February 25

How do I give feedback to Wikipedia? I want wikipedia to include a 'highlighting' feature, when I read lengthy articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.254.31 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VPR is probably the place for it. What exactly do you want this feature to do, anyway? Algebraist 00:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If you use Firefox all you need is TextMarker. A side benefit of using a browser plugin is that it will work outside of Wikipedia as well. —Noah 05:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to nom an article message box for deletion as soon as it's moved from a user's page to template space - do they fall under MFD or is it somewhere else (as I plan to write the nom now and have it ready). --Fredrick day (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD is appropriate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

thanks. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for articles fall under

WP:MFD but you say you will wait until it's in template space. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, I'm entirely honest about this - I want it to be snowed, so that it stands as a precedent. --Fredrick day (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know you, nor have I previously been in touch in any way, my son asked me to join him playing "Scrabulous", and I came on line with my Email and Password, and lo and behold the game came up. My son, apparently entered a word on your Gameboard, and I tried to make a word from it, but my word wasn't accepted, that is your game would not accept it, my son never got the chance to even see the word. The word was, 'nears', a perfectly good English word, and having played Scrabble before, it was well within the rules for Scrabble. Why, could I not play the game? Why could I not log in, which I also tried? What is different about your game, that prevents me from playing? John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.167.19 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at

t c 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw a template once, it was along the lines of "This article is a FA on the German Wiki, you may be able to use information from there to add to this article." Or something similar. Any help or was it a custom made?? Stepshep (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{

Bencherlite^Talk 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That's it! Thanks! Stepshep (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm often tempted, where possible, to change those horrible little spidery renderings of inline math into ordinary formatted text. Then sometimes I think I should leave them alone as one day this might be fixed so they display nicely. Is there any official line on this? Matt 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC).

See Help:Displaying a formula. It shows how to force an image on a formula for all readers, or an image on all formulas for your account. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know how to do that, but it doesn't solve the problem. When you have, say, just a variable name or a very short expression in amongst ordinary text, the huge-type format looks even worse than the spidery format. Matt 02:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.48.221 (talk)

Not sure what you mean exactly by spidery format, but I think what we're supposed to do, usually, is something like this: ''x''² = ''y'' which displays as x² = y when representing formulas within text.

Wikipedia:Manual of style (mathematics) says "Having LaTeX-based formulas in-line which render as PNG under the default user settings, as above, is generally discouraged, for the following reasons...". When displaying formulas by themselves set apart from the text, (display mode), it's fine to use LaTeX (<math> tags.) Theoretically, I prefer using math tags all the time, but I go with what the Manual of style says since I guess that's the consensus. --Coppertwig (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The section that you highlight just says that you shouldn't use inline math that renders as a graphic (like ${\displaystyle x^{2}=y\,}$). It doesn't say anything about changing "spidery format" inline math that doesn't render as a graphic (like ${\displaystyle x^{2}=y}$) to ordinary formatted text (like x² = y). However, reading on a bit, in the next section, "very simple formulas", it goes on to say, of "LaTeX rendered as HTML" versus "regular HTML": "Either form is acceptable, but do not change one form to the other in other people's writing. They are likely to get annoyed since this seems to be a highly emotional issue. Changing to make an entire article consistent is acceptable." This answers my question, so thanks for the pointer! Matt 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.168.133 (talk)

I recently wrote the article King Goldemar, about a character from German folklore. I've found a nice, public-domain image of Goldemar on Google Books, for I'm having trouble figuring out how to upload it. I'm in Japan, and Google Books blocks lots of public-domain sources to visitors from outside the US (I supposed to sidestep international copyright issues). At any rate, the work in question was published in 1877 and should present no problems. I can access the book through a proxy server, but the proxy doesn't let me download the freely available PDF provided by Google.

I guess that's a long way around to my request: Could someone please get the image from p. 134 of this book and upload it to Commons? I can then use it in King Goldemar. Thanks for any help! — Dulcem (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a request at

a/c) 04:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, OK. Didn't realize there was another place to request help for this. Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a serious BLP violation at

I deleted the statement about selling drugs from the article and explained why on the talk page, citing

WP:BLP. --Coppertwig (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Whenever you encounter a potential

WP:BLP violation - an unsubstantiated controversial claim - feel free to remove the statement on the spot. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please be careful about getting involved without first taking the time to understand the issue. The person raising this issue is a contentious editor and accused

WP:SOCK who seems to be forum shopping and has been canvassing to try to delete the material and knock me off of troll patrol. The material in question was added a while ago and seems to be from an interview with the subject of the article, published in connection wtih his own album. The editor has already edit warred and started AfD on two articles, the matter is on AN/I and as a report of suspected sockpuppetry. All of this is following the edit patterns of a puppetmaster who was just banned indefinitely for this. We really ought to sort the sockpuppetry issue out first, then figure out what's going on with the articles. Wikidemo (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The unavailable liner notes don't seem to be a reliable source, that puts this at a BLP violation, as the original author mentioned. If you can't provide reliable proof for the contention, it has to be removed. Corvus cornix_talk 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this at

WP:RSN, and there, a reviewer has indicated that they don't think the source is appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As I have mentioned umpteen times and places, it is reliably sourced. It is a pain to get dragged into yet another fork of this discussion created by the sock to wikigame. Wikidemo (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...that links to an article on wikipedia. http://www.coachkdome.com links to the article

Wikipedia can't control what people do outside of Wikipedia. The Domain Name System something entirely removed from the control of the Wikimedia Foundation. Oh, and Duke sucks. (little joke). —Noah 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "not allowed", but it is a bit rude. They've used a frame to mask the real URL of the Wikipedia page. No matter, it's probably harmless. • Anakin ^(talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bonni allen

Bonni has over 17 years of experience in the entertainment industry. For over 5 years Bonni worked with two film/media funds as Director of Acquisition/Creative Executive. She has been responsible for bringing in projects from and developing relationships with some of Hollywood’s major producers, including Jonathan Sanger, Lawrence Gordon, Steven Soderbergh, The Farelly Brothers and Penny Marshall.

Bonni is unique in her ability to work closely, and cooperatively, with writers, producers, talent agents and managers. She can analyze any pitch almost before it is over and she has the unique ability to make anyone sit down and listen to her ideas. Bonni’s success is built upon three key attributes: her instinctual knowledge of talent and marketable intellectual properties, her creative writing abilities which enables her to develop projects, and the respect given to her by the Hollywood community based on her honesty, professional relationships and her background as a casting director and the former owner/founder of a bi-coastal talent agency.

Bonni has worked freelance negotiating and drafting deals in New York and Los Angeles on various film and television projects. She has been intimately involved in negotiations for several feature film projects in the $5 million to $40 million-dollar range.

Bonni’s career took off in the late 1980’s when she opened a talent agency in New York City. Her agency successfully represented film, television and Broadway actors. Within two years her agency enjoyed the reputation as one of the strongest boutique agencies on the East Coast. Her client Jason Alexander was hired to play George on the wildly successful TV series Seinfeld: At that point Bonni moved to Los Angeles to open a branch of her agency. Bonni's bi-coastal agency continued representing TV and Film actors until she decided a career change was in order and she became a casting director.

As Director of Talent for an independent film company, Bonni cast six independent films. Her duties included contract negotiations for the directors and writers as well as the actors. She saved several productions more than 30% on their budgets via her negotiations. She became co-producer on three of the films.

Bonni became one of the first executives hired by Studio M/Weberworks, a nationwide cable television network reaching an estimated thirty million homes. As Creative Executive in charge of acquisition and development of new projects and casting, she was responsible for seeking out, developing and pitching new TV and Film projects and negotiating all talent-related contracts.

In addition to her accomplishments listed above, Bonni is an ABA certified corporate/litigation paralegal with a specialty in entertainment. She has also worked in the area of development on a freelance basis for studios and independents including Kennedy/Marshall, New Regency, Lion’s Gate and others. Most recently Bonni was the Casting Director for Six TV Movies.

Presently Bonni is attached as a Producer on a Steven Soderbergh comedy, as well as two other independent films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevergrl (talk • contribs) 06:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I think what you're looking for is

Articles for creation

, however as you are a registered user, you are also able to post this article yourself. Here are some tips on how to do so:

The pages at

a/c) 13:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmmm... given your

WP:CANVAS issues goin' on here. Just a thought. On a humerous note: a neighborhood is just a housing project with an army of realtors. Cheers, —Noah 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This —

Wikipedia:Notability_(Places_and_transportation) — is the semi-official guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Salzman (talk • contribs) 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Paul M Pettigrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul M Pettigrew (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the font we use is

a/c) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia's default MonoBook style uses the default browser's font, which is usually Arial.

What browser are you using? --grawity ^{talk / PGP} 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think mine (the latest firefox) is Verdana. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have received a warning for vandalising pages i have never visited.This allegation has caused me mental agony.Please do not send any of these unjust warnings again. Could you give me an email address where I can explain my position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.53 (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that - most likely the problem is due to your using a shared IP address, that is used by many people at various times, including someone who did make vandalism edits. If you would like to avoid receiving these warnings in the future, you are welcome to

a/c) 12:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You can read more about IP addresses at IP address. The IP address used in your post has made many vandalism edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With many internet service providers, IP addresses change rapidly from one user to another, and contributors reverting vandalism can't look through the line to see who is on the other side editing.

Creating an account can avoid these types of misplaced warnings. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

TV

Resolved

Hello , My question is: can I receive digital tv on a tv with an analog tuner? Thanks for your answer in forward,

Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6262pb (talk • contribs) 12:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the faintest idea, but I suggest asking a cable technician or someone else who is more familiar with television systems. As this is the Help Desk for Wikipedia, we are only able to help you use Wikipedia, not fix your TV.

a/c) 12:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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 is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

2+2 is what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.44.33 (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Next time please use the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 14:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hiya. Is it possible to check the IP address of a newly registered account? --Stenun (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts can edit from multiple IPs, there might be a way to view the one they created under but I'm not entirely sure. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then is it possible to view the IP address a certain edit was made under, even when made under a newly registered account? --Stenun (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not see the IP address associated with an account. See

WP:CHECKUSER. —Noah 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, this is a better reference for the Checkuser Policy. —Noah 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then is it possible to please request a check on someone? I am fairly certain that a newly registered account (as in, registered this morning) is a sockpuppet of an IP address that has been trying to hijack an article for a while now. But obviously I need to be sure of that before I respond to them on the talk page. --Stenun (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article's semi-protected they'll have to wait 4 days before they can edit it and if they repeatedly vandalise it they may end up blocked from editing. By the way, what makes you think the new user is the same as the IP? Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article is not currently protected at all. There are several factors that make me think it's the same person, including timing (this new user conveniently shows up after the IP Address had been told off several times - the one and only edit of this new user is to comment on the talk page), style (it reads much like previous comments by the IP address) and content (it tells everyone to stop being so silly then directly criticises legitmate edits but ignores other less helpful edits). --Stenun (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Edit: Of course, it could genuinelly be what it says and who it implies it is from - the signature implies personal knowledge of the subject in question - but I really would like to know for sure. --Stenun (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the Checkuser policy states, looking up an IP is a last resort. If this is just the normal run-of-the-mill edit conflict then it is best to just try and work it out (even if frustrating) on the article's talk page. If this is a serious and on-going problem then you might bring it up at the

Incidents Noticeboard. —Noah 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thank you. --Stenun (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there is a Wikipedia guideline for discussing errata in articles about TV shows. It is human nature to point out an error if you see one, but people seem to do so without regard to Wikipedia's policies on OR. So, two questions: (1) suppose the discussion of an error is NOT original research (i.e. IS verifiable from a reliable source), but the error is a technical one and does not affect the plot or themes of the TV show. Should it be included? (2) Suppose the claim of error CAN be supported by external links, but the links do not specifically address the TV show. Should it be deleted for OR? I was specifically wondering about the discussion on this

If there's an error and you have sources to prove so, change it If you're not sure, discuss it on the article's talk page. Wikipedia can not just sit there with an error in it. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 16:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I was unclear, I meant the error was in the TV show, not in the WP article. I wanted a perspective on whether WP articles should discuss purported errors in TV shows. —Preceding

talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If the error is notable (not just trivia) and verifiable, and you can provide references to reliable sources that give significant coverage to the error, then feel free to add it to the appropriate article. —Bkell (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Typically articles on shows stay away from that type of information. Every show has errors. The article on
  consensus Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Every show also has actors and a plot; that is not a reason to refrain from writing about them. If Wikipedia's goal is to make "the sum of human knowledge" freely available, then I can't imagine how anything else we might write about a television show could be more important than pointing out errors of fact in a show whose setting includes elements that purport to be real. Obviously, a show set in a realm of complete fantasy might feature absurdities such as talking animals and so on, but most people understand that real animals generally do not converse like humans. A show like ER (TV series), on the other hand, while having fictional plots and characters, includes elements of realism most viewers won't know in detail. If an encyclopedia does not correct the incorrect beliefs viewers may form as a result of watching a show, why do we call ourselves an encyclopedia? We would be no better than a semi-literate extension to illiterate pop culture. Just my opinion. --Teratornis (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your perspective, Teratornis. I don't quite agree with you, mainly because it's an invitation to violate Wikipedia's No Original Research guidelines, but also because some errors may be so small that they amount to trivia, and WP frowns on trivia. But what is a significant error and what is trivial seems like a gray area, which is why I wanted to see other people's opinions. However, I'm going to take Gtstricky's advice and post my question to the talk page at

talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Reporting a factual error in some aspect of a TV show which viewers might reasonably interpret as a statement of fact would only be

POV on. I think only a masochist could remain neutral on every subject at all times. Editing on Wikipedia is, in some ways, like holding one's breath. Even a whale must eventually come up for air. --Teratornis (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is probably not compulsory but i think it is a good idea if a section has a short summary at the start or at least something at the start introducing it. If one exists, can someone point me in the direction of a template which shows a section needs this (I'm going to guess it is a cleanup template)? If one does not exist, should i create it? Simply south (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the only section that requires a summary is the

WP:LEAD. Although, it is not uncommon for a section to be subdivided into smaller sections. These usually have a an introductory paragraph before the breakdown. The cleanup template is really a general notification to editors that the standards of the article aren't quite optimal. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I would tend to agree with you, Simply south, but I don't think that a template is a good idea. If you come across something like this, just write a sentence or two to serve as an introduction, so that you fix the problem right away. —Bkell (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical questions get hypothetical answers, which may or may not apply to whatever specific example(s) motivated the question. It's like asking people to shoot at a target without telling them which target. On Wikipedia, one size does not fit all. Our guidelines are fantastically complex, and growing steadily more complex, because Wikipedia has many articles on many subjects, leading to many different kinds of articles. If the section you have in mind seems to need an introduction, perhaps it has become too large. If so, see: Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size. --Teratornis (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of Permanent Link in the Toolbox Pane?

--Navstradomous (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change is the very nature of Wikipedia articles. Sometimes you want a "snap shot" of an article at a particular revision — either for yourself or to send to a friend. The Permanent Link feature lets you do that. You may also want to cite an article in a school or work paper in which case it is best to cite a static version of the article. —Noah 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Permalink and Help:Page history#Linking to a specific version of a page. --Teratornis (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for the movie 'Davanti A lui Tramava Tutta Roma' starring Tito Gobbi and Anna Magnani. possibly made in the 1940's; Also the movie 'O Sole Mio' - if possible I would like a 'link' to contact Mrs Gobbi and or her daughter Cecelia or whoever is in 'charge of keeping the music and memories of Tito Gobbi alive to the public. I have always been a fan of Mr Gobbi and am collectiong as much of his music and movies that I a able to find. Thank you, Loretta Giordano24.99.75.171 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)°19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)24.99.75.171 (talk)[reply]

I am afraid Wikipedia cannot help you there. Your best bet would be to contact Tito Gobbi's agent or record label. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 19:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to flip text vertically for a table? I tried using the code from here [1] but it doesn't seem to work. --Superneoking (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a way but look here:

Wikipedia:Wikitable Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Not possible. The method described on that page uses a proprietary Internet Explorer filter to do it, but it won't work in other browsers. Some tables like the one at Eurovision Song Contest 2007#Score sheet get around this by doing each piece of vertical text as a separate image. • Anakin ^(talk) 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I'm sorry if this has been asked/answered before, but I wasn't able to find any info on this specific problem when I searched the archive.

I am interested in gathering a list of links to and from a page. To get the links to a page (Backlinks), I use the 'what links here' tool. now the problem is that certain included templates skew the results for me in pages like

I have the same problem using the /w/api.php or /w/query.php tools for outgoing links from a page - these templates really inflate the listings. I was able to partially solve the problem by screen scraping the pages I am interested in for outgoing links (but that feels really sloppy to me and a waste of Wikipedia's Bandwidth). Since I am basically doing a count of these tyeps of links, the templates greatly increase the results (like a 20 to 450 count difference). Is there anyway I can get the results that I am looking for? Thanks! JonSDSUGrad (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but distinguishing between direct links and transcluded ones isn't currently possible with the MediaWiki software. The pagelinks table in the database, which the 'What links here' feature uses, stores only three things for each row: (1) The ID of the page the link is from, (2) The namespace of the page the link is from (so that filtering by namespace can be done efficiently), (3) The title of the page it links to. The table is updated after a page has already been built from all its transcluded templates, so the distinction between direct links and transcluded ones is lost. Not sure there's any easy workaround to that, unfortunately, unless someone knows of an external tool that can do it. • Anakin ^(talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until very recently, but apparently not now, links were marked as either internal wikilinks or

talk) 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I might be wrong but I thought the "transcluded" links were just the links to the templates themselves.... Bug #6934 is a request for marking the links as inclusions, redirects, etc. There's a partially functioning patch available for it, but it doesn't seem to be installed at Wikipedia. At least I can't seem to get it to work. • Anakin ^(talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless my memory is playing major tricks on me, I am fairly certain that the links that were marked as transcluded originated from the linked pages on the navbox, and not from the navbox itself. For example, for pages that included

talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• User:Topbanana/Reports/Scripts/Create Link Analysis Database - script to analyze links within a downloaded database

Also see:

Thanks for all the help here. I'm going to check out all these links and see if I can find anything that could solve my problem. Cheers! JonSDSUGrad (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is it legal on Wikipedia to have an IP address that one uses to edit sometimes when he forgets to log in? Or would it be considered a sockpuppet? _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 21:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine, don't worry about it. As long as you don't !vote twice on the same thing :) Prodego ^talk 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm looking to find out how to either A) Put an old discussion into a box to set it apart as an official discussion involving something in the article, or to just find out how to put a border around the text. Using {{

There are different kinds of boxes for different purposes. It's not clear to me what you mean by "official discussion" and why you want a box for it. Which page and which text are you referring to? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Holla! 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. I see you already added a box. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the syntax for the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template? I noticed it in the

{{DISPLAYTITLE}} is not actually a template, but a "magic word" – implemented by the software. See Help:Magic words#Miscellany for its syntax, and see the rest of that page for some other useful tricks. • Anakin ^(talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... thanks, I'll look it over and post again if i still have any questions. flaming-lawyerc 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, We noticed an inaccurate commentary added to a wikipedia page that incorrectly linked Leon's Furniture Ltd. with current issues involving a Leon family member. The issue appears to be a dispute between the Dovercourt Boys and Girls Club in Toronto and private citizen George Leon. George is a member of the Leon family however he has no affiliation with the furniture company or its day-to-day business. We have removed the paragraph as well as a hyperlink to the Boys and Girls Club web site that appear to have been added around February 16, 2008. We will continue to monitor the Leon's Furniture Ltd. wikipedia web page and appreciate any advice you have for us to ensure its integrity. Sincerely, David Leon Systems & Procedures Leon's Furniture Ltd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.94.238 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this on the article's talk page. The help desk is for asking about how to use Wikipedia, not errors in its articles. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 23:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. An edit like [3] would have been better to suggest on the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I followed Anakin's advice, went to the page, read the part that pertained to my question, tried it on my userpage, and, well it didn't work. The page mentioned said that the syntax was

{{DISPLAYTITLE:xxx}}

with xxx being what the page name should be. I typed:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:flaminglawyer}}

so that I could get it lowercase without using

[4] says it should normalise to the same. The real name is User:Flaminglawyer so you can write {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:flaminglawyer}} to get lower case f but it appears you cannot get rid of "User" with this magic word. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]