia articles. If the various departments of human ecology are not notable enough for articles of their own, or at least for their own sections within the parent university articles, editors might object to your list on that basis. --Teratornis (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention another way to add this type of information to Wikipedia: put it on a map. See for example Commons:Category:Maps of the United States, which shows lots of maps listing lots of detailed information that might attract criticism if it appeared in text form. You could draw a map showing where all the human ecology departments are, and list them in the file description on Commons. You can create base maps with programs such as Quantum GIS and annotate them with Inkscape. --Teratornis (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sirs/Madam:
I have created a new article in Wikipidea. But I cannot access to it from the "google box". I mean that common researchers will not be able to see it under wikipedia from google box. what to do?
Mostreal (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I beleive (if not mistaken) that Google updates every week, so the new page should appear on the search browser in about a weeks time. Any other thoughts out there? Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my standard reply when this question is asked: We are here to build an encyclopedia not engage in a Google page ranking contest. The article needs some more work - I am a lawyer, but from reading the article as it is now, I have no idea what the term actually means or how it is used. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any review on Talk:Africa (Petrarch) that says it has been rated B-class for the Military history WikiProject. There is a listing of criteria for B-class status and comments saying it fails 2 of the 5 criteria.
The template parameters do have "class=B", however the documentation at Template:WPMILHIST says that all criteria for B-class status must be met in the template (e.g. "B-Class-1=yes") for the template to show a B-class rating. --Mysdaaotalk14:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Looks like you are referring to the Military history WikiProject banner. Looking at the instructions for {{WPMILHIST}} leads you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment. The template has the parameters for the B-Class checklist, but not all the requirements are set to yes. For example: B-Class-1 is set to no, therefore the article does not meet the B class requirements. Eith set all the requirements to yes (if they are met) or delete those parameters and let the class parameter set it to B. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk14:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the B-class checklist parameters will show "not checked" next to each criteria, and the template will still show start-class. As the documentation at Template:WPMILHIST says, "B-Class checklist ... must be completed to allow a "B-Class" rating". These parameters have to be set to yes to display B-class status in the template. --Mysdaaotalk14:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to create a wikipedia for a Disc Jockey known as Lazy G and his music event that goes by the name of Elektro Soundklash.
I started a page explaining who he is and what he does and it was deleted.
This page was not intended to advertise the event in any way, is there a reason for it being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazeboid (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few reasons that could be why your article has been deleted - another article about the same subject but with a slightly different title may exist, your article may have been considered to be vandalism, or it could be something else. Anyway, if you want to create an article from scratch, a good thing to do would be to visit here for a bit of guidance and also details on how you should write your article. You could also visit this page too. These two links might also give your more reasons as to why your article has been deleted. Hope this helps. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will be able to edit the semi-protected article Operation Moshtarak when your account is autoconfirmed, which happens automatically when your account is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits. Your account is old enough and has currently made nine edits. Make one more edit to any English Wikipedia page, including Wikipedia:Sandbox, and you will be able to edit the article. --Mysdaaotalk16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time updating Wiki, so I will identify myself and the page--sorry 'bout that. I uploaded all five photos on my laptop at home and the final photo--Teampeacock.jpg--did not show up on my laptop at home, nor does it now that I have reloaded it at work. It is in the Academics section of the Upper Iowa University page. Thank you. Sheila Miller
The "team peacock" image shows up for me when I view the article. Yes, left aligned images are generally not used in the lead section as it distorts the layout. Please also see the COI notice I left on your talk page. And remember to sign your messages on project pages like this one and on talk pages. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your conflict of interest message but tell me who you would recommend update our University page? Do you put that message on the hundreds of other Universities who have pages on your site, with tuition and finance information, student numbers, athletic achievements, photos of buildings? I noticed a nearby college just added sustainability to their pages. Do you think the common everyday person knows these facts or even cares to update them? Seriously, let's have a little reality check here. Tell me what is wrong with my page and how it is different than any other College or University and I will make the necessary changes. If not, please remove that OIC tag. Thank you.
You are apparently the university's "Director Editorial Services" - that gives you a clear COI. If you want to make substantive changes to the article, please leave suggestions, with reliable sources on the article's talk page. And please use edit summaries when you make your edits. One issue with the article was tone, I toned down some of the hyperbole and so has User:Alanraywiki, but it probably needs more toning down. – ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much I could say about you and Wikipedia, but will follow the rules. By the way, is NOT IN THE LEAD!!!! (the message you left me in my edit summary)respectful and courteous? I'll change my username and completely fool the general public as your team suggested in the e-mail you sent me, which I think is totally dishonest. Have a great day. Sheila Miller, Director of Editorial Services, Upper Iowa University—Preceding unsigned comment added by SheilaJMiller (talk • contribs)
It was in the lead - that's anything before the first section heading. I have no idea what you are referring to in your "totally dishonest" comment or the reference to the "e-mail" from the "team" - there is no team, we are all volunteer editors just like you. But, in any event, if you follow the advice in WP:COI and the other advice you have been given, all will be well. – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a lead is...I was taught all caps and exclamation points in print is yelling. My comment about "totally dishonest" refers to misleading the public by using different e-mail name so it appears I am not associated with the University, thus no conflict of interest. I would think it would be appreciated to have an expert updating our pages as it lends credibility. I will take another look at the content and tone it down and add the two citations you requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheilaJMiller (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between being an expert and having a conflict of interest. Wikipedia has many, many articles that are created and edited by experts and maintain a neutral point of view. The potential problem with a conflict of interest is that it can, understandably, prevent one from editing from a neutral point of view and that is why COI-editing is strongly discouraged. – ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I still can't see the Teampeacock.jpg photo, which was my original question. Waiting patiently for the big DONE Check Mark, Ukexpat. It's not a browser issue or I would not be able to see the other four photos. Is there another volunteer who might be an "expert" in this area? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheilaJMiller (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot help a lot on the technical part, but I looked at the article under both IE and Firefox. That particular image does not show up under Internet Explorer, but shows up fine under Mozilla Firefox. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Firefox 3.0.18 I see it at Upper Iowa University#Academics; in IE7 I see an outline, with at upper left, a rectangle conatining a red cross. If I go to the file's own page, I get the same result (photo in Firefox, red cross in IE7. This suggests to me that it's a file format that IE doesn't understand - despite the filename TeamPeacock.jpg, it's possibly not actually a valid JPEG image.
OK I think I have figured it out. The "team peacock" image appears to be in the CMYK as opposed to the RGB colour model. IE probably isn't able to display CMYK images. I will see if I can fix it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IE7, yes; Firefox 3.0.18, yes; although the colours seem a little less intense than previous, like a small cloud just gone over the sun. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, All! I appreciate your extra effort. As I stated before, I will keep this in my toolbox of knowledge as it has happened to me before. Note, I'm signing this note (see, I am trainable) Have a great day!SheilaJMiller (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My brother is a noted Macintosh programming author, and there are upwards of a quarter-million of his "how-to" books floating around the globe. There are any number of Macintosh applications that, to one extent or another, owe their existence to my brother's efforts. You get my point. My issue is this: He doesn't have a Wikipedia entry, and standard ethics preclude me from submitting an article. What's my next move? Is it unethical of me to initiate this process in any way? For example, I could contact his publisher and bring up the lack of an article, hoping that the publisher will move forward on a researched submission. But is that ethical? Is my only ethical option, as his brother, to sit back and hope that an independent party submits an article? Obviously I want to do this thing, as I truly believe that my brother is a significant part of the history of the Macintosh, but I value ethics above all else, so I ask you, dear reader, for guidance.
Images have to be uploaded to Wikipedia (or to Commons, subject to appropriate licensing) before they can be used in articles. Standard image advice follows:
If you want to add an existing image to an article, add [[Image:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information.
If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must find out what the proper license of the image is. If you know the image is licensed under a free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure what license the image takes, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to upload a picture from my computer (before creating this topic). I tried again, and it does not work for me. Why? I did exactly as you said and it is only redlinking. Is it the filepath (folder location)? This specific picture (also just an example and will not be used) is located in a folder that is in a folder on my c drive. I also tried again with the full path replacing the text you said to replace. This did not work either again. (and, YES, I am including the file extension. What I want to do is CREATE a picture that I can upload to photobucket, then place this picture (real image, not just a link) to wikipedia. I said this earlier "The intended picture has not yet been made." That should give you a clue that it does not yet exist anywhere. I will be makiing it if I can find a way to put a picture up here. Therefore, it does not have a license and is not copywritten. I have completely avoided putting up pictures just for that reason. Check out my main photobucket page and you will see lots of different photos there. I do not own those pictures and never stated that I did. I uploaded them, yes, from my computer. That is all. But wikipedia frowns upon unlicensed, copywritten photos so that is why I have NEVER put up a single picture here. Instead of telling me what I already know, why not actually help me? I have tried a photo from my computer and a photo from photobucket. Neither work for me. The link works but not the picture. Please help me. I just took a look at the picture tutorial. I saw lots of pictures. Every one of them as the format 'Image:filename.extension'. Not one of them mentions if the filepath is required or from where these files even come. Why is there so much non-English text on that page? It makes no sense to me to put so much foreign language text on an English language page. And I still have no clue what I am doing wrong. NewYorkeruser (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to explain the process as clearly as possible. If you created the image you want to add yourself (which it sounds like you did), then you must first upload the picture to Wikipedia's servers. Since you will likely be releasing the picture under a free license (or Public Domain, it's your choice), you should upload the image at the Wikimedia Commons, specifically at this page. When you click that link, you will choose a license, then you will see a form that looks like the picture on the right (click the photo to zoom in). You will navigate to the file on your hard drive where it says "Local filename" by hitting the "Browse" button. Then, you will specify the file's name on Commons where it says "Destination filename". This name can be anything you want, with the extension (.jpg, .gif, etc.) at the end. You will fill in the other forms, then hit Upload. Once you hit "Upload", your image can be added to any article on any Wikimedia Project, including here at the English Wikipedia.Only then can you use the "[[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]]" text to embed the image in an article, using the name you gave the image when you uploaded it.
In 1994, I was part of a small team that launched Discovery Creek Children's Museum in Washington, DC; the first children's museum in the country dedicated to environmental stewardship. The museum began by partnering with the 13 DC public schools. All of the urban schools had 50% of the student body receiving the national free lunch program. The mission of the museum was to serve as "steward of the rich history and natural environment of the nation's capital" The museum operated out of a one room school house and leased space from the National Park Service at a fee of $1 per year.
The museum saw (4) school classes daily (5) days a week during the academic year. Each class that visited the museum would return (3) times during the academic year so students would have an outdoor environmental experience in three of the four different seasons. We saw classes 7 months or 28 weeks during the academic year and from the beginning we taught 20 classes a week. That was 500 classes each year! The content taught was: stream ecology, ornithology, geology, hematology, botany, mammal studies, rainforest ecology and other environmental science themes.
The museum also pioneered one of the first distance learning projects by partnering with WETA public internet access, Journey North (funded then by the Annenberg Foundation) and the DC public schools. Note worthy is that the museum was responsible for getting the DC schools internet access. I know this because I directed the project. The project was revolutionary not just for the new use of technology to connect children with other children in the country and connect children with scientists in live online chat sessions BUT also because it addressed head on the socio economic digital divide that exists between poor urban schools which lack resources to new technology and those that are more privileged. A problem that plagues schools even now.
Not only was the museum's project featured in the Washington Post education section (Horizons) but I was asked to speak at the National Science Foundation to an assembly of museum professionals for the pioneering work I did integrating technology into environmental science education. Additionally, then Vice President Al Gore invited one of the classes participating in the project to the vice presidential mansion to demonstrate the project. The wide world web was in its infancy and the museum and the distance learning project were really out in front of the curve.
My article on the project was published in the Journal of Museum Education and then reprinted in a collection of best practices for museum education. See: Fawkner, LB, 1997, One museum discovers the web: Journal of Museum Education, v. 22, n. 1, p 12-14. Republished in: Hirsch, JS and Silverman LH (eds.), 2000, Transforming Practice: Selections from the Journal of Museum Education, 1992-1999: Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 348pp.
The reason that I'm writing to you today is because you chose to delete the Discovery Creek Children's Museum from Wikipedia. It said "advertising" as the reason for your deletion. I really don't understand this.
I'm extremely frustrated that you've chosen to delete from history one of my life's accomplishments as well as the hard work and passion of all others who worked at the museum with the commitment of promoting environmental science education and stewardship. This because you saw the inclusion of the museum in the encyclopedia as "advertising".
The museum was started by Susan Seligman who also started the San Francisco Bay Area Children's Museum. In 2004, the museum celebrated its 10 year anniversary. In 2007, it merged with Living Classrooms http://livingclassroomsdc.org. Susan died last month after a battle with cancer.
Frankly, I think you've made a huge mistake by not recognizing the museum's place in history. I am entirely offended by your decision to delete it from Wikipedia. I hope you will consider correcting the error.
I uploaded an article two weeks ago, and there has been no response at all on it. I have myriad citations, and it is about a noteworthy individual, so I know it does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. There has been no feedback, it has simply been ignored. How long should I wait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remmick2099 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking a generic question here as the first of a series of steps in which to decide whether a complaint is justified.
I realize that Say Where You Got It is not a Policy, but Verifiability is. A particular user who has edited (and often created) a wide range of articles has had complaints about citations. This user (I will NOT say whom; I wish this to be theoretical, and of course he may legitimately claim I misrepresented him) has very definite opinions about the rules. He believes in using encyclopedias, and is against primary sources. This is not the issue here, of course; it sounds fine on the face of it.
The issue is that the user's footnote list is full of quotations from primary sources. (No problem here, if he has seen them and used them properly.) When asked, he says that he is simply "wikifying" quotes from public domain encyclopedias (we will assume that this is what he is doing). He has not actually seen these sources. He says that I should look at the history page to see the sources.
One note here. The page will have several footnotes like "this page incorporates text from encyclopedia X", with many links. But in practice, one can not link many particular statements to a particular article, without reading every article in the footnotes, and perhaps articles elsewhere (as the text with the original footnote has been deleted, or maybe he forgot it).
So my question here is, does this violate Verifiability? Here are my claims:
1. The revision notes are not citations. You cannot expect another editor to link a line in the article to a particular revision.
2. I believe that this "wikifying" is illegitimate. The editor thinks that he has to find the original to disprove the citation, when in fact the citer never even claims to have read it himself.
3. The result is that one cannot question the citation. How do you put Citation Needed next to a citation?
4. People who do not want to cite everything may create a references section, perhaps. But if you don't, a footnote in paragraph A is not a citation for paragraph B (unless it is at the end perhaps).
Few days ago, Wikipedia started returning errors for some special pages (e.g. search) which said I need to supply a valid user-agent. The error went away for a while, and now it says:
"Scripts should use an informative User-Agent string with contact information, or they may be IP-blocked without notice."
Recently some unscrupulous folks were using Wikipedia's API for datamining. They use scripts to do this and most of them were doing it incorrectly, causing a major drain on server resources. Fortunately the scripts do not supply a useragent, making it trivial for developers to deny them access by forcing users to supply a useragent. Lynx should be supplying a useragent. My installation of Lynx (2.8.7pre6) works fine with Wikipedia and appears to supply a useragent correctly. Check http://www.wieistmeineip.ch (scroll down to about link #38) or http://www.useragentstring.com to make sure Lynx is identifying itself properly. If it is supplying a correct useragent, the first website should show your IP address, "lynx 2.8", and your country, and the second should show the useragent that was supplied. If it isn't there is a problem with Lynx' settings and this question should be directed to the computing reference desk or a Lynx support forum. Xenon54 / talk / 21:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the tech channel, this message is only triggered if there is absolutely no user-agent header. Please go to the website pointed out by Xenon54, to see if your lynx in fact is sending a user-agent header. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please remove the nastiness at the beginning of the entry for the state of Arkansas? I don't know how to do it but it's ridiculous.
JoanieSigal (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately vandalism happens from time to time by people who choose to abuse their editing privileges. In all likelihood it's been dealt with in the past five minutes. Xenon54 / talk / 22:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was told that someone using my IP address was editing the article Prince Caspian. I have never seen the movie. I tried to follow the directions given, but I could not get a reverse ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.203.14 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article was edited by someone using the IP you are using right now nearly two years ago. It was intended to just warn that user that his/her edits were unconstructive. Quite a long time ago though, please do not worry about this. But there is a solution, have you considered opening/ registering your own account? This will hide your IP from the public and messages solely entitled to you will come to you, and you shouldnt be bothered with stray messages regarding others edits from years past. Happy editing, let us know if we can help. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Often IP addresses are reassigned quite frequently, sometimes as little as every 6 hours. If the warning is from two years ago it is a near certainty that the IP was assigned to a different computer, and the warning can safely be ignored. Xenon54 / talk / 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
