Hi,

I am updating some tourism pages about Monmouthshire and want to embed the pages from Wikipedia into the website.

We use Typo 3 which is an open source CMS.

My guess would be that I would need a widget to be able to embed the article and include any live updates?

Are you aware of anything that has already been produced to enable me to do this?

Kind regards

Joanna Goodwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.75.226 ( talk) 09:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

<div style="width: 639px; height: 600px;">
	<object data="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouthshire#top" style="width: 800px; height: 600px; margin: 0 0 0 -161px;"></object>
</div>

¦ Reisio ( talk) 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

At work a computer wouldnt start and we thought it could be the motherboard so I replaced it keeping all the other components the same. When I turned it on it would give no video signal and beeping three times, pause, beep three times... One by one I went changing the components and trying again but I get the same result. Ive changed the RAM, PSU, in addition to the motherboard which was new. Graphics were integrated on both motherboards. I havn't changed the HDD as I dont see how this could cause a problem at the POST/before booting the OS. Im thinking maybe its the CPU but since we dont have a spare I want to have a better idea before suggesting we get a new one. Also another thing it may be is that because the new motherboard has a different layout I had to cut the cables going from the cases power switch to the motherboard and extend them myself using "cable butts" (I think thats what they're called) and maybe even just one of them may not be done properly. I dont really see how this could cause a problem as it does "work" (i.e. when I push the power button the computer starts up) but maybe it is. Any suggestions? -- 195.244.210.38 ( talk) 10:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The motherboard manual will have an explanation of the different beep patterns, which will explain what system the motherboard controller thinks is defective. You should be able to find the motherboard's model number written on it somewhere, and you can find the manual online at its manufacturer's website. -- Finlay McWalterჷ Talk 11:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

See also Power-on self-test -- Tagishsimon (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I cannot access Hot mail. but live is ok can I cancell hot mail or is it worth keeping ? I never use it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.253.28 ( talk) 16:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• What are AOL proxies?
• Are they legal, in London?
• If yes, how do you access them?-- Deathlaser :  Chat  17:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

If you use AOL to access the internet, you go through their proxies. You don't access them from outside their network. We don't give legal advice. RudolfRed ( talk) 19:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Re-read the question. He asked if they are legal. That's looking for info, not advice. Dismas| ^(talk) 23:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Exactly.-- Deathlaser :  Chat  12:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

How do I use AOL to access the internet.-- Deathlaser :  Chat  12:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

You sign up as a customer. 131.111.255.9 ( talk) 18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Is wikileaks legal?
• Is it a part of wikimedia foundations?-- Deathlaser :  Chat  17:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

We don't give legal advice. ¶ No. — Tamfang ( talk) 18:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

WikiLeaks was never affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. For a brief time, WikiLeaks used the MediaWiki software, so it superficially appeared similar to Wikipedia and other MediaWiki-operated websites; but it was not organized or operated by anyone associated to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Nimur ( talk) 18:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Legal advice and info on law are different.-- Deathlaser :  Chat  19:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The legality of Wikileaks is going to vary greatly by jurisdiction. In the United States, the "legality" question breaks down into two different categories of issues: 1. Is the site itself legal? (Can it be shut down or censored?) and 2. Have those who operated it committed illegal acts? They are separate legal questions.

On #1, it is very hard to shut down publications of anything (" prior restraint"), even if they exist solely to give away secrets, because of the power of the First Amendment. (See Near v. Minnesota, Pentagon_Papers#Legal_case, United States v. The Progressive.) It's not impossible. But it would be very hard, especially since the information is already out there. (Censoring something after the fact in the name of preserving secrets that are already out there is not going to impress judges.)

On #2, did the individuals involved in creating WikiLeaks commit illegal acts? This is the really tough question, and, is totally unrelated to whether the US has the legal ability to censor the site. Bradley Manning, the guy who allegedly leaked all those State Department cables and Iraq videos to WikiLeaks, is currently on trial for violating the Espionage Act. It seems highly likely that he will be convicted if they can prove he did what they say he did; leaking secret cables is an obvious violation of the Act, and American whistleblower protections are not very strong in those sorts of cases. If he were extradited to the United States, it is plausible that Julian Assange could be tried under the Espionage Act as well, even though he wasn't the original leaker — the Act is very broad. Whether that would upheld in Appeal, nobody can say: Assange is in this role a publisher, and this could easily be a First Amendment issue. (There is a big legal distinction between Manning and Assange — Manning had a security clearance that gave him access to classified information, while Assange is a private individual who published stuff that someone else gave him.) I have no idea how the legal systems of other countries would handle this matter, and even with the United States, as I've pointed out, there is considerable ambiguity and nobody can really answer one way or another. I've just tried to outline the main legal issues that exist; this is not legal advice, obviously.

A separate question is whether using WikiLeaks is legal — e.g., can you and I look at the website legally? This is far more vague and also strays into the "legal advice" arena. The Espionage Act is very, very broad: I could imagine interpretations of it that said that even accessing the URL, knowing that it contains classified information and seeking it out, much less downloading it to your computer's cache (or god forbid, making a backup of it), could be construed as a violation of the section on "gathering" defense information. [1] In practice it is hard to imagine the US actually prosecuting someone for just looking at it, but that doesn't rule it out. The State Department and other government agencies have certainly said that they will discipline government employees that look at WikiLeaks (on the grounds that they are showing insufficient respect for classification guidelines), but that's not the same thing as illegality (you can be fired for things that aren't illegal). Short answer there: nobody has been tried for that, but that doesn't rule it out. (Did I emphasize how broad the Espionage Act is enough times? It's really broad. Just in case that didn't come across the first five times I said it.) -- Mr.98 ( talk) 19:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Regarding using WikiLeaks, although I have no clue as to the general public, I do recall that when the leaks were in the news, it was mentioned that the Department of Defense and other Government agencies were warning people with security clearances that accessing the leaked documents could result in voiding their security clearances. The reason being that as far as the DoD was concerned, a significant portion of the the leaked information was still classified, and one of the things which can cause revocation of your security clearance is accessing or attempting to access classified information which you do not have clearance to access. [2] [3] [4] -- 140.142.20.101 ( talk) 00:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Right, that's what I mentioned about not respecting classified information and all that. It's not a legal thing, it's a "your security clearance is a privilege and not a right" sort of thing. It's a silly policy (our government workers can't read the webpage, but everyone else in the world can? who does that help?) but such is the nature of the American security regime ("Cutting off our noses to spite our faces since 1947"). -- Mr.98 ( talk) 00:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The issue of a possible connection came up so often that a page was created to address it: Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia. PrimeHunter ( talk) 21:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

And heck, it isn't even a Wiki, anymore. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 00:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Very American perspective so far here. Wikileaks "is an international...organisation" established by Julian Assange, an Australian. The USA has not been the only target. It has been hosted in many different countries, quite possibly never the US. So American law is of limited relevance to its legality. 118.209.79.191 ( talk) 00:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I never claimed to speak for more than the US situation, and indicated in my first sentence that it would vary by jurisdiction. Given that the majority (by volume) of the official secrets leaked thus far are American, though, and given that the US has been especially aggressive in prosecuting leaks, and given that there is strong suspicion (at least, this is what Assange believes) that the US wants to extradite Assange for prosecution, and given that one of the main alleged leakers (Manning) is currently being tried for leaking in a US court and under US laws, I can hardly see the US case as being of "limited" relevance. If you know the relevant legal aspects of other relevant nations, please feel free to contribute them, but until then, pointing out that I have only discussed the US situation is of, well, "limited relevance" to contributing to this thread. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 13:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear Wikipedians:

My tenants' kids seem to be abusing the wireless network I am providing them. My tenants are really good people so I don't want to upset them by bringing up this issue. I would like to stealthily limit the amount of wireless bandwidth my tenants can use. My old Bell DSL modem is capable to limiting incoming wireless connections to a total of 1 Mbps. However, I've recently upgraded to a different plan from Bell and the technician came and took away the old modem and replaced it with a new modem that does not have such capabilities. So I was wondering if there exists any alternative software or hardware solutions that allows me to realize the limiting of wireless bandwidth.

Thanks for all your help,

70.29.25.124 ( talk) 23:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Can you give us the name and model number of the router? (E.g. "NETGEAR WGR614v9") This will help us figure out what sort of hardware or software solution would be possible. It might also help to know your operating system (e.g. Windows 7, or whatever). -- Mr.98 ( talk) 00:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Also please let us know what sort of ISP you have and the amount of bandwidth you're paying for. Residential Internet connections in the US are often under 10% of the speed of a Wireless-G network, so it's possible that throttling your tenants' wireless access may not have any effect on your network's connection to the Internet itself. Comet Tuttle ( talk) 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Right, you don't want to upset them by bringing up the issue. Because parents never get complaints about their kids, and landlords never do their best to get as much cash as possible out of their tenants. ¦ Reisio ( talk) 05:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply