Help desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

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.

December 29[edit]

Dual licencing[edit]

The image [:image:DNA_polymerase.svg] is released under two licences with the allowance that you may choose either. One, the GNU one, says that you can't use it on the cover of a textbook (an extremely random stipulation if you ask me; not much stranger than saying "you can't use it on page 37 or 62") while the Creative Commons one imposes no such restriction. So what's the point of providing two licences in this way? What does GNU give that CC can't? --Seans Potato Business 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No front cover texts" does not mean you can't use it on the front cover of a book. Instead it is a section from the Text of the GNU Free Documentation License, specifically defined as "The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words." Basically, the Wikipedia template is using that wording to make sure people don't use loopholes to get out of requirements of the GFDL, and making sure every word you see is freely licensable.--Ybbor ^Talk 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rated articles[edit]

Is there any kind of mark to evaluate articles in terms of quality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.173.88 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is. Wikipedia has six classes of articles:

Stub class: The article is only a few sentences long or isn't well organised.
Start class: The article has a good amount of content but most readers who aren't familiar with the subject will need to consult another resource.
B class: The article is beginning to become comprehensive. Casual readers usually will not need to consult an outside source, however researchers may need to.
Good Article (GA-class): The article has passed the Good article review process.
A class: The article is useful to all but a very small portion of readers. There is little to no information missing.
Featured Article: Meets the Featured article criteria and has passed the Featured article review process.

Ratings for an article can usually be found on the top of its talkpage. To access this page, click "discussion" at the top of the article. If the article is part of a WikiProject, the project may have its own set of rating criteria. Most WikiProjects have a template where you can tag an article as being part of that project and give it a ranking. An example is {{USRD}}. Note that you can assign ratings up to B without the article being reviewed by an outside party. NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page editing[edit]

on the Lakeland Florida page, i added a new name (April Moore) to noteable people from Lakeland. it it only show when om logged in on my contributions link. will it show permanently, and do i need to do something further?

Chris G —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg6152 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you were logged out when you added the name, and you then logged in and made a couple minor edits to the page, including linking the name. So the actual addition of the name is logged in the contributions of your IP address rather than the contributions of your account. Regardless of this, you still made the edit, so it'll appear in the article whether you're logged in or not. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't see recent edits in the article in some situations then you probably needed to bypass your cache. The name was an unsourced redlink and has been removed by another editor since the above posts. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Tutorial is great![edit]

Question: Last night, I added the movie "Help Me Eros" into the Requests for new articles, with a brief description of this new Taiwanese film. But today, it doesn't come up on the Search. I'm hoping this tutorial will help me learn how to cite sources, that's a bit tricky for me. Sincerely yours, Torch --Torchpratt (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is still there, but no one has created that article yet. Due to the large number of requested articles and the fact that some of them are on pretty obscure topics, it could be a while before someone creates it. On the issue of citing sources, perhaps Wikipedia:Citing sources might give the information you're looking for. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 05:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is [1]. Some requested articles are never created. If you mean why your request doesn't show up in search, are you searching Wikipedia space (project pages starting with "Wikipedia:")? By default, searches are only in mainspace (where the articles are). To include Wikipedia space, first make a normal search, then click Wikipedia at the bottom of the search page and search again in the bottom search box. This [2] shows your request. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I wrote it myself. It's on the Template X1 page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:X1 How do I make this into a real story? I read the thing about citing sources and I think I can handle it. Can you great people help me out again? --Torchpratt (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X1 is intended for template experiments and often overwritten. It's a bad place to develop an article. Your version is [3]. You could copy the contents to your own user space, for example User:Torchpratt/Sandbox, and work on it there. Try to add references to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the love of god[edit]

Dear Brother / Sister

Your might be wondering who is this person calling you brother or sister, it is my believe that all man king is brothers and sisters, from Adam and eve, but we have been separated by space and cultures and languages over many many years, the reason I am writing to tell you about Islam not the Islam that you hear about in the news and been made to be a religion of terrorism and killing and destruction.

Islam is none of those, Islam is a religion of peace and harmony and justice for all, and a religion to warship only one supreme god with out mediator or some one between you and hem, and the last prophet from god is Mohammed may peace be upon him, not to delete other prophets and other religions but to update and complete them, so he tolled us to respect and obey other prophets peace and harmony be upon them all as much as we love and obey hem, and all their massages is tolled in our book the Quran, and to love and respect all man kind, wither white black or red, and I hope to be a live example of that, a complete stranger in the other side of the world sending you the message of god.

Not to enforce it on any body but to give an eye opener and let them think and compare and make the decision them self’s, this is one reason, and the other, every Muslim will be asked on the day of judgment why didn’t he pass the word of god, after he pass the word than the other person will be asked why didn’t he believe and why didn’t he pass the word of Islam to the people he care about and so on.

To make it simple your only asked to believe in one and only one god, that it controlling the world, have no mistress or son, and can be asked and worshiped directly, and that is Mohammed is a messenger from god, that is the first pillar of Islam and if you believe in that, the other 4 pillars are very simple but if you don’t than none of them will be excepted, I have selected some websites for you to get more information about the moderate and peaceful Islam, because my English doesn’t allow me to express my self and my message very well.

I am asking you in the name of god the great and merciful to read and understand the message of Islam and pass the information to whom you love, but please be careful not take Islam from any body the preach violence or to warship any body or any thing with god, or use greave or stones or a cleric as a messenger between him and god. Good bless you and your family and whom you love.

(Please copy and paste)

<external links removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.32.33 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing an affirmation of your faith with us. We would welcome your knowledgeable contributions here on Wikipedia, please consider joining the project. Regards, Keilana_(recall) 05:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia isn't the place to spread your beliefs. You're more than welcome to help improve Wikipedia, but just keep in mind that Wikipedia has a policy of keeping to a neutral point of view in articles. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 05:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post is inappropriate for this forum which is about asking questions related to using Wikipedia. While by your lights I'm sure you have noble intentions, some people, and I'm one of 'em, find proselytizing incredibly offensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This claim caught my attention:

not to delete other prophets and other religions but to update and complete them

I suppose that bit comes too late to save the Buddhas of Bamyan. Actions tend to speak a lot louder than words. --Teratornis (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RadioIO Article Creation[edit]

76.118.247.91 (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention any skillful Wikipedians out there. There is a terrific Internet Radio company called "RadioIO". You can visit the website and read all about it. As you can see, I'm an unsigned user. I know very little about Wikipedia article writing. I figured if any skilled Wikipedia users gave the "RadioIO" website a visit and read up on the excellent online radio provider that an article could be created. Anyway, please visit the "RadioIO" website and let me know what you think.

Thank you for the suggestion. You may suggest an article's creation at Articles for Creation, however you should keep in mind Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, Wikipedia's Web notability guidelines, and Wikipedia's spam policy. Thanks! Regards, Keilana_(recall) 05:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non IT[edit]

What is mean by Non IT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.109.161 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without being provided the context this phrase appeared in it is impossible to tell what it refers to for sure. However, IT is a common abbreviation in English for Information technology. By the way, this page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. knowledge questions such as this should be asked at the reference desk. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Fish: Fish of Babel!! Where to report differences in different languages?[edit]

Hi

1. I looked up pumpkinseed (fish), in English and it says it its natural to north-east North America, from where it was spread including to Europe; in Portuguese it says it was taken to Europe from South America; in Italian it says it was taken to Italy from the United States;

I've often come across divergent content like this - where do I report it if I am not personally able to effect any changes?

--Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I presume you speak of differences in articles in different language Wikipedias. If you aren't sure about accuracy, you might place a {{Dubious}} tag on it and mention the reason you find the information uncertain on the talk page. Even if you aren't confident enough in the issue to place the "dubious" tag, you might bring it up on the article's talk page, where interested editors may be able to dedicate the time to researching the matter. (Note that I do not know the procedure on other language Wikis. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Fish 2: Missing Links![edit]

Hi

2. In English, the article has links to articles in 7 languages; in Portugues links to 6 languages and in French links to five languages. I 've seen this often too. Are new articles not created on some kind of a root that automatically link up with existing articles?

--Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Interlanguage links are either manually added by users or, in some cases, added by bots, but there is no automatic linkage between one Wikipedia language page and others. If you look at these pages in edit mode you should see at the bottom codes which add the interlanguage links. For example, in Pumpkinseed, you can see the addition of the link to the French Wikipedia article with the code [[fr:Crapet-soleil]] at the bottom of the article. When you find discrepancies such as you have here, you can and are encouraged to go ahead and fix them! Just add the code to the missing languages in the Portuguese and French Wikipedia articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Fish 3: Lost in Translation[edit]

HI

3. If you follow the link to the article in Dutch, you get the same fish, same information, etc. However, if on the Dutch page you click on other languages, it takes you to a completely different fish!!! It is also not the first time that I see this. Does Wikipedia do some kind of sweep to track down cases like these?

--Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is as I have stated in response to your post in the preceding section. It is done by real people such as yourself finding a problem and fixing it, or specifically programming a bot to do so (but only after requesting and obtaining approval of the community). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation used in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi

I am writing this here about an article in Wikipedia in Portuguese simply to bring it to the attention of the English-language editors as well. The article on Pernambuco - in Portuguese - the section on "Historia", was machine-translated. The top was then edited, but towards the end it is one big mess. I wonder whether the rules and guidelines mention anything about over-eager contributors quickly machine-translating something for the sake of putting up an article.

--Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. See Wikipedia:Translation which has a section on this, here ("...the general consensus of Wikipedia contributors is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing").--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check this edit?[edit]

Can someone check this edit on Kenny Cooper? Rubietje88 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research was removed by an anon. If you disagree with the removal of this information, try and found a source for it. -Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 10:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor Day Foundation 2008 Drive[edit]

Received a request for money in return for free trees from 100 Arbor Ave, Nebraska City, NE 68410 Is this part of the National Foundation? I hate to send money to a phoney organination. Please respond if this is ligitamate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.223.215 (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia; you may have more success at the Reference desk where people can answerr general knowledge questions. Regardless, if an organisation contacts you out-of-the-blue and asks for money, you may be correct to be doubtful. In this case, the Arbor Day Foundation's websitesays that this is their address. You can purchase directly from their website. "money in return for free trees" - the trees aren't free, then. It appears that what you may have received is an offer for membership of the organisation where you would receive a gift (trees) when you join up. Hope this helps. However, I would advise that you do your own research on this subject and not rely solely on the word of an anonymous Internet user before deciding to give someone money. --Kateshort forbob 14:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life of Osama bin Laden[edit]

I want to create an article titled Personal life of Osama bin Laden. I have some questions regarding this.

First query, is this article be suitable for wikipedia standard?
Second, can I put separate section named "Appearance and behavior" in the article. Can "Appearance and behavior" be included within personal life?
Third, if this article fits with wikipedia standard, then what will be its title, Personal life of Osama bin Laden or something better. Please help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will what you want to write fit into and compliment Osama bin Laden, (which I notice has a warning that it maybe too long) if so I recommend you discuss on that talk page and see if the article would be enhanced by your planned additions. 1) yes if it assists in the knowledge about the man. 2) Presumably if it is relevant to understanding the subject, but a hard one this one, 3)No IMHO - fit it into the existing if possible. Please though explore all possibilities it could be a worthwhile addition to the subject. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 15:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, try and be certain that the information added regarding bin Laden's personal life can be cited in verifiable sources. For some reason, this seems like it would be difficult to confirm....who knows tho, I might be wrong ;) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist problem[edit]

This has been annoying me for some time now: Why is it that some pages that are on my watchlist do not show up when I refresh the list? I've missed several discussions because of this glitch. When I go to a certain page that I know is watchlisted, I see new discussions, but it doesn't show up on my list. Is there any way to fix this, and am I the only one having this problem? Jeffpw (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check to see if you've pressed anything accidentaly on your preferences, by clicking here. Hope this helps, Rt . 18:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I had turned on was hide minor edits and bot edits. I have now turned them off. Pages I edit are automatically added to my watchlist, so that's not an issue. For instance. This page was not on my watchlist just now, and I had to go into my contribution list and click on the section to see that I had received a reply. It's not like I don't have any articles coming up. It's just that a percentage of them don't show up at any given time. Most frustrating. Jeffpw (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm quite. Have there been any bugs recently? Rt . 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Database lag can cause watchlist problems. There's a list of common problems at the Village pump (technical), where you may want to post your issue. Also try Bugzilla if you feel that it is a software problem. NF24^{(welcome, 2008!)} 20:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that some naughty persons have been known to tag major edits as "minor" in hopes of sneaking by watchlisters. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure for linking to WikiSource?[edit]

If I want to edit a page about a piece of literature, for example, and say that the piece in its entirety is available on WikiSource, what is the standard procedure for this? A link in the See also section, a template (if so, what is it and where do I put it?), or something else?

Please advise! It Is Me Here (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's {{Wikisource}} eg. {{Wikisource|Foobar}} produces

similar to the Wikiquote/news etc boxes. I think I've also seen text links in See Also or External Links sections. There's a full list available here. --Kateshort forbob 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked this up yesterday because I didn't know the answer either. It's supposed to go in the External links section, with the other interwiki links, like Wikimedia Commons, etc. Lazulilasher (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded editable template[edit]

I am having trouble editing the transcluded version of User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Header at many pages such as User:TonyTheTiger/List_of_the_Day/Nominees. What is the problem?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't edit the page or the transcluded header? Rt . 18:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are saying. How do I change the page so either the edit button disappears or so that it works when transcluded? P.S. I have used several edit buttons in transcluded pages that work such as those at WP:CHIFC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit button is probably there because of the H2. Change that to a DIV, and I’ll bet that edit button goes away. --teb728 t c 22:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing photo.[edit]

If I find a photo that can be improved (correcting white balance, exposure levels, ect.) How do I replace the current photo with the new photo? Do i just upload the new photo as a new file and change the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genemacy (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upload the file with the same name. Like on Image:Example.jpg, at the bottom of the table it says "Upload a new version of this file". Just click that. :) Rt . 19:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

responses[edit]

How can I tell if anyone has been responding or looking at my ad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.48.182 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can put the page on your watchlist. But what "ad" are you referring to? There are strict enforcements about advertising on Wikipedia. Rt . 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Strict enforcements" meaning that it's not allowed. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know, this is the help desk for the free encyclopedia Wikipedia. We have over two million articles and advertisement is not allowed. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on Peer-Producing Note on Wiki[edit]

Hi,

Happy new year!

I'm a pretty heavy user of Wikipedia, but, sorry, not an active contributor. I'm trying to learn more here and then maybe later will share some ideas with enough self-efficacy.

What I want to say here, is that as a frequent user, not a contributor, I would like to propose a way that we can do something for Wiki. Wiki could provide a feature that allows logged-on users to hightlight the content they read. And some program can be developped to recognize the frequency of a certain sentence (or phrase, or paragraph) to be highlighted. Then when other users read the same item, they can choose whether other people's highlights be shown. Maybe they can even have the options of several level of popularity of highlights. The most popular highlights only shwow the sentences highlighted by the most people, and if the user wants, Wiki can show them sentences highlighted by less people.

Does it make sense? I'm not natively English speaking. So I would like to talk with anybody interested in this idea and develope it to strongthen Wiki's service to the human society!

Thank you very much for providing this amazing knowledge tool!

Xi CUI 1229 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.142.66 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Village Pump. Rt . 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's an interesting concept, but I don't think it would be practical. For one thing, it might discourage people from actually improving articles, instead just highlighting a few parts of it. Another issue would be accountability. Wikipedia deals with a lot of vandalism, so what would stop people from highlighting random parts of an article just to mess things up? There'd have to be a whole separate log for it, which would become unbelievably cluttered in a very short time. Also, there's really no need. The manual of style sets up the introduction of an article as pretty much exactly what you're describing: the part that's useful to the largest number of people and is most read. I'd say the current system is working fine, and introducing something like that would end up causing more problems than it would be worth. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are thinking about falls under the general category of: Collaborative filtering, a field which is barely scratching the surface of its potential (and ~~isn't being done at all on Wikipedia yet~~, as far as I know). With all the smart people who are thinking of all the smart things, it's hard to have a truly original idea, especially a good idea. So when you get an idea, the first question to ask is, "If my idea is so good, why hasn't anyone else thought of it?" The second and third questions are, "OK, if someone else has thought of it, who are they and what have they done?" Wikipedia is pretty good for answering the latter kinds of questions. I also recommend watching a lot of TED (conference) and Google TechTalks videos on YouTube, just to listen to some really smart people talk about their ideas and their work. It's like yoga (or maybe like powerlifting) for the brain. --Teratornis (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my reply above, I originally claimed Wikipedia is not doing any collaborative filtering. Then I checked the backlinks (Special:Whatlinkshere/Collaborative filtering) and it turns out User:SuggestBot uses collaborative filtering algorithms to suggest articles a user may want to edit. That is not quite what the questioner had in mind, but it is some sort of an example of collaborative filtering on Wikipedia. (I'm surprised nobody caught my error. Just because I write something, hardly makes it true!) --Teratornis (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Articles on Religion[edit]

Should articles on religious figures and concepts portray them as facts, i.e. Jesus is the Messiah vs. Jesus is believed by Christians to be the Messiah. I have seen both used in different articles and was wondering whether there is a specific policy on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.239.246 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What articles should do is state established historical facts as facts and beliefs as beliefs. So, the article Jesus follows this by stating that certain historical sources claims certain things about his life, and it states his existence as a fact since there is strong historical evidence for his existence. However, it states only that he is believed to be the Messiah, not that he is or is not. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's all about rephrasing things as facts. For example, "In Christianity, Christ is regarded as the Messiah" - is a fact we can back up with reliable sources. But "Christ is the Messiah" - shouldn't be given as fact since nobody can prove it. (Isn't that what faith is about anyway, following it even if it can't be proved?) Of course once/if the correct context is established first, such as talking about a certain story from the Bible, then you can state the rest of it normally. E.g., in Parable of the Prodigal Son. Because then it's not presenting the happenings in the story as fact (which can't be proven), it's just explaining what the story says (which can be proven because people can read it!). • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It stands to reason that most people who have knowledge about a particular religion, and motive to write about it, are adherents of that religion. (How many people who aren't Zoroastrians know anything about Zoroastrianism, for example?) Religious people have to make a conscious effort to write factually about their own faith, because every religion I am familiar with systematically tries to erode the boundary between fact and imagination, by presenting its unprovable supernatural claims as fact. Visit any house of worship and listen to the message: whatever the doctrine, the pastor/priest/imam/etc. will present some real-world facts, and some claims about the supernatural, with little if any distinction between them. Sacred books, of course, make absolutely no distinction: the Bible, for example, describes a number of ordinary real-world events, along with miraculous events such as the Earth standing still, or even rotating backwards (not that the writers understood then that the Earth rotates), talking donkeys, water standing up to leave the seabed dry, the dead coming back to life, etc., along with divine interpretation of ordinary events (a plague struck Israel, because God was punishing them), with everything described with the same matter-of-factness. In fiction, there is the notion of "in-universe" description, i.e., describing fictional characters and events as if they are real. In fiction, at least, the idea is to understand when one is speaking in an "in-universe" kind of way, but in religion, even to suggest that there is such a distinction amounts to blasphemy. Therefore, one might argue that for a proponent of a religion to write about that religion constitutes a conflict of interest. Certainly, one can make as strong a case for religious conflicts of interest as one might make for commercial conflicts of interest, given that among the proselytizing religions at least, the motivation to sell the religion can be as strong, if not stronger, than the motivation for a business person to sell a product. The business person just wants to make a buck, whereas the religious person might believe the fate of your eternal soul is at stake. However, just as a practical matter, it is probably impossible to stop proponents of religions from writing about them on Wikipedia. It's up to the community to police the religion articles to insure they properly distinguish between facts (which are claims that virtually all sane people can agree on, when they have reviewed all the evidence) and supernatural doctrinal claims which lack any sort of conclusive evidence to support them. --Teratornis (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV metastasis of something a little off?[edit]

The following edits bother me. There is something a little off in serial controversies I don't fully understand yet. I'm confronting an evolving problem set.

The context which makes it reasonable to seek help is this odd edit:

Talk:Daijō-kan#Plagiarism

What shall I do -- now, before this bubbles into something bigger?

Ignoring this whatever-it-is "issue" may be precisely the wrong thing to do.

This seems needlessly troublesome; but there you have it. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If addressing the other editor directly and civilly does not help, you may wish to seek assistance at one of the forums mentioned in the dispute resolution policy. Good luck. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting a more constructive direction. A good step towards something better. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American[edit]

If Wikipedia knows that "American" is an incorrect word for describing someone from the United States, why does it use it anyway? Hyano czespony (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "American" is a correct word to use in describing someone from the United States just as someone from China may be described as "Asian" and someone from Sweden "European". While "American" may properly apply to any person from the Americas, it has also often been generalized to citizens of the United States of America since the first recorded use of the word in this sense in 1765. See [4] and United States#Etymology. If you have further questions about this common practice, you may wish to ask them at Talk:United States or the reference desk. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember it's not "Wikipedia" that "uses" any particular words as such, it's whoever happened to write that particular word. If you think something can be phrased better, be bold in editing it. E.g., "American singer" could be rephrased to "US singer", if you think that works better and is more accurate. :) • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And "US singer" would almost assuredly get reverted. Corvus cornix_talk 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Wouldn't it be more accurate? • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 13:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't revert it, but it is less common usage. :) Evidence suggests that "American" is consensus. We have Category:American singers, for instance, to which Category:United States singers redirects. This a distinct category from Category:Canadian singers and Category:Mexican singers, so evidently it's not continental but national. Then we've got the existence of Category:Mexican American writers, which specifies that it is for "United States writers of Mexican origin." I don't remember if there's a specific guideline addressing this, though I've poked around in the MOS for a bit. Perhaps somebody else can produce something. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"US" is offensive in that it implies that "American" is incorrect. "American" is the one and only correct usage. See American. One of its definitions is "A person or attribute of the United States of America ". "US" is the abbreviation for the country, not for the nationality. Corvus cornix_talk 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 December 29