July 4 Information (Geography)

I can not understand the logic of article on the European national football teams. Why does the "UEFA European Championship record," the European Championship semi-finalists are marked bronze color, but in the section marked achievements simply as a semifinal, and profiles of players there are no notes on bronze awards. If the wiki does not know no match for third place does not mean the absence of a set of bronze medals. Two teams semifinal losers are awarded bronze medals. There is no match for the bronze - there are two bronze medalist. For example - Russia and Turkey were awarded real prizes in 2008, the magnificent ceremony was not, but the medals were awarded. I hope the problem will be fixed or will be made ​​public the reasons for the position of the wiki on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyBenoit ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in matters like this, so there should never be a need to make public its position. Wikipedia's "position" on topics should be the position of the reliable sources. If it isn't then the problem should be corrected by editors. The question you've asked is a very specific one about football, and you could probably get a more precise explanation or help to change any errors related to it by posting your question here. Good luck. - Thibbs ( talk) 03:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

hi i was told i could get on here and get a form for shared parenting. i can not find it can you please help thankyou

Jennifer Corwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mama2001 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. RudolfRed ( talk) 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello all,

I was doing some review work in AFC earlier today, and one of the users whose articles I denied (Ssimmons01) sent me this email:

<email text removed>

The user seems to believe that his article, located here, is licenced to him, as he asks for all copyrighted content to be removed. He has blanked the article and put another review tag on it (for some reason). What should I do? Thanks, Ath leek 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I also found a second article by him of the same subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bear_Lake,_Chattaroy,_Washington, and seeing as User:Avs5221 declined that one, I am also wondering if Avs5221 recieved the same email from him. Ath leek 00:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit for taking action on this issue. Would you mind emailing him and identifying yourself as an administrator and explaining things to him so he stops sending those emails to me. It would be greatly appreciated, Ath leek 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure, no problem. Please see the additional message I left on his talk page. I will simply email him and refer him there.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much! Ath leek 00:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Anytime!-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

However, there is one more issue. I am going to delete the posting of the email. It has "outing" information, and I will revdelete it. I know you might not have been aware of that issue, but keep it in mind. Cheers.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

That makes sense Ath leek 00:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I also received this email. Said I was making unclaimed allegations of vandalism and then listed off a litany of legalese. Also claimed complete ownership over his articles. avs5221^{( talk| contrib)} 01:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Consider the following scenario:

You want to go to the Dallas article in wikipedia.

1. Google "Dallas". (no one googles "Dallas(city)" )

2. "Dallas(TV series)" is the only Wikipedia page google gives you. (Fine you think, I'll just go through the disambiguation page)

3. Click on Dallas(TV series)

4. No disambiguation page. (you see Dallas (2012 TV series) at the top, you think, maybe that page will have a disambiguation page)

5. Click Dallas (2012 TV series). Dead End.

Frustrated you now have to go back to google and type "Dallas (City)". This time you will find the query you were looking for from the beginning.

The final kick in the teeth: The article is named "Dallas" what you searched for in the first place.

This experience is becoming more and more common as we have tried to move away from the use of Disambiguation pages in wikipedia.

Unless we can change google's algorithms which we can't, the well-intentioned policy of marginalizing disambiguation pages results in frequent "Dead End" experiences for users who overwhelmingly arrive at wikipedia via google.

This is not a complaint, I just wanted to bring to light this growing issue, I just think this problem needs to be looked at seriously by someone. I hope some diligent administrator takes up this cause.

To get a sense of the problem you may wish to add the Disambiguation Page to the respective articles and observe the change in traffic here:

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Dallas%20(1978%20TV%20series)

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Dallas%20(2012%20TV%20series)

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Dallas

Thank you 60.241.171.231 ( talk) 00:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Or, on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, someone like you could modify the disambiguation message at the top of any page to add further clarity for this "kick in the teeth". Voila!! Problem solved. Or you could wait to see if someone reads this and decides to do it. Cresix ( talk) 00:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you.

I was waiting for someone to make that response so I could paste the following:

In another Example:

Pretend you are a general user and attempt to reach the article on the object worn on your finger known as a ring. follow the links and see how many steps it will take you to find the article.

In this case I have actually intervened and tried to minimize the steps by adding a disambiguation link at the top of the first google result: ring(mathematics) but this was reverted by those watching that page in accordance with wikipedia policy.

Do you see the problem? 60.241.171.231 ( talk) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, we do. If you could fix it, that would be great! WP:BOLD Ath leek 01:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I am trying to bring light to what seems be a systemic problem, Any thoughtful input would be much appreciated.  :) 60.241.171.231 ( talk) 01:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It's not systematic, I have never seen it before and I work with disambiguation pages every now and then. You just caught a few errors. Remember Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone, including you, can edit. Ath leek 01:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia article on Dallas (the city) is the third Google search result (when I Google Dallas alone), with the TV series being second and a non-Wikipedia site being first; on Yahoo! it is the first Wikipedia result, and fifth result overall; on Bing it is the first Wikipedia result, and third result overall. I know that at least with respect to Google, the results ordering does change based on your search history, maybe the location your IP returns to and I don't know what else their algorithms uses. What I am saying is, my mileage is differing from yours significantly, and at least from the perspective of those results, the problem you've identified is illusory.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Interesting. I just dumped all my cookies and edit history and tried the same search and the results were quite different. On Google the city was the fifteenth result; fifth on Yahoo! and third on Bing.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I am in Australia and I don't get Dallas at all. I get only ONE result in the first page and that is the TV series, and in general I only ever get one or at most two results, I have never noticed five wikipedia articles in google's first search page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.171.231 ( talk) 01:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

If you know you want a Wikipedia article then you can use Wikipedia's own search box or add "wikipedia" to the Google search. Disambiguation links to articles which cannot be confused with the title will be irrelevant to most visitors to a page. We have no technical way to display different disambiguation links for readers coming from Google searches, Wikipedia searches, wikilinks, or elsewhere. An internal search [1] currently finds 1293 articles with ring in the title. Should they all have a link to Ring? Or should we examine Google results periodically and add links to whichever articles are currently high in search results for common words? Should we then repeat it for other popular search engines? It doesn't seem practical to me. PrimeHunter ( talk) 01:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

if the problem is just that you can't find the right page with Google, try using the Wikipedia search instead to find a Wikipedia page you want. RudolfRed ( talk) 01:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Sorry maybe I didn't bring the correct emphasis on what I meant, The current wikipedia policy is to remove disambiguation pages as much as possible. Users follow this policy but this results in the problems I have stated above, If a user attempts to find ring using google the wikipedia policy which is being more and more enforced, results in more and more dead ends.

On the wikipedia search engine: The vast majority of users do not use it and have no reason to believe it will give better results than google (which it generally does not). All I can say is this is how the vast majority of people use wikipedia. If the aim of the policy is to change their behavior that's fine, I believe this is not in fact the aim, the aim is usability.

I feel I have done enough on my part to raise this issue and I'm not really interested in arguing with anyone. I'm just trying to help. All I can hope for is that someone more active on the site sees this and recognizes the problem and investigates it further. I feel I have made it as clear as I can. Hopefully it will make a difference. 60.241.171.231 ( talk) 01:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

"The current wikipedia policy is to remove disambiguation pages as much as possible.": I wasn't aware of that policy. Do you have a link to the policy so we can read it? Cresix ( talk) 01:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

If it is not then I fully retract my problem report. 60.241.171.231 ( talk) 01:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

No, seriously, even if you have misunderstood a policy, I think we could benefit from knowing the source of the misunderstanding. Is it an actual policy, or something an editor wrote to justify reverting one of your edits, or something else? Cresix ( talk) 01:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I just re-read the policy and it seems to draw a logical dividing line between what should have disambiguation and what shouldn't, fair enough. however the idiosyncrasies of google (if we accept they exist) means the best policy might be that all articles should have disambiguation links at the top if there is any article with the same name. 60.241.171.231 ( talk) 02:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Can you please provide a link to the policy you're reading? Thanks. RudolfRed ( talk) 02:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Just google Wikipedia disambiguation policy  :) never mind. If the I'm the only one who sees a problem, then its not worth looking at it any further. 60.241.171.231 ( talk) 02:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Your refusal to reveal which policy you refer to is confusing but when you say "wikipedia policy is to remove disambiguation pages as much as possible", I guess you mean a guideline about removing links to disambiguation pages from pages with names which cannot be confused. For example, the first Wikipedia page in a Google search on "mark" is Mark Zuckerberg. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, that page has no link at top to Mark for readers who are interested in other people or things called mark but still clicked a link to a page called "Mark Zuckerberg". PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Here's the link: [2]

Thanks -- Vranak ( talk) 02:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

fixed. You were missing closing ]] for the New York Times. RudolfRed ( talk) 02:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Aaaahhh... thank you so much. Vranak ( talk) 03:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Long story but I'm going to make it short, last month I got into this huge argument with 3 other users, they kind of took most of my own posts out of context and kept on applying other policies to make it seem like I was violating them. This made me feel stressed and frustrated and it let towards an exchange of uncivil responses from both sides. It was mainly because they disagreed with the article being deleted or moved since I was planning on proposing a merger. The conflict ended when one of the users involved left a kindly written letter and told me to put the merger on hold for now.

A month had passed since then and I'm planning on finally proposing a merger this time but I'm worried that this conflict might occur again. If it does then I am planning on taking it to the Wikiquette assistance but I'm having doubts if my actions are necessary so I want someone in Wikipedia with the right expertise to review what had gone wrong with this conflict last month without having to get the other 3 involved just yet. Is there a way for that to happen? 119.224.27.62 ( talk) 03:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I think you could request a short mentorship relating only to this issue. From what you've described so far, though, I don't think there should be any reason to avoid proposing the merger. A proposal is a way to request input from the community. In the end I suppose it depends on the exact context here, but it's hard to imagine why any other editors would wish to avoid such a discussion. - Thibbs ( talk) 03:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear Team, When I was searching for information on " Lakshadweep", I found that the map of India was incorrect. It did not show the POK of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. As a result, the portion looks truncated. As far as I know, the POK is not in Pakistan, it lies still in India.

Kindly rectify the same. It is a National Honour for us at Inida.

Rajesh Gopalakrishnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.94.235 ( talk) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The map you refer to seems to be the same as the map in the India article. If you think the map is wrong, you should explain why on the talk page of the India article. Maproom ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I guess you refer to a region which is claimed by both countries but controlled by Pakistan. Your IP address is in India. Indian sources probably tend to support the Indian claims and maybe show maps with everything claimed by India. It appears Wikipedia follows the Line of Control to indicate who actually controls which area without taking sides in the conflict. Both countries claim areas controlled by the other. PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The map is used in many places and discussed at commons:File talk:India location map.svg. PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I've been checking my watchlist from my phone while my dad works on finding some drivers for my new computer. I keep fat fingering the links and accidentally hitting rollback quite often. Sometimes I can stop it before the action goes through, but sometimes I can't. No matter how far I zoom in or out, a rollback link always seems to be right up against the link I want to click. Is there a way to hide the rollback links on my watchlist? (I'd like to have them available everywhere else, though, since rollback is one of the few types of edits I can do easily and effectively from my phone if I need to.) - Purplewowies ( talk) 07:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Just add the following to your common.css page:

.mw-special-Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {
    display: none;
}

(from Wikipedia:Customizing_watchlists#Remove_or_modify_the_.5Brollback.5D_link). benzband ( talk) 08:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks! It was a bit hard trying to do it from my phone, but I did it; thanks! - Purplewowies ( talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia's File:Aerial Superhighway.ogv (used in the jet stream article) is accompanied by an annoying and irrelevant piece of musak. Should/could this be removed from the file?-- Shantavira| ^{feed me} 11:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree that it is annoying and irrelevant. If I knew how I would separate the sound from the image. Cresix ( talk) 15:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

what you need is a " demuxer" for ogg vorbis video, though a cursory Google doesn't yield hopeful results! Nik the stoned 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I created a page which was deleted. My question is 'how do I completely remove that page?' so that when anybody visits, nothing appears, not even the deletion notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.89.214 ( talk) 11:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The deletion log cannot be removed but the url will report a HTTP 404 Not Found error message. When external search engines like Google detect this they should remove the page from their search index. Wikipedia does not control when this happens. PrimeHunter ( talk) 11:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear Wikipedia. I am now ready to go live with my article. When I went live with a previous draft some months ago, my name appeared next to the subject name. How can I avoid this, and what is the easiest and simplest way for me to move my article to the live page. Thank you for your kind help. Maya Frida Barr ( talk) 11:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Maya, you have to move it from your userspace into the mainspace. That way, the User:Maya Frida Barr/ prefix will no longer appear. benzband ( talk) 11:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

See WP:So you made a userspace draft. You appear to have blanked your sandbox for some reason, but you can retrieve the text if you want to from the History of the page. -- ColinFine ( talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

A recent edit of The Anomebot2 forced the article Versatel building to appear in Category:Germany articles missing geocoordinate data and Category:All articles needing coordinates. How do I fix this? I guess I could just add {{ Coord}} to the article, but I don't know where to get the correct values for the parameters from. -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 11:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

File:Versatel Stuttgart (2008).jpg has camera coordinates. From there I used Google maps to find more precise building coordinates. 48°47′03″N 9°10′41″E / 48.78417°N 9.17806°E / 48.78417; 9.17806 gives [3] in Google Maps. PrimeHunter ( talk) 12:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I added the template with 48.78409 N and 9.17799 E and that leads one to the correct location when clicking on the link. -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi all. I can't create the talk page to the William Robert Colton page as The title "Talk:William Robert Colton" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*colton.*... Anyone know where this blacklist is and where I can make requests to change it? Doesn't appear on either the Meta spam blacklist or the Wikipedia one... Nik the stoned 12:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I have created Talk:William Robert Colton. I guess you have chosen en-GB as language at Special:Preferences. This is not recommended because many interface messages have only been customized for the default en. If you switch to that then you get links to the right pages. .*colton.* is at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. The links in your post are for external links and not for Wikipedia page names. PrimeHunter ( talk) 13:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You talking about the meta-wiki link? I've only ever seen them like that, how else would it look? The interface message also looked fine to me lol - what should I have seen? Cheers, Nik the stoned 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating the page also!! Nik the stoned 14:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:W_Colton&action=edit&uselang=en-gb and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:W_Colton&action=edit&uselang=en (admins can create the pages and don't see the difference). The latter is shown to users who haven't changed away from en in preferences. There are many other interface messages where en has been customized and en-gb has not. Help:Preferences says: It is not recommended to select "en-GB - British English" or "en-CA - Canadian English" at the language option in preferences. (I added it). PrimeHunter ( talk) 18:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I was wanting to create a Japanese section for Andy Griffith due to his recent death, but I'm not sure how I would go about creating the separate language edition of it. Any tips? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefiberoptics ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Assuming you can indeed read & write Japanese, just head over to the same page on the Japanese wikipedia and create it! Here's a link: Andy Griffith. Cheers, Nik the stoned 12:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Translate us is supposed to help you with this, but it's not yet very useful. You could have a look anyway. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

See jp:アンディ・グリフィス, which Bluefiberoptics created because of what s/he was told here. Nyttend ( talk) 22:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I am DAVID RUBINGER. Wikipedia used a picture of someone else in the biography of me. I find this affects me in many unfavorable ways and ask you to rectify this immediately. If you wish, I shall provide you with a photo which is REALLY me. Please inform me how to go about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.154.143 ( talk) 13:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I've taken it out. If we need to put it back the ref is still in the history, of course. Britmax ( talk) 14:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi David. If you own a photo of yourself to which you own the copyright, and which you are willing to release under an appropriate licence, then the simplest thing to do is upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Use the Commons Upload Wizard and it should be fairly straightforward. It can then be used in the article. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Could someone take a look at 2012 NCAA Division I baseball season? I tried to tag it with {{ context}}, using Twinkle, and all manner of odd things happened. Twinkle gave me an error message once, so I tried again, so two edits were recorded. The second edit shows up in my watchlist as having added 24,431 characters, but in the article history and in the diff it's clear it added none. The template's also showing up oddly on the page. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 13:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The refs show "Node-count limit exceeded" everywhere, which is mentioned on the Template limits page, I'd recommend you check that out! Nik the stoned 14:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I think I might be even more confused than I was before I read that page. Can someone explain it in layperson's terms, or alternatively just advise me as to how to fix the weird transclusion? –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 14:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Yea, I don't understand that page either but it is the reason! I think it's due to the many many {{ CBSB link}}s within the transcluded {{ 2012 America East Conference baseball standings}} etc templates in the Conference standings section. I CAN fix it by simply removing all of these, but this appears to constitute the entire article! Nik the stoned 14:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, given it was entirely broken before, I've commented that section out... No idea how to fix the page properly without first amending all of those (now-commented) transcluded templates such that they're not using the (allegedly) inefficient {{ CBSB link}} templates. That make any sense heh? Nik the stoned 14:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that'll do I suppose. I've certainly come across a lot of sports-related articles composed almost entirely of transclusions – do you think this problem's likely to recur? If so it might be worth pointing it out at WP:SPORT. (I still wouldn't know how to explain it.) –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 15:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I think it's known that {{ CBSB link}} in inefficient, there's a note on the template page stating it. Each of those templates I commented out used the CBSB template many times - the fix would be to go through each of those transcluded templates and just put in proper wikilinks to the team pages... Which looks like it may take some time! I can provide you with a list of these somewhere in your userspace if you like? Nik the stoned 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I.e., do this for each of these... Nik the stoned 15:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Not sure I'm confident enough about my knowledge of either sports or templates, to be honest. Also not sure I can be bothered. Thanks for your help though! –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 15:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Well it's actually super easy but it is indeed going to be time consuming! If you'd like to sort it at some point, just let me know and I'll give you some tips on the "how". Nik the stoned 15:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Should a "List of <officeholders>" be in normal or reverse chronological order - current person at the bottom or the top? Roger ( talk) 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I would suggest the most recent office holder at the bottom, following the example at List_of_Hewlett-Packard_executive_leadership RudolfRed ( talk) 17:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

That's what I thought, but I couldn't find any specific guidance in the MOS. Roger ( talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Most everything we do here is meant to be encyclopedic in nature, so we go in chronological order. That's so gut-basic that I'm not sure it's even mentioned in the MOS. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

My gut agrees with yours. I never even considered the question until a fairly new editor I've been helping created a draft with a few such lists in reverse order - "so that the reader sees the current guy first".

I've also raised the matter at WT:Manual of Style/Lists#Chronological lists, where one would expect an "official" consensus to emerge and hopefully a line or two of guidance might as a consequence be added to the MOS, but so far it has received no response. Roger ( talk) 16:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply

hi.i'm writing because i really need to undarstand why the article that i edited twice was removed twice.when i first edited it it got deleted and i recived a message saying that it was deleted because i posted a link wich was not according to wikipedia format and it adviced to re edit the page without the link so i added the text without the link and i saw it got deleted again.I want to know why as long as the informatiuon that i included can be verified Hhattceppssutt ( talk) 14:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It really helps if you tell us what article you're talking about so that we can research things and therefore give a better answer. So, with that said, I'm going to assume that you're referring to Candy Candy. You added a link to YouTube that was a copyright violation. The person who posted that video likely does not own the rights and therefore should not have posted it to YouTube. Second, the info that you added did not have a reliable source stating where you got the info. If I'm wrong, please tell us more precisely which article you're referring to. Dismas| ^(talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi I'm 28 years old, i'm a new wikipedia user, I have a cognitive condition that I don't want to specify, but can a mentor help me use wikipedia? thanks. Narwhalgal84 ( talk) 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, you can get a mentor. Check out WP:ADOPT. RudolfRed ( talk) 17:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

hey all,
having a problem with my template code

{{#switch:{{{p|}}}| 3rr | 3RR=[[wp:3RR|3RR]]}}
so if do
{{template|p=3rr}}
it will output
3RR


but if i do
{{template|p=3rr}}
{{template|p=3rr}}
for some reason it outputs it as
3RR


3RR


so it has this big space between it i aint sure why it i doing that
anyone give any advice, oh the template isnt called template just using it as a example, it only becomes more obvious when you do the template twice Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 18:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

i think i have worked otu what is causing it i have various lines like this {{#switch:{{{p|}}}| 3rr | 3RR=[[wp:3RR|3RR]]}}
well 4 in total and that is the number of blank lines space thee is so i suspect i need to contain these all i another if type statement? Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 18:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I fixed your problem. Ruslik_ Zero 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

thanks really appericate it, i didn't think it would be as simple as <!-- --> after each bit of code Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 19:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Delta_Sigma_Pi_chapters

is incorrectly labeled/flagged/catagorizd as Orphan.

It is linked under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Sigma_Pi#Collegiate_Chapters

My research did not reveal any method for correcting this.

Please assist.

67.79.76.100 ( talk) 18:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

With only one incoming link from mainspace it basically still is an orphan. I think the simplest solution would be to merge them. Roger ( talk) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Special:WhatLinksHere/Rongel says Rongel is being transcluded onto itself. When I look at the page in edit mode, I don't see anything like {{Rongel}}, so what does that mean? -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 18:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It's caused by {{ Short pages monitor}} which generates the code {{PAGESIZE:Rongel}} when used on Rongel. This apparently causes the mentioned page to be listed as transcluded. This also holds for other pages and if the code is not for the page it's placed on. For example, {{PAGESIZE:Great Pyramid}} generates 135 and causes Great Pyramid to be listed as transcluded here on the help desk. PrimeHunter ( talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I also see now that in the preview of this reply Great Pyramid is listed under Templates used in this preview: below the edit window where it says Please note: just as you said. -- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Good day, I'd like to know how to submit a short bio of my Grandmother who's 107 years old today & still has all her 5 senses straight for record, how do I go about this? Thank you.-- Amazimaop ( talk) 19:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

An article about her must include reliable sources to demonstrate Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Someone besides you should create such an article. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI. Cresix ( talk) 19:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Is there a highlight tool readers could use when reading an article? If there isn't could you make one? It makes researching a lot easier if you could highlight things. Thanks! 65.186.196.79 ( talk) 19:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)A Wikipedia user reply

No, and no, but there might be a 3rd party highlighting tool you could find. Gold Standard 20:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You can save any article as a pdf, then mark it up anyway you choose.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

in the section of famous people from Homer,Alaska, you list Larry Martin, which is correct, but you have him connected to a paleantoligist, which is not correct. Larry Martin, who participated in cross country skiing in the 72 and 76 Olympics, was born in 1950, still lives in Homer and runs a glass shop with his wife, Linda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.25.95 ( talk) 20:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

There's no article on the skier so I've turned it into a redlink. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi

I'm just wondering, how does editing a Wikipedia article work? Say someone submits an edit, then what? Must someone approve the edit? Is it an expert? Do they have to fact check it first? Is so, how do they do that? Or is there an algorithm that does everything? Is so, how does the algorithm decide what to print, and what edits are good/bad? Or, is it a combination of both editor & algorithm?

Thanks, Jason Prince — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.192.28 ( talk) 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Most edits are checked by editors doing vandalism patrol in recent changes. Unreferenced information is reverted, so yes "fact-checking" certainly does occur. There are also "algorithms", or "bots" as we call them, that automatically revert edits that are obviously vandalism, like cursing, etc. To answer your final question, yes, it is a combination of both editors and bots. Some things do slip through this edit process, however, and Wikipedia certainly doesn't guarantee the factual accuracy of any of the information on Wikipedia. If you notice an inaccuracy, feel free to fix it yourself, provided that you cite the source of the information. Gold Standard 20:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

There are also filters that flag (or maybe block, I'm not sure) certain types of edits (I can't think of specific types of edits off the top of my head because it's been awhile since I've seen this). Users who continually vandalize can be blocked, and articles that are continually vandalized by new or unregistered users may be semi-protected. Editors like me often revert edits by manually reverting them, undoing them, or using rollback (which requires special permission to use). - Purplewowies ( talk) 20:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

And as far as the "then what?" portion of your question, the edits are made live immediately for everyone to read. There isn't a check process by experts. But part of what editors do is watch articles that they are interested in. The articles appear on what we call a watchlist. So an editor can look at their watchlist and see the articles that have been changed since the last time they logged in. They can then check on the changes and if there is a problem, revert the article to the previous "good" state. Dismas| ^(talk) 00:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Some editors are reviewing the new pages on Special:NewPages and patrolling them. Regards.-- GoP _T ^C _N 09:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Gold Standard's description is the ideal. Most articles don't get checked that carefully when edited. Plenty of information is still unreferenced. I've probably added more unreferenced material, when I didn't know how to document something, hoping a reliable source would come along later, than referenced information.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Wow so Wikipedia is the work of many volunteers. That's a beautiful thing...

what do I do about someone edit warring? Missoulianette ( talk) 21:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The noticeboard for reporting edit warring is WP:ANI/3RR QU ^TalkQu 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

What is the name of the code used on your monobook.js, vector.css, etc., and where can I find out how to use the code? :) Ha dg er 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

.js is JavaScript. .css is Cascading Style Sheets. See Wikipedia:Customisation. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Alright. Thanks! :D Ha dg er 23:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply