March 20

I need to ask someone to do two things, please:

• First, revert my multiple edits to the Amitābha page, i.e. restore the page to the state it was in immediately after the 19:11, 4 March 2009 edit. This should probably be done immediately, before reading on in this help request, since the article is currently kind of garbled due to my own ineffective reversion attempts.

( I evidently don't know how to revert multiple edits. I'll read up on that. ) I also need to ask someone to:

• Fix the inline text link for "forty-eight vows" that occurs early in the "Doctrine" section. Note that entire section was lost as the result of my edits.)

The faulty link just pointed to the page itself, i.e. to the same page upon which it occurred, in a circular reference, when it was obviously meant to point to the Wikisource page on the topic. I'm referring here to the inline link for "forty-eight vows", please note, not the callout box for the same, which also occurs in the "Doctrine" section.

Of secondary importance, I'd also be very grateful for any insight anyone can provide as to what went wrong with my attempted edits. Things looked fine in "Preview" mode, but on each attempt the page was garbled after I saved. Below I've included the wikitext I used (over the course of multiple edits) to try to get around that "garbling" result, but I also have seen an ongoing problem with this: Things look fine, in Preview mode, after I've completed an edit, but it turns out after I save that sections are lost or garbled. I'm using Firefox 3.0.7, if that matters. I notice that problem occurs more often when I try to edit complex pages versus simple ones, i.e. it happens more often with pages that include a lot of wikitext formatting.

Could the problem in this particular case have anything to do with the use of special (non-English) characters in the URL and (correspondingly) in the page name? The Wikisource page for the "forty-eight vows" topic also includes an apostrophe in its URL/title, I notice.

Anyway, these are the four different wikitext instances I tried, all with the same results. I've also included the respective "prettyprint" results below, following the wikitext:

[[Wikisource:Amitabha's forty-eight vows|forty-eight vows]]

[[Wikisource:Amitabha%27s_forty-eight_vows|forty-eight vows]]

[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amitabha's_forty-eight_vows forty-eight vows]

[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amitabha%27s_forty-eight_vows forty-eight vows]

forty-eight vows

forty-eight vows

forty-eight vows

forty-eight vows

Finally, any recommendations as to which of the four, if any, would have been "standard usage"? I've seen conflicting information on that. Thanks, and thanks especially for undertaking a longer help question! - Ohiostandard (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edits and corrected the inline link...looking at wikitext diffs now...Hermione1980 00:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Are you using an external editor? It's also possible your browser doesn't support non-standard letters.

Anyway, for interwiki links, [[Wikisource:Amitabha's forty-eight vows|forty-eight vows]] would be the best format. To revert multiple edits, just go to the history, click on the timestamp of the edit you wish to revert to, select edit, and save. Hermione1980 00:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No action needed or requested; just wanted to say thanks to Hermone1980, and let her know I didn't delete my previous question here - "Revert and link edit help needed" - intentionally. (I see some kind soul restored it, thanks.) Thought it'd be best to create a new "question" entirely, since when I tried to add the text below to the original question she answered the result was that the whole thing disappeared, despite having looked fine in preview mode. If y'all (help desk folks, especially Hermione1980) need to delete this current entry as out-of-context, however, feel free. Thanks.

Anyway, here's the text I tried to add to the end of my initial question, to respond to Hermione1980:

Thanks, Hermione1980, you're a peach! ( Always wanted to say that - now superseded by "You rock!", I understand. ) No, no external editor, and I seem to have no problem seeing non-standard characters, either. Perhaps the odd behavior re lost/garbled edits results from having (far) too many browser windows and tabs open at once. I'll experiment (in my sandbox) and resolve the problem before I try to edit any additional pages. Thanks again! - Ohiostandard (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Glad I could help! Hermione1980 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular I'm trying to edit

I believe you have to have 10 edits to be autoconfirmed - I'm only seeing one edit for user:Tonimiami. Add a few more edits to other articles, and see if that helps. —

(yes?)/_© 05:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You just created your account; it will also take four days from the creation to be autoconfirmed. —

t c 06:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Louis Elefant <address removed> <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.247.199 (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

t c 06:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Is this what you're looking for? First result in a Google search. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading The Dakes Annotated Bible and his notes on Jude verse 5. "21 examples of beings fallen from grace. page 284. I am disturbed and confused. I believe that the salvation is permanant and we have eternal life. Please help me. Please give answers to 21 examples. god bless you Mithra Satuluri Hyderabad India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.64.204 (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is for help regarding using Wikipedia. If you need help making sense of what you read in a religious scripture, your local paster/priest/reverend/etc should be able to help you. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think reading The God Delusion should be more helpful. Might as well get more points of view. --Teratornis (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need WP:RELIGIONDISCLAIMER? – ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here at the help desk I think we can just use {{subst:RD2|Humanities}} to produce:

Have you tried the Humanities 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 is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.

Then it's their problem. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#Content and tone mentions religion. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Sir,

I am in search of an online data entry portal under the "Genuine" Category. Most of them I had come across are scam based online portals which demands a token deposits. Eventhough, One could prepared to pay for it in the front of survival and paying in masters for their genuiness, A lay man is unable to identify the portal's genuiness till date. This is especially from the community for those who really wanted to work very seriously. But, in vain , Its still unidentified till date.

If anyone has got an answer to the above queries, Kindly post their reply in this section. So that, One could reach out the right destination.

Looking forward to have a reply from the genuine community.

With Thanks & Regards.

(RSN) EMAIL.: <removed to prevent spam>' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.85.5 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about 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. Algebraist 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hai,

Please include the deatils of great writer in malayalam ,also a good director.Famous scripts of Ranjith's are devasuram,Aram Thamburan, Narasimham etc.Director of the film Ravana Prabhu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipinvengad (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See

Wikipedia: The Missing Manual so you may learn how to write an encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia has few Malayalam speakers, so we need your help to work on related articles. --Teratornis (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

'is it true that every thing on wikipedia can be made up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.17.74 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

If you check the sources that come with alot of facts on specific wikipedia pages, you can get a second opinion on something youve read for accuracy. Just check below the article in the references section if you have any doubts on the accuracy of what you read. Some articles are lacking sources to verify this information, usually these articles will have a tag on the top of the article indicating that help on that page is needed to verify the accuracy of some things in the article, or a citation needed flag on some sentances needing a source. hope this sheds a bit of light.Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost anyone can edit Wikipedia, which means they can write anything they want, including made-up nonsense. However, almost anyone else can edit Wikipedia just as easily, and this makes it difficult for made-up nonsense to stick around for very long. The reason is quite simple: human imagination is very diverse. If you believe in

agnostic about Leprechauns is likely to question your experiences or what you conclude from them. Of course the value of conclusive evidence has not stopped humans from inventing thousands of mutually contradictory Religions, and redefining their collective imaginings as faith to give them more apparent authority, but Wikipedia at least tries to avoid presenting the conflicting supernatural claims of the various religions as facts. For example, we can reliably report what the followers of Zeus believed about him, but we do not present those beliefs as having been correct. Or we can mention that ancient Egyptians built giant pyramids because they believed they could obtain immortality as a result, but we do not claim the pyramids actually worked. Because if we did, there's a good chance someone like you would cry Shenanigans! and demand some proof. --Teratornis (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Not everything on Wikipedia could possibly be made up. No matter what, I am confident that there is at least one true thing on Wikipedia. Now, is it possible that some things on Wikipedia are made up? Certainly! Is it even possible that a whole article is made up? Yes. But such issues are normally resolved quickly by good editors. To be frank, the widely-publicized errors found on Wikipedia are false representations because they represent the very, very few errors that have stuck around. The fact that they don't report errors on Wikipedia every day proves that it is, at least to a high degree, truthful. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that (probably) the people who "widely publicize" errors on Wikipedia generally do not correct them. This means the reporters are either ignorant of how Wikipedia works, or they reject the idea. Reporters have been conditioned through long experience to take the words of other people as being beyond their power to change, and when they see a problem, they immediately see it as being someone else's problem. When for example a public figure states something in error, reporters will report the error, because there is no possibility of changing what the public figure said. Wikipedia, in contrast, is not the pronouncements of someone else chiseled in stone for all time, but rather a constantly-changing expression of (potentially) everyone. Therefore, when a reporter only reports some error he or she saw on Wikipedia, we should ask the reporter

so why did you not fix it? The reporter is not reporting a flaw in Wikipedia, but rather a flaw in the reporter! The reporter should report on how to fix problems on Wikipedia, in much the same way as reporters commonly report on what to do in various situations (stay off the roads during weather emergencies, get a flu shot, don't go surfing in a hurricane, a raging wildfire is heading for town X and the inhabitants should evacuate, etc.). Only if an error shows a tendency to keep coming back after someone fixes it could we start to say Wikipedia has a problem. --Teratornis (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there a way for an email to be sent to the author of a page when changes are made to a page? If so how? thank you. Rbcrump (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so, but do you use your

own them. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Search Help desk for: email notification leads to Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_August_25 which mentions Wikipedia:Syndication. --Teratornis (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Brazilian hosting company is using Wikipedia's logo for a little icon on their "wiki" section. Can they do that?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.112.59.185 (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's probably illegal. Algebraist 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they would need permission from the Wikimedia Foundation in order to use the Wiki logo.

Talk) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If they had an article on Wikipedia, they could use the logo for identification under fair use. (That’s assuming Brazil has the equivalent of fair use law.) I do not see any use of the Wikipedia logo there. Perhaps you refer to the “Powered by MediaWiki” logo on pages which are obviously powered by MediaWiki. —

t c 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It's used on the linked page, next to the heading 'Tire suas dúvidas no Wiki'. Algebraist 22:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you know where to find a complete and detailled street map from galich in the ukraine thanks verry much for the help best wishes filip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.183.143 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous 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 and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such thing as a "random article" button on the site? I could have sworn that I saw one once a while ago, but now I can't seem to find it. Is there, or was there, such a thing, or was I imagining it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teribin (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the left sidebar, under 'navigation'. Algebraist 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, automagically available right here. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add Kannada to the list of languages, preferably in Kannada script. How do I do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savitribasaviah (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What list are you talking about? If you mean the list in the left sidebar, that's a list of links to other language versions of the current page, so Kannada can only be listed there if there's an equivalent to the current page in the Kannada Wikipedia. Algebraist 22:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) There is a Kannada language Wikipedia at

t c 22:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Or if there is one, thus far nobody who speaks enough languages has also learned how to make an

Commonscat}} template linking to commons:Category:Cheyenne County, Colorado, but that category does have an interlanguage link back to the article here. --Teratornis (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]