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 know that curiosity killed the cat, but I just can't resist. Oftentimes I see cats hanging around in wmf wikis, typing on the computer or whatnot, with some text on it. Has the cat become part of Wikipedia culture, or is it a part of Western Internet/popular culture that I just don't get? Thanks Kayau VotingISevil02:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, to add the pic, you have to save the image into your computer, wait four days, make ten edits, then go to the file description page, where you can update the image by uploading a new version of it. Kayau VotingISevil07:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will not be able to upload it to the commons. Google translate shows that it is a fair use image. So you will need to download it from the chinese wikipedia and then upload it here with a fair use rationale. You should be able to do this yourself. ~~ GB fan ~~talk08:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the redirected link is there even when it redirects to a sectionof an article. Goto the top of the srticle and you will see the redirected from link in the same spot you normally see it. ~~ GB fan ~~talk08:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Class E power amplifier using low cost power mosfet.[edit]
I m working on the project of Class E power amplifier..but i want to use power mosfet of low cost , high frequency , high power . so what is the main difference between RF mosfet and power mosfet according to specification as far as design considerations.!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.252.105.90 (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly 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 a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on 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.--SPhilbrickT10:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably me, but I can't seem to find information on adding someone, or editing them. The individuals name is listed in several articles about films and tv shows, but there is no page linked to him. I remember some time ago reading they must be of particular interest, but others in these same articles seem to be of interest as film actors, so I assume it meets the criteria. Also, is it a conflict of interest to list oneself if the same applies? Thank you.Stuntworks (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be a conflict of interest to write about yourself. Please see this section for more details. I'll also leave some standard page creation advice below this message. Basically, someone must be notable before we can have an article about them.
A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should citereliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
It also mentions the following error: Cite error: There are < ref > tags on this page, but the references will not show without a reflist template or a references tag; see the help page.
How can I restore the accidentally deleted references?
Or can I contact the original editor for help?
Many thanks, Freek
Hi, I reverted to the previous version of the page and the reflist has been restored. This does mean however that the link you added has disappeared. If the link is of note, I suggest that you re-add it in the "External Links" section.
You can use the "View history" tab on the article to look back through all previous versions of the page. Then you can revert/undo your own edit, or re-edit starting at the version before you made your mistake. Or you can at least see the actual "diff" with the changes marked and then update the current page to include what you accidentally deleted. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link in post "How to restore an article after accidental deletion of references" (one or two posts above this one) that does not show up in the code (or at least, not that i can see) How, and how can it be fixed? Cheers, Darigan (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you made any edits while logged in, and you can remember what you edited, your user name will be shown in the Help:Page history of those pages. Or, if you can remember the first few letters of the name you may be able to find it at Special:ListUsers. Otherwise I think you'll have to start again with a new name. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is no automatic method. Possibilities include: Look for it at Special:ListUsers or in the page history of a page you have edited, or in an email from wikimedia.org if you gave an email address. If you didn't give an email address where you can receive email then you will also have to remember the password. If you don't find it then it's OK to create a new account. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have misplaced (deleted) the password to my account. I have not used the acoount for over a year. How cam I find out weather the account is still active and how can I get a new password? Please help me to solve this. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.8.121.144 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts are never deactivated or deleted. If you stored an email address in the account then use the "E-mail new password" button at the login screen. Otherwise you may have to create a new account. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen articles that are marked at the top noting insufficient references, and those articles are nevertheless to allowed remain that way for weeks, yet when I try to make a modification to an article with a distinct liberal bias to make it more neutral according to your stated policy, it's taken out immediately. The excuse given the first time is neutrality questions, the second time, lack of references for facts that are common knowledge. (By the way, I did reference the Wikipedia articles on embryology). In any case, Common knowledge like : "the sky is blue" does not need to be referenced according to standard rules I learned in school. If you know something to be a fact or making a statement everyone knows to be a fact, like there are 46 chromosomes in the first human cell at the moment of conception" you do not need to reference it. The two people removing my modifications did it almost immediately where other improperly cited articles were allowed and still remain in that condition. Some of your editors seem to have a double standard when it comes to rules of citation and the neutrality policy, and if you don't start enforcing your stated policies, and stop discriminating against conservative opinions, I'm going to make sure everyone from here to hong kong knows you can't be trusted as a reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrondaragorn (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You raised this issue on July 26th at Editor Assistance requests [2] and you were answered there. You added what looks like your personal opinion to a two paragraph section that has 11 references. Your addition had none. Instead of going to the talk page of the article to discuss it you want to EAR where as I said you were answered. I see no evidence of a double standard, some articles receive less attention than others however from those most interested in our policies and guidelines and need a lot of work. Some articles are full of copyright violations, I've spent time today removing some. That others remain doesn't mean there is a double standard however. I suggest you either find a way to edit the section in question so that it follows our guidelines and policies on citation and reads as though it is part of the same section, or discuss it on the talk page. I can't find any edits by you on Embryology to see what you have referenced before. Ah, I've missed the point that it isn't necessarily the human life bit that needed referencing (although the way it was put was clearly argumentative, ie pov pushing), but the rest. I note that the section does mention conservative opinion - with a reference, so it is clearly possible to add something on conservative opinion without being reverted. And your threat is, I'm afraid, a common one and isn't going to impress anyone. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the term "anti-Abortion" Reveals a liberal bias for abortion and against telling people the facts On your part, calling into question your commitment to neutrality... I never claimed to have written or edited articles on embryology, I was cross referencing wikipedia's own articles on the subject. I'll get you the references you want, but you'll undoubtedly find some other reason to remove my edits. My agenda is informing people of the truth, your agenda is evidently keeping them from it as exemplified by your reaction to edits I made on the movie "silent scream," which I had to appeal, only in that case they listened to complaints about neutrality violations that slanted the article in favor of Planned Parenthood's perspective An agenda for the truth doesn't seem to be your agenda, and I am telling people about it, including university teachers that I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrondaragorn (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to dig into it to check, but I believe the preference here is to use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" - i.e. to use the terms that the two camps use themselves - to avoid promoting a particular point-of-view. Incidentally, our goal here is explicitly not "the truth" - it's what can be verified. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the project is an encyclopaedia, and it hinges on citing verifiable sources, not promoting one view or another (everyone's view of what constitutes "the truth" differs). TFOWR11:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same. When I log in, it doesn't take me to the "Login confirmed" screen. I want it to do that. Instead, it takes me to the main page. I don't want that. What's the problem? Finalius! (Talk, sign) 14:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taken to a page saying "Login successful" and at the bottom "Return to" followed by a link to whatever page I was on when clicking Log in. I vaguely recall a discussion long ago where a couple of users said they skipped the login successful page. Maybe it was about browsers. I use Firefox 3.6 on Windows Vista. Are you logged in when you are taken to the main page? If so then I don't see a problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm logged on on the main page. But this never happened before. And I use Google Chrome on XP, like I always have. I used to be logged in to the screen you described. I'll log off and on a few times to test. Finalius! (Talk, sign) 15:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While external links are allowed in articles, an article should not consist of only an external link. If you have encyclopedic content on the school, you can create an article on Heard County High School. But any article with only external links would be deleted. --Mysdaaotalk17:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most short abbreviations have many meanings. It sounds odd if you think that your website is the only true meaning of MWD and all meanings on that page are "unrelated to what MWD is". Besides the conflict of interest, you certainly shouldn't delete other valid meanings of a term. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are photographs from television series, web series, etc., such as File:Salad Fingers and Horace Horsecollar.png, and File:AnnOrange.jpg, simply taken while the series, etc. is being viewed, or otherwise? It is hard for me to tell because the cameras that took the pictures seem to have captured the entire screen, there is no television, computer, etc. on any sides of the pictures, and it seems to me that it would be rather difficult to take a picture like this (however, a good photographer probably could have been able to do this), but it also seems that a picture could have been modified to look like this. MR.PreZ18:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As those images are protected by copyright, I have taken the liberty of turning them into file links. In response to your question, I'm not sure. It seems to be a question for the Reference desk, only tangentially related to Wikipedia itself. Intelligentsium18:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I was unaware of how to turn them into file links when I added them to my question, thank you for doing so for me. And Thanks for the advice. MR.PreZ18:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I suspect the five tildes 174.52/67.136 refers to is the magic. I was going to refer you to my colleague, 220.101, who has a quick copy-and-paste signature code on their talk page. Free tip: did you know IPs can have userpages? (and 201.101 is going to hate me for that...) TFOWR22:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TFOWR. >:Þ Yes, #174 you can make just about any customisation the registered users can (Copy their code and test it to see what happens!) Haven't found anything, yet, that didn't work. You just need to paste it in whereas they only have to use ~~~~. • Userpage: AFAIK you will need a nice registered user to create it for you. I was rather surprised when mine suddenly 'appeared' courtesy of Daniel Christensen (talk·contribs). However, we can create subpages of our talk pages, like a sandbox. (I see now you already know that! ) 220.101talk\Contribs03:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't realised IPs couldn't create their userpages. OK, I'll volunteer for IP userpage creation. I'd want to see evidence that their IP is relatively static, but that's about it. TFOWR07:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IPs can only create pages in any of the talk namespaces, so that they can initiate discussion but not content/policy/whatever. I've made an IP userpage before, but that was through AfC, which is probably how it should be done. sonia♫07:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will WP:WPAFC do non-articles? (I'm guessing probably...) If so, I'd prefer to let them deal with IP userpage creation, as presumably they have sane guidelines instead of the vaguely-considered WP:IAR approach I'd follow. ;-) TFOWR07:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep- we get the odd template or category, tons of redirects, but rarely userpages ;) The guidelines there are basically for articles, so everything else does work by IAR, basically- it is "Articles for creation" after all... sonia♫16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]