Help desk
< March 5	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 7 >

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.

March 6[edit]

download[edit]

ive been tinkerign on the computer but i could not figure out how to download wikipedia for my palm life drive hope u can help me thanks

What do you mean download. Wikipedia needs many servers to hold all it's information. If you want the unzipped version, your going to want to buy about a 100,000 dollars worth of computers. If you want to view it then I would expect it to be the same as any other website. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAP, WP:DUMP, meta:Wiki on a stick. A Google search for "Wikipedia on Palm" yields a few results, including this intriguing one: Wikipedia in your Pocket. Looks like you want something called TomeRaider. I'm not an expert, just someone who can do a Google search. So if you're already trying all this, that's all I've got. --Teratornis 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wiki on a stick means the software, not Wikipedia itself. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wiki on a stick refers to putting MediaWiki and an AMP stack on a portable medium such as a USB flash drive (or, for desktop use, on a computer's internal drive). I've been playing around with running MediaWiki under XAMPP this way. It runs great even on my old crummy Windows 98 computers. I have not tried importing the Wikipedia database, yet, but in principle it doesn't look hard to do, if one has enough disk space. Copying little corporate wikis between computers has been pretty simple, as such things go. With USB flash drive capacities going up according to Moore's Law, it should be feasible to carry around an actual stand-alone AMP stack running MediaWiki with a full recent dump of Wikipedia pretty soon, if not already, if someone were so inclined. --Teratornis 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how[edit]

how do u start a new wilkipedia page?

Athena rules 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You go to the top of the page, and click "Edit this page". See Wikipedia:Your first article for more information--양복⁴² 01:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Reaves (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding errornous information on purpose[edit]

Dear Wikipedia authors and adminstrators,

I am here to report a user who keeps editing this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_voice

He has edited so many times, it is beyond accetable now. I am the webmaster of the website about which the article was written. The information is correct, and it is basic information. But because he has a website that has started competing with mine, he keeps on editing the article and adding wrong stuff to it.

His IP is: 74.96.33.67 and you can see his IP on my website too.

Either:

-Ban his IP -Ban him from editing the article -Lock the article

I understand that you guys are watching over the articles of the entire earth, and I don't want to put even more on your plate. But this individual is doing this to many other entries, and that is a shame. Wikipedia is too good to be concerned with such individuals.

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Assyrianvoice (talk • contribs) 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'll inform the editor that he needs to stop editing that page or risk a ban, but I don't think it would be wise to ban him without warning him first. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IBS[edit]

I am interested in finding out information about irritable bowel syndrome?

You might want to try out asking at the Science Reference Desk as the help desk is for questions about Wikipedia. You could also look at the article on Irritable Bowel Syndrome. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

author requests deletion on behalf of subject[edit]

Some time ago, I posted an entry for another individual whom I felt merited a Wikipedia entry. The entry was tagged for deletion but after debate was kept alive. Since that time, other editors have substantially expanded the original entry. However, now the individual who is the subject of the entry has asked me to delete it for his/her own personal reasons. What can I do to ensure that the entry gets deleted? 71.210.212.187 03:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate it for deletion at WP:PROD. If it survives, it is here to stay, unfortunetly :(. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 03:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article does not get deleted, you may want to see if the guidelines at WP:NPF and here can help.--Vbd (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a lot, but unless you can provide a reason within deletion policy, it probably won't work. We don't delete articles by request unless the subject is borderline notable or the entry contains a lot of disparaging information and even then, in the last case the page would probably be edited to fix it. Try Wikipedia:Deletion policy too - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my IP is blocked and I have never done anything[edit]

I tried to change something for the first time and it said my IP was bocked and when I started reading more I found out that my IP address was abused by some user named Cplot; I would like to clear my IP address and be able to edit wikipedia; how do I go about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.84.187 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It might be due to having a dynamic IP or a shared IP. For more info, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Blocking policy.--TBCΦtalk? 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a dynamic IP and I don't have a shared IP; but I guess someone could be stealing it with wireless or even could be hooked up or maybe I have some type of trojan? should I reload windows and request IP change from my provider which I don't know if could be done? please help; am I a victim of stolen identity? 13:00, 6 March 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.84.187 (talk • contribs)

It's unlikely that someone would go to the trouble of putting a trojan on your computer just to be able to post to Wikipedia from your IP address (you'd have to make some sort of mistake, such as downloading a doubtful file first). It's much more likely that at some time in the past, the IP address was assigned by your ISP to another user. Or that if you provide unsecured wireless access to nearby users, that someone took advantage of that. So no, there is no evidence that you're a victim of stolen identity.

What you should do is register for an account - see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. That will generally let you edit even though your IP (in and of itself) is blocked. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Barere[edit]

hello,

i went to edit the first few lines of the entry but this part did not seem to be available to edit. why is that?

also, information about how to get a response here seems very unclear. i am on a public computer. when you say to go back to 'this page' for an answer, what is 'this page'? does this mean the help page? the page of the entry i am attempting to edit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.176.213.219 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Instead of clicking the section edit links, you need to enter the "edit this page" link at the top to edit the introduction section, or click the edit link of another section and manually change the section number to "0" in the URL. When it says "come back to this page" we refer to the page the instructions are on: the help desk. The page you visited to post this question. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker...!?[edit]

Ive used wikipedia since around May 2006 and i never had a problem, but it seems this certain Admin is stalking me. I looks at all my contributions and always reverts them, and always leaves me messages on my talk page and sometimes i feel lowered. just because im not an admin and i dont make corrections to his expectations. yeah i might be 19 but that does not make me stupid or foolish. i feel offended. i just wish he would leave me alone. he thinks everything i do is vandalism, but i have NEVER had this problem before. then the other night i was fixing a page that I created and i noticed it said sources but there was nothing there so i had removed it, and he said it was vandalism and he said one more bad edit and i would be blocked. i could not beleive it. Now he wants to put my article up for Deletion. there are thousands of schools part of wikipedia and i dont think it should be removed. i admit, its not that much notable, but if mine should be removed so should all of them that meet criteria. what should i do? thanks. a big wikipedia fan and contributor! Mcoop06 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried looking through your edit history, but I can't find the edits you are talking about. Could you please provide a WP:DIFF to where the admin reverted your edits? To me it appears you are unaware of some guidelines regarding for example schools (see WP:SCHOOL) and references. If an article has an empty section sources, that means the article is missing a vital ingredient that needs to be addressed to avoid deletion. If I were you I'd talk to the admin in question and ask them to drop you some links to pages with relevant policies and guidelines. Remember, the fact we have thousands of articles on schools doesn't mean we should keep all of them. It's not only the subject, the content counts for something too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you, im trying to improve myself all the time to do better work here. I was just frustrated! probably because the article i had created was being taken from me, but im understanding a little more each and every day. thanks for your response! Mcoop06 09:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia deletes lots of articles, probably more than any other wiki. Wikipedia is a very specialized kind of wiki (WP:ENC), with an incredibly complex set of policies and guidelines (see: User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia) to trip up naive users. Wikipedia is also the most famous and visited wiki, so lots of people do their first wiki editing here. However, in some ways that's like starting out in the "big leagues." Many other wikis seem to have more relaxed rules for their content, they have fewer contributors, and a narrower topic focus. If you find a wiki that caters to school-related topics, you can probably write about your school there as much as you like. See List of wikis, search WikiIndex for school and education for a wiki that wants your content. --Teratornis 18:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

how can i register? where to search for music information?

Registering can be done with the link in the top right hand corner of the page. As for the second question: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, try typing the name of a music style, instrument or song/artist in the search engine to the left and hit enter to find it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact?[edit]

In any way,if I put a message on User:Jimbo 's talk page will he answer back?=oTrampton 08:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His talk page has 500 edits in the last two days and he may not have time to answer everything. I don't know what you want to discuss but there may be better places, e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump. PrimeHunter 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I?[edit]

To adop,do I need to be a admin?Trampton

Are you talking about WP:ADOPT? No, you don't need to be an admin, but to adopt other users you need to have some more Wikipedia experience (IIRC you are quite new). Why not offer yourself up for adoption by another Wikipedian first? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two simple questions from a Newbie[edit]

Hi! I have two questions:

A. I want to put my name on the list of the kindness campaign, but I cannot find its address. A fellow Wikipedian seems depressed, so a cup of tea would be appropriate to cheer him up.

B.I am suffering from mild editcountitis, (despite having been here just for three months!) Where can I check how many edits I have made?

With wikigreetings! -Tellervo 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) Just go to Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign/Participants and add your name to the list. You don't need to do it anyway. If you want to cheer someone up with a cup of tea, feel free to just do it. B) Try Interiot's edit counting tool, but remember it lags behind. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, for the second question, see Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question about google link[edit]

I have changed the date of an artist's birthday as it was incorrect - however when I google him the Wikipedia link still has the incorrect date after his name. How do I get this to be changed too? Thank you - SD

sorry - forgot to fill in the subject headline. I want to change the date of an artist's birthday which is incorrect. I have edited the page but the change does not show up on the google link as i expected. Please can someone tell me how to make sure this change shows on the Wikipedia line that come up when this artist is googled. Thank you SD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sleepydormouse (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Google periodically revisits pages to see if they have changed. Your changes should show in Google then. Wikipedia has no control over when it happens. PrimeHunter 11:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking around Google because of another editor's question, it seems that Google can be from one to two weeks 'behind'. That is, the 'cached' copy of the article that Google indexes and shows a brief copy of may not be refreshed until days after the your latest change.

For instance, type "site:en.wikipedia.org Hippolyte Delaroche" into the Google search line (well, best copy-n-paste it). When you hit search you'll see that Wikipedia article and a couple lines from the top of the article. But wait, see at the bottom of that entry, where it says "Cached - Similar pages"? Click on 'Cached', then look at what Google shows you. At the top of that 'cached' copy of the page it says "as retrieved on Feb 28, 2007 08:31:15 GMT." The copy of the page that Google is keeping is 6 days old!

Depending on the page, it might be a couple weeks before the change is 'noticed' by Google. Or merely a couple days. Paul Gauguin is 'important', so that cached copy is only two days old as I look right now. Shenme 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

my computer has no sound..i can't hear anything,i think i delated any programme..please help me

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here's the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. --WikiSlasher 11:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cant create a login account.[edit]

…tried countless times to create an account but it keeps telling me login name already in use. i love this website and would really love an account.–— —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.8.53 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that the username that you want is already in use by someone else. You should try a different username. (It would get very confusing if two people had the same username!) --ais523 13:22, 6 March 2007 (U T C)

"this article has been tagged since..."[edit]

I am an educator, and trying to figure out how Wikipedia works. What does it mean, if an article has been "tagged"? I could find nothing about this in FAQs or by searching... Also, I am designing a research project to study the reliability of Wikipedia. How do I come in contact with someone who works at Wikipedia and can help us with this study?

Thanks, Lawrence Kirkendall Assoc. Prof. Biology, Univ. Bergen (Norway) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.177.182.225 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The date goes with the tag. The tag is something which typically causes a box to appear, which indicates an editor feels the article needs improvement. Adding tags is an informal process; the date helps other editors judge urgency. If editing a page, you will usually see tags looking like this: {{nameoftag...}}. Notinasnaid 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, very few people actually work at Wikipedia. Why do you feel you need to contact one of them? Notinasnaid 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Cleanup tags are used to mark articles as being imperfect in certain specific ways, to attract the attention of editors and/or readers who could be able to fix the problem, and to warn readers that there may be a problem; see this list to see some of the cleanup tags available. For instance, the tag {{copyedit}} would put a message at the top of an article warning that it was in need of copyediting (e.g. it might have bad spelling, grammar, or style). As for contacting "someone who works at Wikipedia", hardly anyone works for the Wikimedia Foundation (it's mostly the work of unpaid volunteers like me), but you can see Wikipedia:Contact us for more information. --ais523 13:21, 6 March 2007 (U T C)

Someone interested in joining the teeming ranks of Wikipedia researchers might read: Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies. But before performing yet another me-too Wikipedia study, perhaps consider researching something that fewer people are looking at, but which is arguably more important: the adoption of wiki technology by smaller organizations or user communities with more narrowly-defined goals, who currently know little or nothing about wikis. Imagine if the whole world worked as well as Wikipedia. After spending some time on Wikipedia, it's even harder than it was before to tolerate the comparative chaos and imprecision that plagues information exchange and collaboration in every other organization I have any experience with. (For example, how annoying is it now to see typographical errors I cannot easily correct? Or vague allusions to things which I could clarify by adding links, if it were only generally possible?) Obviously, the challenge before humankind now is to wikify everything which can be wikified. I challenge researchers to research that. For starters, every university (and earlier school) should have at least one wiki now, and make sure every student graduates well-prepared to join the modern world of efficient collaboration. Then each university could research and report on what their students are doing with wikis, both in school and after graduation. --Teratornis 17:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to contact User:Gmaxwell who is the Chief Research Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation. (a volunteer postition)--BirgitteSB 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nesting[edit]

Is it possbile to creat nested wiki's.

I am working on a page where some information is already posted, I do not just want to place a link to the page, and I do not want to just copy that info and place it in my wiki as if the origanal gets updated, the other wikis will not.

Is is possible to display one wiki inside another? 24.114.2.40 14:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is unclear. A "wiki" is a large set of pages; for example, there are wikis on bicycling and on the programming language python. Wikipedia is a wiki, as is Wiktionary and Wikisource. So you wouldn't display an entire wiki inside one another.

If you're asking if it possible to link two pages within a single wiki so that if one page is updated, the other is as well, the answer is "yes", via transclusion. You'll find that described at Wikipedia:Transclusion and Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits. This is rarely done with Wikipedia articles; it is the norm with RfAs and AfDs.

If you're asking about linking pages of two different wikis, I'd guess that would depend on whether interwiki linking has been enabled for the wikis in question. I very strongly advise against bringing outside content into Wikipedia via this method, because this causes accountability problems: it's impossible to see what the content of a page looked like in the past without looking at both articles, and if the source article is outside of Wikipedia, then the accuracy of the history of that source article depends people who haven't been named trusted editors (via RfA) here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See mw:Manual:$wgEnableScaryTranscluding. I would guess this is only possible for a pair of user-controlled MediaWiki wikis. Disclaimer: I have not tried this "scary transcluding" feature. It would probably make using a wiki offline (as in a "wiki on a stick") more difficult, for example. --Teratornis 16:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, sorry that I was not clear enough on the description. transclution appear to be what I was looking for.

regards sir[edit]

respected sir im a student in a very well known college in bangalore and now we are facing a problem we require a quiz masterto conduct our business quiz so if u can plz send me the details it would be thankful my email id is [deleted - JB] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.214.237.49 (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is quite unclear what you are asking, why you are posting to Wikipedia in general, and why you are posting to this page in particular. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. We do not offer any services, such as conducting a quiz (or creating one); this project is about writing encyclopedic articles.

You might (I'm doubtful) get some help locating what you want if you post at Wikipedia:Reference desk; please read the top section of that page before posting there, so you better understand what they do and don't do. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's probably good to note there's also female people answering questions here, so not everyone can be addressed as sir. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moving page[edit]

how do I move a page? --MiddleEastern 16:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait four days after account creation. If it's an uncontroversial move, you can contact an admin. WP:RM is good, too. Xiner (talk, email) 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My watchlist..[edit]

..doesn't work anymore, is it possible I killed it by watchlisting too many pages? I've never had this happen before, but then, I've never added 500 pages to my watchlist before, at least not all at once. --VectorPotential^Talk 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine's crashed too, so I don't think it's anything to do with that. --ais523 17:52, 6 March 2007 (U T C)

Yep, probably best to keep this centralized, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Watchlist_stuck, especially with all our watchlists down (: --VectorPotential^Talk 17:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Desserts[edit]

Does anyone know the name of the Disney ice cream treats that were once in the freezer section in the 1990's? I think it was "cool creations," but I am not sure. I was thinking this is the place that would best know the answer! 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. --ais523 17:58, 6 March 2007 (U T C)

Deletion opinion[edit]

I believe List of pairs of colleagues is a good candidate for deletion since the criteria are extremely vague, but since I had one of my own articles speedily deleted about 2 microseconds after I created it, I'd like a second opinion. Clarityfiend 18:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fit any of the speedy deletion criteria, as far as I can see, but it's a good candidate to be deleted via the prod or AfD processes. --ais523 18:22, 6 March 2007 (U T C)

How delete my account Wikipedia?[edit]

How do I delete my account in Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drakeja (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia accounts cannot be delete as it does not comply with the GNU Free Documentation License in which wikipedia is based on, if you would like to change your username then please see Wikipedia:Changing Username. Thanks --Tellyaddict 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take a look at m:Right to vanish if you want to leave Wikipedia. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bircham International University[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

We have recently found your definition about Bircham International University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bircham_International_University The definition currently posted is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. I suggest that this definition is updated with a most accurate and precise content. First I will propose the definition and then I will provide the references and proofs in order to support the inaccurate leads detected. I thank you in advance for your time and I hope that you reconsider that this incorrect definition is quite damaging for our institution and it does not honor the commitment to accuracy and truth from an Encyclopedia

CORRECT DEFINITION ABOUT BIU:

Bircham International University is an independent institution of higher education that offers degree programs through distance learning for the adult professional student. BIU is a non accredited institution according to the USA accreditation standards (CHEA) and a provider of non formal higher education according to the Spanish Law. Its unaccredited degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and the use of its degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions, such as the States of Oregon, Maine or Texas.

INACCURATE DATA ARGUMENTS AND PROOFS

I also ask that any reference to Diploma Mill or Fraudulent school are taken away from the definition for the reasons, arguments and proofs provided below.

AACRAO AND SOME STATES CLASSIFICATION OF BIU

The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization listed BIU as a degree mill in the past. BIU provided documentation and a review conducted by Alan Contreras from the Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization any negative definition of BIU was deleted. It is though listed correctly as not accredited school with no further comments, except an “F” which means Foreign institution. http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

AACRAO http://www.aacrao.org/international/consulting.cfm conducted a simple review of BIU legal status that lead to the incorrect statement posted by the State of Maine and Texas. The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization who required this evaluation from AACRAO did not post the statement “Bircham is not accredited and it not authorized by the Spanish government” because it was explained to them by BIU. After detecting the the Wikipedia definition, BIU has taken the actions to get the Maine and Texas sites corrected the same way the Oregon Office did. We do not know how long this will take. First we have presented the same documents and proofs provided in this email to AACRAO who is the institution used by different States organism to verify foreign institutions. I understand that posing an inaccurate question or addressing the incorrect department in Spain may have lead AACRAO to this conclusion. Allow me to clarify that there are two types of higher education in Spain:

1. Formal Education leading to officially recognized degrees is monitored by the corresponding departments of education that ensure that the programs curriculum meet the standards set forth by the Ministry of Education. Completion of such homologated programs leads to an official degree.

2. Non-Formal Education (Educación no reglada) leading to non officially recognized degrees is monitored by the corresponding departments of consumer affairs that ensure consumer protection and quality of instruction delivery. Non formal education programs do not follow the Ministry of Education programs curriculum standards. Non formal education provides much more freedom in the program curriculum. Degrees granted after completion of non formal programs leads to a non official degree.

Bircham International University is a provider of non formal education and as such no further authorization form the Ministry of Education is required. The Ministry and Departments of Consumer Affairs monitors that BIU programs clearly state the non formal nature of the programs offered and the quality of instruction delivered. In 2004 a law was specifically approved on this regard. Before this law there was a disperse collection of norms and directives that could have lead the person conducting the AACRAO evaluation to the inaccurate and false conclusions stated above.

The applicable law is Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo. Enseñanza General. Quoting the law. It applies to private institutions that offer non formal education leading to non official degrees (...“los centros privados que imparten enseñanzas no dirigidas a las obtención de un título con validez oficial”...) You may read this law directly from http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/servlet/Servidor?opcion=VerHtml&idnorma=3480&word=S&wordperfect=N&pdf=S You may also verify other related laws at: http://gestiona.madrid.org/wleg/index.htm

Then you should download the PDF Documents called BIU Legal Docs and BIU Recognition on the top part of this link http://www.bircham.edu/pdfdownload/ This should provide documentary proof that neither AACRAO nor the States of Maine or Texas ever looked at while the Oregon State did look at. http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

The PDF called BIU Legal Docs provides copies of the following documents and much more:

- Copy of the Official Registrar of Companies authorizing the name Bircham International University College and the purpose of the company (objeto social): Higher education. - Copy of the Economic Activity License under paragraph 932.2 (Professional Education and Improvement) - Copy of the Office license for the activity Higher Professional Education - Copy of a certificate from the Spain National Distance Learning Association (ANCED) stating the european residents may legally work in Europe with a non official degree granted by BIU. - Copy of the Consumer Affairs Quality Seal granted by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that guarantees that BIU meets the regulations set forth by the law Decreto 84/2004 de 13 de Mayo. Enseñanza General. mentioned above.

BEING NOT ACCREDITED IS NOT EQAL TO BEING A DIPLOMA MILL

BIU may be listed as a non accredited school but this is not equivalent to be defined as a fraudulent institution or diploma mill. Quoting Wikipedia definition of unaccredited institutions “According to the United States Department of Education, it is possible for postsecondary educational institutions and programs to elect not to seek accreditation but nevertheless provide a quality postsecondary education” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_accreditation

You are also welcome to visit BIU website at http://www.bircham.edu/ to gather for more information and find out if BIU meets the criteria to be classified as a diploma Mill. BIU is NOT a Diploma Mill. A diploma mill is an institution of higher education that grants degrees without ensuring that students are properly qualified. The following aspects will allow you to properly differentiate BIU from a Diploma Mill or any questionable school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_mill

1. Legality: A diploma mill does not provide clear references about its legal status or authority to grant degrees. BIU does. Sometimes the school is based in countries that lack of any regulations in matter of education such as several Caribbean countries, some nations from Africa, or some States from the USA (Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Montana). A diploma mill often operates from another country through PO BOX addresses. Visit the About BIU section of BIU web for further explanations of BIU legal references. You may also download copies of BIU Legal Docs from the PDF Download area. http://www.bircham.edu/english/aboutbiu/

2. Contact offices: A diploma mill does not usually provide a physical or verifiable contact address or telephone. Any international structure is not real or just a group of commercial agents. There are no offices to visit or to call during office hours. BIU provides real addresses with real offices that may be visiet on working hours. Visit the BIU Offices to know worldwide contact details. http://www.bircham.edu/english/contactabiu.html

3. Admission & Fees. A diploma mill does not have a real admission process. Anybody is usually admitted into any degree program offered. Fees are negotiable and there is usually no criteria or regulations regarding any transfer of credits from previous education and professional experience. A diploma mill never offers a refund policy nor enforces any students rights or consumer protection. Visit the Admission section of BIU web to learn about our admission requirements, student rights and refund policy. http://www.bircham.edu/english/adm.html

4. Academic support. A diploma mill does not have a list of academics and staff. If there is a list, there will be no description of their educational qualifications. No detailed information about the content of the academic program is provided accurately or in detail. No learning methodology and teacher tutoring or counseling is available. There is never any academic feedback about any work submitted to the institution. Visit the Who We Are section of BIU web to know BIU Staff and academics. http://www.bircham.edu/english/graduados/ You may also download the Study Guide from the PDF Download area. http://www.bircham.edu/pdfdownload/

5. Recognition. A diploma mill does not provide clear information about recognition and accreditation. Any reference to third party accreditors is misleading, not sound and not verifiable. There is never a consumer protection guarantee such as the one that BIU provides. Visit the About BIU section of this web for further explanations of BIU recognition. http://www.bircham.edu/english/aboutbiu/ You may also download copies of BIU Recognition from the PDF Download area. http://www.bircham.edu/pdfdownload/

BIU is NOT a Diploma Mill. BIU web provides clear arguments against these issues. If you wish to verify further about any issue do not hesitate to ask or request additional documents.

CITYLINK ARTICLE “Bircham International University was referred to by a former DipScam federal agent as a degree mill.[2]” http://www.citylinkmagazine.com/archives/101503coverstory.html

This article deals with several diploma mills and the whole business around it. It mentions BIU once through the opinion of one former BIU student (Hullender). Michelle Moultrie Hullender was granted admission into BIU on 4/11/2003. She was assigned to do several reports on several textbooks that she never submitted. On 10/27/2003 she request to withdraw from the program. BIU sent the corresponding Refund Form according to the student rights and refund policy. Michelle Moultrie Hullender never submitted any academic work so she ca not provide an accurate opinion about BIU programs of study. The Citylink article then provides a comment about Deric Bircham without even bothering to verify if Deric Bircham credentials are good or not. Deric Bircham full and detailed Biodata is available upon request. A short summary of the academic part of his background (The honors are not included here) may be read at http://www.bircham.edu/english/graduados/ Academic Board

BIU lawyers have contacted Citylink magazine in the past in order to demand a correction of this references. The answer from Citylink magazine and Jim Di Paola the wirter is that the article only express an opinion. If Wikipedia considers that an article of opinion is a fact, then we also request that the following references about BIU are added to the definition of BIU provided by Wikipedia. This definitions are factual references and not mere opinions:

AADP - American Association of Drugless Practitioners http://www.aadp.net/ APICS - Accademia per la Promozione Internazionale della Cultura e della Scienza http://www.apics.com/news.htm ABED - Associação Brasileira de Educação a Distância http://www.abed.org.br/ AHEA - Adult Higher Education Alliance http://www.ahea.org/about/institutions.htm ANCED - Asociación Nacional de Centros de Enseñanza a Distancia http://www.anced.es/centros.asp BLA - The British Learning Association http://www.british-learning.com/home.htm EDUCAUSE http://www.educause.edu IACET - International Association for Continuing Education & Training http://www.iacet.org/about/providers.asp IARC - International Accreditation & Recognition Council http://www.iarcedu.com/directory.aspx INC - Instituto Nacional del Consumidor http://www.consumo-inc.es/guiacons/interior/infpract/infpract.htm

ECBE - European Council for Business Education http://www.ecbe.eu/what-is-ecbe.php?page_id=7 ICA - International Communication Association http://www.icahdq.org/

AADP - American Association of Drugless Practitioners http://www.aadp.net/ AAMA - American Alternative Medical Association http://www.joinaama.com/ AHHA - American Holistic Health Association http://ahha.org/ahhameb.asp BCMA - The British Complementary Medicine Association http://www.bcma.co.uk/bcma_Spain.htm

AHP - Association for Humanistic Psychology http://www.ahpweb.org/aboutahp/hum_edu.html ATP - Association for Transpersonal Psychology http://www.atpweb.org SIOP - Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology http://www.siop.org

IACEE - International Association for Continuing Engineering Education http://www.iacee.org/academic.htm

QUACKWATCH Lists BIU as questionable non-accredited school Wikipedia provides a very accurate definition of Quackwatch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch BIU presented a report with all the course contents of our Natural Health Sciences programs for their review and evaluation. It is true that there is a lot of quackery in the Health Sciences Business but it is also true that there are good professionals and schools. I just refer the related links provided above. Quoting the answer received from Stephen Barrett, M.D. should be enough to prove the partial and obsesive personal war of this person has against all Natural Health Sciences. The question then is why Wikipedia considers such references as valid references for the definition of an academic institution.

Stephen Barrett, M.D. Email received on 02/12/03:

“I have been to your Web site, which, by the way, is one of the most poorly functional sites I have ever seen. The fact that you have a PhD program that offers to convey expert knowledge of iridology, homeopathy, and several other pseudosciences is enough for me to conclude that you teach nonsense. Sorry, but that's how I feel.”

Stephen Barrett, M.D. Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc. NCAHF Vice President and Director of Internet Operations P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105 Telephone: (610) 437-1795

Finally I want to thank you again for taking your time to get to the end of our request and kindly ask you to modify the definition of BIU as suggested. Do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] if any additional information or dicuments are required. I have provided quick internet references to support BIU arguments but of course additional documents are available. I did not want though to overload this email with an excess of documents.

Regards

William Martin BIU Vicepresident & CEO Plaza Chueca 8, Madrid 28004, Spain (Email & Phone Number removed for privacy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bircham (talk • contribs)

You could try and edit Bircham International University yourself, as long as you're aware of WP:COI it shouldn't be too much of an issue--VectorPotential^Talk 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, with so much disagreement, I think Mr. Martin was prudent in not editing the article himself. I do hope more dispassionate editors will help out with the fact checks and review the article and Mr. Martin's letter. Xiner (talk, email) 11:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helen K. Garber[edit]

I added references to the Helen K Garber page and would like to remove the no references message that is on top and asks to be removed when references are added. and can't see how to do it.

also, would like to add images to the titles of selected works and would like instruction on how to do it. thank you Helen K. Garber —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helenkgarber (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Done, although you might want to read up on Wikipedia:Citing sources, specifically this section--VectorPotential^Talk 19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, seeing as how you seem to be Helen K. Garber, you might want to read WP:COI as well --VectorPotential^Talk 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

Can anyone think of a reason why this article attracts so many vandals? It seems like an odd amount of vandalism for an article that isn't on the front page--VectorPotential^Talk 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High school kids. Same with Polar Bear and Charles Dickens <- hugely entertaining for some it seems. Xiner (talk, email) 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, Colbert talked about the polar bear article on his show. I think he joked about glaciers in that White House video, but I have no idea if he keeps mentioning the topic on his show. Xiner (talk, email) 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There won't be any particular reason for this, it's probably just because a vandal may think of this to vandalise, I think it may just be because its a regularly edited article.Telly addict 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether to remove external links[edit]

I am about to start cleaning up the Fiber to the premises#United States section. The section has external links to commercial websites. Based on the conventions for external links to avoid (particularly number 13), it looks to me like I should remove these links and replace them with plain text. I am hoping that someone more familiar with Wikipedia can confirm or deny whether this is in fact a responsible approach. (And if not, how should I proceed instead?) Thanks! Riick 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A less controversial approach, depending on the sentence in question, would be to replace the external links with Wiki links (I see that AT&T and SBC are linked to their Wiki pages, for example). Don't worry if it becomes a red link; that's acceptable. Of course, if the company is unlikely to become notable enough for an article, you can convert it into plain text. Just make sure you use edit summaries. Xiner (talk, email) 19:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how cautious you want to be, consider writing additional justification on Talk:Fiber to the premises, as edit summaries are occasionally too terse to make sense, particularly for deletions, or edits that change the functionality (such as turning links back to plain text). When you delete something, you are implying that whoever put the material there originally was wrong to do so. Maybe they weren't aware of the specific guideline you are citing, and some guideline pages are long with many sections, so it bears pointing out exactly which section someone violated. In any case, I fixed the link on SBC Communications which was pointing to the disambiguation page for SBC. (Three-letter acronyms tend to be ambiguous, so checking their links is a good idea.) --Teratornis 21:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a site[edit]

hello,

I am trying to put a link to an article about john coble, but get a message stating the link is blocked. I'm trying to link to suite 101.com.

can you tell me why the suite 101 is blocked and if it's possible to unblock it, so I can add my link?

Thanks.

christine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anniebfm7 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The site is most likely deemed unreliable and the subject of spam attempts by various authors. Please see our external links policy. Xiner (talk, email) 20:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussion here. Notinasnaid 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

The incredibly long bank of information on the page about the "Pope" (the papacy) has been entirley replaced with the phrase "The pope is really felix debieux (not the cat)". The web address of the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.148.19 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please see WP:REVERT for how you can revert vandalism yourself. Thanks, and the article's been fixed. Xiner (talk, email) 21:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can vandalism within the edit summary be removed? Someone placed an obscene comment in an article and then removed but repeated the obscenity within the edit summary. 71.9.59.97 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Oversight. Xiner (talk, email) 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not it.

Wikipedia:Oversight: ...Oversight removal is not used on usual vandalism — even egregious and offensive vandalism ...

71.9.59.97 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not appropriate for oversight, then you should probably ignore it. Of course, warn the offender before you walk away. Xiner (talk, email) 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Actually the initial post should have said, "An obscene comment was placed...", instead of "Someone placed...", as I'm not sure it was the same person. I'll warn both.

71.9.59.97 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses user talk pages[edit]

Hi. (Sorry for not logging in but I am sending this message from a public computer.) There are several IP addresses talk pages which I created (using my account) with a welcome message and I want them to be deleted because they are old now. I nominated four of them for speedy deletion and two were deleted while the other two were not but were blanked. There is also Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion. I want here to ask a specific question: What exactly should be done with the rest of these pages which I created (other than these four)?

Deleted after I nominate them for speedy deletion.
Blanked by me.
Blanked by a bot. (In this case, what is the name of the bot, please and when will it do the job?)

Please if anyone here knows what should be done, answer me. Thank you very much. --196.202.92.234 21:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no reason to do any of these things. It just makes the database bigger! Any future person who happens who get that IP address will be welcomed, which seems fine. Notinasnaid 21:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, old IP talk pages are deleted periodically. No need to do anything. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

A page I created was deleted, but there is no action listed in the deletion log.

Why was my page deleted?

Studiosarch 21:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the exact name of the article (including upper and lower case as originally typed)? Notinasnaid 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did it meet the minimum requirements for notability and references? Adrian M. H.

I assume it was the Studios Architecture article. A reason for the article to be quickly deleted is that it very much appears that you work for Studios Architecture and Wikipedia does not accept "promo" articles by companies, written by themselves, for themselves. In other words, this is not a classified ads site. The reason isn't to be nasty to companies. It is because there is a continual conflict of interest. For example, if I were to Google for Studios Architecture and I found a news article claiming something bad about the company and put it in the article, I am certain that you would remove it. I would put it back. You would remove it. A conflict ensues. It is better for all if articles are added by someone other than a company's PR department (or the like). --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bot that deletes broken redirects[edit]

A friend of mine has told me that there is a special file that enables some bots to delete broken redirects. My friend also said that the deletion is done using the administrative account of the bot owner. I am here talking about a bot not AutoWiki Browser and not a script. I am not sure about this information. As far as I know, deletion of broken redirects is done only by human administrators because any page can be converted to a broken redirect by a vandal, so, a human is needed to distinguish between vandalized pages and real broken redirects. So, I want to ask here: Can a bot really delete broken redirects? Is there a bot here which deletes broken redirects? If yes, what is its name? Thank you very much. --196.202.92.234 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is one, but if there is there's probably a safeguard that requires human intervention when the page has an edit history. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list of approved bots, the only bot that had such a function was User:Curps, however the automatic functions of that account were discontinued. There are no other bots currently authorized to use sysop powers. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

Hi,

If I would like to translate one of your web pages, how do I make an other language link to the web page ? Simply press "edit??" Thanks !

Please sign your comments with four tildes. (~~~~)

I'm not completely understanding your question. Many articles here have similar articles in other languages on other Wikipedias. You can link to them by adding a link in the following format:

[[:Two-letter Babel code:Name of article in other language]]

For example, [[:de:Hauptseite]] provides a link to the German Main Page. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without the initial colon, the link will be placed in the 'in other languages' sidebar, rather than in the text, which might be what you want; see Wikipedia:Interlanguage links for more information. --ais523 09:54, 7 March 2007 (U T C)

Kzin[edit]

Can somebody fix the last image in the article. I can't figure out how to get rid of the extra text. Clarityfiend 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Check the edit history to see what I did. Dismas|^(talk) 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Thanks. Clarityfiend 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Gustloff (ship)[edit]

Will you guys do something about this article ? Put it under protection ? and also issue a warning to user Zasdcxz ?

If you look in your records you will see I have complained about this before and that Wikipedia admin MacGyverMagic dealt with it but obviously not forcibly enough.

The trouble is that Zasdcxz persists in posting Russian onto English Wikipedia.

Look at the article, section, Controversy.

You will notice that Zasdcxz has restored sections that MacgyverMagic had previously deleted.

Will you please do something ?--Tovojolo 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet looked at the edit history, so I do not know if you have tried reverting the disruptive edits. If you have not, by all means do so, remembering to avoid falling foul of the 3 revert rule. Adrian M. H. 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just performed a revert for you. The simplest method is to select the last known good version from the history, edit it (but do not actually make changes) and save it. Adrian M. H. 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done something myself but I am not a Wikipedia Admin. I do not have the authority to issue warnings.--Tovojolo 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacgyverMagic, thanks for your message.--Tovojolo 00:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be an admin. Anyone with a web browser can revert vandalism. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And anyone can issue warnings. Just read WP:TT. Xiner (talk, email) 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]