Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 26 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 28 > |
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. |
Obtaining An "Account" here. Wondered if I am too anonymous to create an account here... What range of errors might I be making?
Regards, Nicolo
I am trying to augment Template:BillsFirstPick with a Template:NFL First Round Draft Pick template list, but it won't show. What is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger ( talk • contribs)
Hi,
I created a page twice on Wikipedia titled "Stink Records".
I initially created the page to mark the beginning of the worlds first internet only record label, and the significance of this is that this is the first time it has been done.
The details were added to the Wiki website and approximately 30 seconds after intial insert, they had been deleted. The reasons citied were that Wiki couldnt see why the page was significant, the page contained advertisement and the username I signed up with constitued advertising.
So, I edited the information to remove all advertisement, I explained clearly why Stink Records was significant and I even changed my username, and once again my page has been deleted.
Wiki is supposed to be an information sharing website. I cant see how that is the case when my page keeps being deleted. I appreciate the first time I was in breach of the rules, but your own rules also state you can rework the page and resubmit it, so I did, and you have deleted it again.
Please could you give me an idea why my page was deleted.
Thanks
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithster1001 ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
To find the specific reason a particular page was deleted:
Dear Sirs,
How do I clear past searches on Wikipedia from my computer?
Thank you for your time and explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylv9di ( talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Does someone know where in our naming conventions it says that the name of a person whose first name is like A. J. Hawk or O. J. Simpson should have a space in between the two letters? Personally, and this goes along with all the sources I found, A. J. Hawk should be titled as A.J. Hawk, but a fellow Wikipedian pointed out that their was a policy that says the first name should have a space. Now I know I probably read right past it, but does anyone know where it says this in our Naming conventions? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Moved question to WP:RD/S#medical PeterSymonds | talk 09:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
About three or four days ago a brilliant feature was added to diffs which was a thin red box around changes so they could be easily seen. This was great when the changes were miniscule like an extra space or a comma or full stop. Then, as miraculous as they appeared, they've gone! I've searched through preferences in the hope that I'd find it again but without any joy. Does anyone know anything about this and whether I can turn it back on? Thanks PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
risk assessment is consired to be an extremely difficult exercise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.64.46 ( talk) 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I recently installed twinkle into my monobook.js page. It doesn't seem to be working. Could someone fix it for me?-- Digging ( talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have the habit of chewing 6 to 8 betel leaves a day. I am 43 year old lady. I sometimes finish one small packet of betel nut a day. I am worried as I have become a addict and I can't resist from chewing. I a terribly worried whether it will leas to any kind of problem. Kindly help me out with your general answers.
Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.96.114 ( talk) 18:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We cannot offer medical advice. Please see
the medical disclaimer. Contact your
General Practitioner.......
Dendodge.
Talk
Help
20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is a user sockpuppeteering if they are close to violating the 3RR as an IP, then log in and do the same again?...... Dendodge. Talk Help 19:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from the German Wikipedia and we're discussing the "should IPs be able to create new articles"-topic again. IPs can still create new articles on de while it's not possible anymore on en. I tried to find some reliable data or discussions about the results of your policy. But I couldn't find anything. -- Davidlud ( talk) 20:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, this is very helpful. It's interesting to see the arguments presented on Wikipedia:The benefits of not requiring account creation on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:The benefits of requiring account creation on Wikipedia. But, of course, we discuss very similar arguments on de. So, I was also wondering if you have any data about the effects of your new policy. E.g.:
-- Davidlud ( talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec):The impetus for the change was the Seigenthaler incident. When an attempt was made in December 2007 to go back to letting IP editors create new articles, for a trial length of time (30 days?), the attempt included a proposal to gather statistics to see the impact of the change. But there was no agreement on what kind of statistics to gather, nor how they would be interpreted; that was one factor in why the attempt failed.
Cool, thank you! I think I agree with everything you said: Of course it's hard to measure "article quality" and you never know if other Wikipedians care about your data. Most Wikipedians on de think that IPs should be able to create new articles. The main argument is that it seems to be the wrong method to fight a real problem (vandalism). You already mentioned that vandalism in new articles is not a huge problem - vandalism in existing articles is worse. And I'm not sure if the hoax argument / Seigenthaler incident is convincing: If you really want to create a hoax, you will create an account as well. It might even get harder to discover a hoax, because people are more suspicious when they read a new article which was created by an IP. So I'm not sure about the benefits of blocking IP article creation. But, of course, there might exist benefits ;). -- Davidlud ( talk) 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) If you are interested in the impact of requiring logins for creating new pages, the English Wikipedia has 6,850,295 articles now, and even before I would try to determine whether pace of new article creation changed as a result of requiring logins, I can tell you that the rate of new article creation on Wikipedia remains high. One might argue that the rate is too high, given the low number of high-quality articles. For every article that reaches good or featured status, we probably gain at least 100 new articles which aren't so good, and we don't have nearly enough skilled editors to fix them all soon. (I'm glad there is no deadline.) The English Wikipedia remains much better at attracting users who want to create new articles than users who want to gain the level of editing experience necessary to improve existing articles up to featured quality. Also, we delete an appalling number of articles, many if not most of which seem to be attempts by relatively inexperienced users. I consider it an ergonomic shortcoming that Wikipedia somehow gives lots of people the idea to create entirely new articles, and that becomes their incentive to create an account and dive straight into what is clearly one of the more difficult editing challenges here: creating new articles that "stick." It would be better if we somehow fired the new users' imaginations to improve our existing articles, but that is hard for a new user to comprehend, whereas anyone can notice that an article is missing when they search for it. -- Teratornis ( talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it normal to get a article as unimportant local player and former "succesful" U-11 indoor soccer tournament player? see Stiven_Petruševski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.49.64.24 ( talk) 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Moebiusuibeom-en here, Wikipedia editor and contributor, am I in the right place?, haven't the vaguest idea but I've been trying to get to find the right place for the last six hours with no luck, I'm not very protocol savvy and have a problem logging in!! I have emptied my Cache and Cookie folder as asked and somehow i can now edit but cannot Log in, among many messages I'm getting; "Log in error: Wikipedia uses cookies to log in users. You have cookies disabled. Please enable them and try again.", but I'm continually getting "cookies" (whoever invented this?) disabled, I do what is asked with no avail, other notices I've gotten; "You logged in with a temporary e-mailed code. To finish logging in, you must set a new password here:" but link seems to be inoperative.
I'm I being blocked?!
My operating system is a magnificent vintage Mac OS 9.2, please, please someone help!!
Kind regards xxxxxxx alias Moebiusuibeom-en 64.237.165.247 ( talk) 22:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The main page says: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Some users, however, say "...our article states..." What do they mean by "our"? Does the Wikipedia "belong" to or is it "possessed" by a certain group of people, since it can be downloaded as if belonging to anyone and everyone and can be edited as if belonging to anyone and everyone and donated to as if belonging to anyone and everyone. So what gives with this "...our article says..." stuff? Also what is the difference between a "user" and an "editor" since all signatures are prefixed by "User:"? 71.100.11.39 ( talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The English language is ambiguous here. A person might say "my country," "my school," or "my employer" without implying that he or she owns the country, school, or employer, respectively. In those cases, the "possessive" pronoun does not really imply possession, but rather it implies an association with. A person should correctly say something like "the country I inhabit," "the school I attend," "the company which employs me," but few people do and generally the hearer must use his or her life experience to parse the meaning of the misleading possessive pronoun. This linguistic imprecision is of course one of the reasons why computers do not yet consistently pass the Turing test. Programs like Cyc rely on vastly detailed ontologies to describe the many distinct types of relationship that a given word can indicate in different contexts. Trying to write such programs makes it clear just how much detailed knowledge a human has to absorb and internalize while growing up to make sense of everyday natural language. On Wikipedia, our prior knowledge doesn't resolve all the ambiguities of all the everyday words that Wikipedia reuses in some specialized technical sense. -- Teratornis ( talk) 05:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The differences between styles at different heading levels seems very subtle, and I tend to go back and forth from the text and the content window at the top. Is it possible to indent and/or number the headings according to the outline style of the content window? Alternatively, there is a wasted strip on the left that might be used as a frame to keep the outline in view. I usually hate frames but am still interested to offer up this idea because the outline is very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaqry ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Help desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 26 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 28 > |
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. |
Obtaining An "Account" here. Wondered if I am too anonymous to create an account here... What range of errors might I be making?
Regards, Nicolo
I am trying to augment Template:BillsFirstPick with a Template:NFL First Round Draft Pick template list, but it won't show. What is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger ( talk • contribs)
Hi,
I created a page twice on Wikipedia titled "Stink Records".
I initially created the page to mark the beginning of the worlds first internet only record label, and the significance of this is that this is the first time it has been done.
The details were added to the Wiki website and approximately 30 seconds after intial insert, they had been deleted. The reasons citied were that Wiki couldnt see why the page was significant, the page contained advertisement and the username I signed up with constitued advertising.
So, I edited the information to remove all advertisement, I explained clearly why Stink Records was significant and I even changed my username, and once again my page has been deleted.
Wiki is supposed to be an information sharing website. I cant see how that is the case when my page keeps being deleted. I appreciate the first time I was in breach of the rules, but your own rules also state you can rework the page and resubmit it, so I did, and you have deleted it again.
Please could you give me an idea why my page was deleted.
Thanks
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithster1001 ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
To find the specific reason a particular page was deleted:
Dear Sirs,
How do I clear past searches on Wikipedia from my computer?
Thank you for your time and explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylv9di ( talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Does someone know where in our naming conventions it says that the name of a person whose first name is like A. J. Hawk or O. J. Simpson should have a space in between the two letters? Personally, and this goes along with all the sources I found, A. J. Hawk should be titled as A.J. Hawk, but a fellow Wikipedian pointed out that their was a policy that says the first name should have a space. Now I know I probably read right past it, but does anyone know where it says this in our Naming conventions? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Moved question to WP:RD/S#medical PeterSymonds | talk 09:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
About three or four days ago a brilliant feature was added to diffs which was a thin red box around changes so they could be easily seen. This was great when the changes were miniscule like an extra space or a comma or full stop. Then, as miraculous as they appeared, they've gone! I've searched through preferences in the hope that I'd find it again but without any joy. Does anyone know anything about this and whether I can turn it back on? Thanks PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
risk assessment is consired to be an extremely difficult exercise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.64.46 ( talk) 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I recently installed twinkle into my monobook.js page. It doesn't seem to be working. Could someone fix it for me?-- Digging ( talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have the habit of chewing 6 to 8 betel leaves a day. I am 43 year old lady. I sometimes finish one small packet of betel nut a day. I am worried as I have become a addict and I can't resist from chewing. I a terribly worried whether it will leas to any kind of problem. Kindly help me out with your general answers.
Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.96.114 ( talk) 18:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We cannot offer medical advice. Please see
the medical disclaimer. Contact your
General Practitioner.......
Dendodge.
Talk
Help
20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is a user sockpuppeteering if they are close to violating the 3RR as an IP, then log in and do the same again?...... Dendodge. Talk Help 19:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm from the German Wikipedia and we're discussing the "should IPs be able to create new articles"-topic again. IPs can still create new articles on de while it's not possible anymore on en. I tried to find some reliable data or discussions about the results of your policy. But I couldn't find anything. -- Davidlud ( talk) 20:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, this is very helpful. It's interesting to see the arguments presented on Wikipedia:The benefits of not requiring account creation on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:The benefits of requiring account creation on Wikipedia. But, of course, we discuss very similar arguments on de. So, I was also wondering if you have any data about the effects of your new policy. E.g.:
-- Davidlud ( talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec):The impetus for the change was the Seigenthaler incident. When an attempt was made in December 2007 to go back to letting IP editors create new articles, for a trial length of time (30 days?), the attempt included a proposal to gather statistics to see the impact of the change. But there was no agreement on what kind of statistics to gather, nor how they would be interpreted; that was one factor in why the attempt failed.
Cool, thank you! I think I agree with everything you said: Of course it's hard to measure "article quality" and you never know if other Wikipedians care about your data. Most Wikipedians on de think that IPs should be able to create new articles. The main argument is that it seems to be the wrong method to fight a real problem (vandalism). You already mentioned that vandalism in new articles is not a huge problem - vandalism in existing articles is worse. And I'm not sure if the hoax argument / Seigenthaler incident is convincing: If you really want to create a hoax, you will create an account as well. It might even get harder to discover a hoax, because people are more suspicious when they read a new article which was created by an IP. So I'm not sure about the benefits of blocking IP article creation. But, of course, there might exist benefits ;). -- Davidlud ( talk) 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) If you are interested in the impact of requiring logins for creating new pages, the English Wikipedia has 6,850,295 articles now, and even before I would try to determine whether pace of new article creation changed as a result of requiring logins, I can tell you that the rate of new article creation on Wikipedia remains high. One might argue that the rate is too high, given the low number of high-quality articles. For every article that reaches good or featured status, we probably gain at least 100 new articles which aren't so good, and we don't have nearly enough skilled editors to fix them all soon. (I'm glad there is no deadline.) The English Wikipedia remains much better at attracting users who want to create new articles than users who want to gain the level of editing experience necessary to improve existing articles up to featured quality. Also, we delete an appalling number of articles, many if not most of which seem to be attempts by relatively inexperienced users. I consider it an ergonomic shortcoming that Wikipedia somehow gives lots of people the idea to create entirely new articles, and that becomes their incentive to create an account and dive straight into what is clearly one of the more difficult editing challenges here: creating new articles that "stick." It would be better if we somehow fired the new users' imaginations to improve our existing articles, but that is hard for a new user to comprehend, whereas anyone can notice that an article is missing when they search for it. -- Teratornis ( talk) 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it normal to get a article as unimportant local player and former "succesful" U-11 indoor soccer tournament player? see Stiven_Petruševski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.49.64.24 ( talk) 20:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Moebiusuibeom-en here, Wikipedia editor and contributor, am I in the right place?, haven't the vaguest idea but I've been trying to get to find the right place for the last six hours with no luck, I'm not very protocol savvy and have a problem logging in!! I have emptied my Cache and Cookie folder as asked and somehow i can now edit but cannot Log in, among many messages I'm getting; "Log in error: Wikipedia uses cookies to log in users. You have cookies disabled. Please enable them and try again.", but I'm continually getting "cookies" (whoever invented this?) disabled, I do what is asked with no avail, other notices I've gotten; "You logged in with a temporary e-mailed code. To finish logging in, you must set a new password here:" but link seems to be inoperative.
I'm I being blocked?!
My operating system is a magnificent vintage Mac OS 9.2, please, please someone help!!
Kind regards xxxxxxx alias Moebiusuibeom-en 64.237.165.247 ( talk) 22:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The main page says: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Some users, however, say "...our article states..." What do they mean by "our"? Does the Wikipedia "belong" to or is it "possessed" by a certain group of people, since it can be downloaded as if belonging to anyone and everyone and can be edited as if belonging to anyone and everyone and donated to as if belonging to anyone and everyone. So what gives with this "...our article says..." stuff? Also what is the difference between a "user" and an "editor" since all signatures are prefixed by "User:"? 71.100.11.39 ( talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The English language is ambiguous here. A person might say "my country," "my school," or "my employer" without implying that he or she owns the country, school, or employer, respectively. In those cases, the "possessive" pronoun does not really imply possession, but rather it implies an association with. A person should correctly say something like "the country I inhabit," "the school I attend," "the company which employs me," but few people do and generally the hearer must use his or her life experience to parse the meaning of the misleading possessive pronoun. This linguistic imprecision is of course one of the reasons why computers do not yet consistently pass the Turing test. Programs like Cyc rely on vastly detailed ontologies to describe the many distinct types of relationship that a given word can indicate in different contexts. Trying to write such programs makes it clear just how much detailed knowledge a human has to absorb and internalize while growing up to make sense of everyday natural language. On Wikipedia, our prior knowledge doesn't resolve all the ambiguities of all the everyday words that Wikipedia reuses in some specialized technical sense. -- Teratornis ( talk) 05:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The differences between styles at different heading levels seems very subtle, and I tend to go back and forth from the text and the content window at the top. Is it possible to indent and/or number the headings according to the outline style of the content window? Alternatively, there is a wasted strip on the left that might be used as a frame to keep the outline in view. I usually hate frames but am still interested to offer up this idea because the outline is very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaqry ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)