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.
July 25 Information
Burly
I just wanted to say burly is a word, though it's not in your dictionary. Look it up in a real dictionary. It means sturdy, corpulent.02:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)02:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)~~
Hello IP 75.154.116.253. You used too many tildes, which is why your signature didn't work. Four is the magic number.
It is possible that the IP is referring to the fact that WikiP does not have an article titled
Burly. That is not surprising since, as
Rivertorch points out, this project is not a dictionary.
MarnetteD|
Talk13:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
When I try to create a page of any title, I see the following image. I have not vandalized or been restricted to my knowledge... Galactikapedia 02:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: The problem has been resolved. Nonetheless, does anyone have any idea what happened? Galactikapedia 02:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
It was a problem with
MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, which prevents people from creating pages with titles that meet certain patterns. At 2:41, an administrator meant to
remove a line entirely, but he accidentally left a
metacharacter there, and the way the blacklist works, this metacharacter qualifies as an indefinite number of actual characters. If you have nothing but this character, literally everything is blocked, so until the mistake was resolved, it was absolutely impossible for anyone (except admins, to whom the blacklist doesn't apply) to create any page whatsoever.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
@
DESiegel: Just looking at the last 10 or so redirects, they look fine to me - net (albeit small) positives. If you have noticed a pattern of policy-violating redirects, surely a discussion/warning is needed, but otherwise, I do not see that
Galactikapedia really has to justify why they chose to work in this area. My $0.02 would be that they want to lower the number in the {{User article count ranking}} template on their userpage, but I do not see that as a problem if the end result is improving the encyclopedia.
TigraanClick here to contact me11:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I edited twice the page antidepressant discontinutaion syndrome but the creator of the page deleted both times my editing. The last time I also received an email from wikipedia saying that I uploaded material covered by copyright (while the paper I quoted are open source) and I used primary sources, however this is not the case since I used secondary sources and I modified the source before uploading it. In particular, apparently the creator of the page does not want to have the paragraph "diagnosis" which, according to me, is important since it represents a step forward the knowledge of the syndrome and is an issue which has been described in the scientific literature via a review article. Please let me know what to do. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Papilio2017 (
talk •
contribs)
03:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Papilio2017 "Open source" does not mean "public domain". Open source papers are generally covered by copyright, and may be under a license not compatible with Wikipedia's. Besides, even public domain text must be properly attributed and cited.
How can I contribute to Wikipedia with small contributions?
I am looking for a routine to apply daily to contribute to Wikipedia. Something small, easy and simple. Translating an entire article, for instance is too much for me. Similarly creating an article from scratch. What are small things I can do daily to help Wikipedia? --
orschiro (
talk)
10:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Look for one of the maintenance categories. They list articles that have flaws and errors in them. Just pick an article and see if you can fix it. -
X201 (
talk)
11:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I have completed drafting an article and want to submit it for review. I don't know how to do that. Please advise on next step. Thanks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jkfell (
talk •
contribs)
18:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Issue #1: The Wikipedia page currently states: Pet “is the lowest-growing theatrical release of 2016 with a total gross of $70 and is the second lowest grossing film ever released.” The source linked to is Box Office Mojo, which is the leading online box office reporting service. However, this link does not support the claims made in the entry. In fact, a search of 2016 films on Box Office Mojo, shows that Pet had a total gross of $8,004 AND was ranked 663 out of 736 in terms of gross box office earnings of films released in that year alone.
Issue #2: The entry goes on to state: “However, the $70 figure has been disputed by the director, Carless Torrens.” As noted above, both the $70 figure and the “second lowest grossing film ever released” claim are both clearly and demonstrably inaccurate. To simply repeat the errors and note the director’s objections is misleading. Additionally, this sentence misspells the director’s first name.
We appreciate your prompt attention to this issue. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have additional questions or we can be of any further assistance in clarifying this matter.