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.
how to use Special:Random and Special:RecentChanges[edit]
According to Most viewed articles in 201012, Special:Random and Special:RecentChanges ranked at the 3rd and the 117th most viewed articles on English Wikipedia in December of last year. However, I am not using the special pages. I would like to what I can use the pages for. If you do not mind, let me know how you are using the pages briefly. cooldenny (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The special pages are not actually articles.
Special:Random is linked on "Random article" below the Wikipedia logo in the upper left corner. It redirects to a random page in the main namespace. See Wikipedia:Random. People can use it or ignore it as they want. Some readers click "Random article" until they hit something they want to read. Some editors click it and improve whatever page they get if it's poorly formatted or has easily fixed problems.
Special:RecentChanges is linked on "Recent changes" under the "Interaction" heading below the logo. It's mostly used for recent changes patrol to quickly detect vandalism and other poor edits.
I have been bombarded by emails over about two years by a company called Cloud Marketing Info. I get at least 10 emails a day.
I've blocked them so many times, I couldn't count but they just keep making up new email addresses.
I thought I would check online today to see if anyone else has this problem and was surprised to see them pop up on Wikipedia, describing their company verbosely and self-importantly.
They are simply a scam company, offering everything from penis enlarging pills through to real estate.
I'm a little unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works but you should delete them.
I don't think the article's about the scammer in question, but cloud marketing in general. Regards Kayau VotingISevil 07:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting a new article and part of the text is missing from the preview box. No matter how many times I re-type the information or cut-n-paste the information again, it does not appear in the preview box even though it is in the work area. Also, I am having trouble with the references. I have tagged them, and put in the {{Reflist}}, but think I may not be clear on the position of the {{Reflist}}. Can you help with both issues?
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
We can't help much, until you've saved it. I hope you are making it in a user-space draft? Make a page such as User:Privy1/draft and save it. Then ask again.
I suspect that the problem is, you have a <ref> with no closing </ref> - that commonly causes text to not display. Chzz ► 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the </ref> is closed and it is the body of the article (parts, at least) that is not showing. I am not finished with it so how can I save it - won't it display if I save? What is user-space - I followed the links to create a new article...--Privy1 (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Userspace" is a non-live area. Live articles have no prefix (e.g. Banana), but a draft page might be called e.g. User:Chzz/banana.
You could make such a page by clicking the red link, User:Privy1/draft.
Or, ff you're using the article wizard, that's fine - at the end, one option it gives is to create a "Userspace draft". Chzz ► 14:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you save it in a live article, we can readily fix the problem. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 14:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tried pasting into the Sandbox & had similar problems except evenmore text was missing, but the ref list displayed there. Really need the entire body of the piece to display... If I complete the article, with the exception of it not displaying correctly, is there a way for someone to help me with that if I upload at that point?--Privy1 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please save it, so we can see. Thanks, Chzz ► 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just saved it. thanks--Privy1 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it, the problem was incorrectly formatted refs. I have to run to work now. Hopefully someone will explain the issue, if not I will when I get back. Rehevkor✉ 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to add that I interned on WCVS-FM to their page, but it keeps removing it. Since I was only an intern, and never actually on the payroll or site, it can't exactly be verified, other than the two people I interned with and some of the staff in the building. How do I get that to stick on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.255.37 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your interning at WCVS-FM is not an encyclopedic fact that should ever be added to the article. Even if it were verifiable, which you admit it's not, it would be the definition of undue weight on a trivial fact about the company that was irrelevant to describing it; it would be utterly indiscriminate to include such information. Just think about the precedent that would set and the reduction ad absurdum conclusions that could be be drawn. Every person who ever worked anywhere, ever, would merit mention in the article on the company. Old companies would need lists in the thousands. Hell, we might as well list the name of every person who ever lived in the United States in our article on the United States...--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the random article button "true" randomness?[edit]
I was wondering if the random article button represents "true" randomness. If not, it would be great if it were hooked up with Random.org, a site that draws randomness from atmospheric disturbance making it more random than any equation.
I ask because I am interested in randomness, and could improve the site. What sparked my question is that I use it quite often and I have found that I am getting entries for moths unusually often, and just pulled up 2 moth entries in a row with the random button, which is highly unlikely. Though my observations don't prove anything of course. Just wondering how random it is. 107.4.16.11 (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe it's totally 100% deterministic in that clicking the link under the same circumstances always yields the same article, as when throwing dice exactly the same way you'd always get the same score. I doubt random article is especially random, seeing that it's more of a toy feature than critical functionality. In Wikipedia's case, it's of course easier to get articles about subjects that there are many articles about - Asian villages seem to be quite common. But in any case, you'll probably be interested in taking a look at MediaWiki's source code, as it might provide some insights on this. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Random article link on the left is truly annoying. You'd think it would take you to an article on Wikipedia entitled "Random", but no, depending on the whim of the gremlins in my computer, it takes me to all sorts of different articles, most of which I'm not even interested in. In fact, after spending hours researching the issue, I discovered there is no article called "Random" on Wikipedia (and here I thought there was a Wikipedia article on everything). If I type in Random in the Search box, it takes me to an article entitled "Randomness" using some mysterious creature called a redirect. Now, really, if I wanted to look at an article called "Randomness", I would have said so. I intend to complain as soon as I figure out how to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. But seriously, I can't really take a look at MediaWiki's source code as I know too little about technical programming. I realize its not high priority, but someone with technical experience might want to program the random article button follow true randomness, if it does not already. 107.4.16.11 (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True random number generation is not as simple as it sounds when it comes to computing, see Random number generation. If it were easy it'd already be used. Rehevkor✉ 16:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but that's kind of like saying, if I could afford a nicer pen, it would already be in my hand. At the very least, the random article experience can be improved over time, but being such an amateur in computer programming, a general suggestion is only suggestion I can offer. That being said, I use the random article button all the time to discover new things and would like to see it worked on more, though my entry has become more of a suggestion than a help question at this point. 107.4.16.11 (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera there are over 30,000 articles about butterflies and moths - that's getting on for 1% of the total number of articles. So "randomly" getting two of those in a row occasionally is no big deal. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's comforting, makes more since given the huge amount of moths out there. Thanks for the info everyone. 107.4.16.11 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The algorithm used for selecting "random" articles is...I really cannot describe how bad it is and stay civil. They start with a good idea; 64 psuedo-random bits from a Mersenne Twister. Alas, instead of simply using that to pick a random article, they assign a random value to each article and compare it with the current random number from the twister. Thus if an article has ann adjacent articles below it with close to the same number, it will go years without being picked, while an article with a wide gap between it and the next lowest article will get picked again and again. Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Skopje (1903). Such battle have never occured. I tagged it for CSD R3. That will bring up the interest of some admins probably? Thank you. 17:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know anything about this stuff. But here's a sentence from the Skopje article: "Üsküb was a key player in the Ilinden Uprising of August 1903 when the native population of the region declared the emergence of the Kruševo Republic." Then, looking at the Ilinden Uprising article, it talks about events in August of 2003. Now, whether there was something that can properly be called the "Battle of Skopje" I don't know. A possible result might be that the Battle of Skopje article duplicates information in the other articles. It would take someone with more knowledge to figure this out.
I suspect PrimeHunter is right and the speedy delete will be declined. If that happens, I would recommend exploring the merits of the article on the article's Talk page. After all, the article still doesn't have any citations in support of it. You could also talk to the creator of the article. Finally, WP:WikiProject Bulgaria might be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy delete was declined, but, at the same time, the admin very helpfully proposed the article for deletion as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this should be asked elsewhere. An AfD that was on my watch page just had a comment added to it, which is normal enough except the AfD was opened on 19th February and hadn't been touched since. The nominator withdrew it, but I think they must have just deleted it from the log and left the discussions open. Does this matter, beyond banal due process? Am I able to close it, and if so how, or do I need to ask an admin? Thanks Stu.W UK (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the nomination was withdrawn and there were no delete !votes, I have done a non-admin closure. I hope I've got it right, because I've never done one before... According to the rules at WP:NACD you couldn't do it, because you were part of the discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that John, found 4 more, could someone close them please?
A bot that updates the TfD page isn't working properly. Someone has posted on the creator's talk page but according to the contribs page s/he is active one or two days a month. I don't want to shut the bot down in case it is still useful even if partly screwing up. Any suggestions? Stu.W UK (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent Schutz an email. Let's see if that gets a response. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia pages were always laid out with frames or columns of text. All of a sudden it's just one long page. Is there a setting to correct this or go back to the way of viewing that I'm used to?99.196.123.233 (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
