Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 October 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help desk
< October 29	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 31 >

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.

1 October 30

[edit] October 30

[edit] Semi-protect check

Hi, a new user is reporting he can't edit Tutankhamun which, he suggests, is because the page is semi-protected. There is no semi-protect icon on the page, but the edit history is suspiciously free of anon edits. Is there any way to confirm whether a page is protected? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC) By the way, if it is, the page probably should remain protected and have a small icon on it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

When I click the edit link I see the message above the edit window:

"Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only established users can edit it."

I don't immediately see why no icon appears to indicate this status. --Teratornis 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Click "history" and then "View logs for this page" to get [1] which shows it's protected. You can also log out to confirm that you cannot edit it then. PrimeHunter 00:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected since December 2006! I suggest, rather than add the icon, we remove the protection. I'll take this to WP:RFPP. --barneca (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose unprotection, this would get tons of vandalism, as the talk page already does to a degree. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add this, but you beat me to it: Addendum: Unless, Jeff, you had a specific reason for saying you thought it should stay protected. Normally, we protect as a short term measure. Is there a specific reason (for example, something about the new user who talked to you abut this, or your past history with the article, or soemthing) you think it should stay that way? Otherwise, I'd suggest giving unprotection a chance. I won't go to WP:RFPP until I hear back.

So, even though I'm generally in favor of short term protection, I'll defer to your closer experience with the article, and won't go to WP:RFPP. --barneca (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

After many edit conflicts, my response has been covered. FYI i have listed it at WP:RFPP and have added the icon for the time-being, by using the {{pp-semi}} template. Note this does not semi-protect the page, it simply adds the icon. There has not been that much vandalism on the article, nor the talk page really. I count 4 in the past month, not enough to warrant its semi-protection in my opinion. We will see what an admin thinks, they might just try it and see. Woodym555 00:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If an admin wants to unprotect to see what will happen they can go ahead, but how long do we have to wait before protecting again, and how many times do we have to go through this? Articles like this get tons of daily vandalism, junk, and test edits. I didn't comb through tut's edit history, but with my experience on article ancient Egypt, after each time the article was unprotected, the vandalism resumed. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I did have a look through the edit history and couldn't see that much, this is obviously influenced by the semi-protect. The trouble is we have to balance the need to protect against vandalism, with the need to build the encyclopedia. A lot of good edits are made by ips. We can't really make a judgement on Tutankhamun given the length of its protection. Woodym555 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'll add it to my watchlist and try to keep an eye on it. --barneca (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer the original question: the icon doesn't appear unless someone adds it to the page manually. The certain test for page protection status is to add ?action=protect at the end of the page's URL; for an administrator, this allows protection and unprotection of the page; for a non-administrator user, this shows the protection settings but they can't be changed. --ais523 18:16, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

[edit] Meaning of life. What's the meaning of life? The meaning of life is to give/gift, as you were given/gifted to life. Edward Vu"

Meaning of life. "What's the meaning of life? The meaning of life is to give/gift, as you were given/gifted to life. Edward Vu"

How do I add that to Meaning of life page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlypan (talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply click the "edit this page" link at the top, and add it where appropriate. Please make sure that it is verifiable, and add a reference if possible. Regards, Neranei (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you have already added it earlier with no reference and it was removed. I didn't find anything about it with Google. Even if a reliable source exists, it may not be worth mentioning in the article, but you can suggest it at Talk:Meaning of life. If you are Edward Vu or close to him then see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. PrimeHunter 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email link

Why do you not have a Send Email link in the toolbox options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.209.13 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not a common place to send e-mails. Wikipedia articles are edited by a huge number of volunteers who usually discuss on Wikipedia pages. Do you want to contact somebody about something specific? PrimeHunter 02:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Send what email to who? You can email specific users if you both have email addresses listed in your preferences. As for sending someone articles, that has been shut off for performance reasons and because it could give someone serious spam influx. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

From editors removing email information, I guess it's a protective practice as well in terms of privacy.Julia Rossi 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] diarrehea for long period of time

my two year old granddaughter had diarrehea for the last two weeks she has not been given any kind of medicine to treat it. no diagnosis has been found nor has she been checked by the doctor Kathy Fagerstrom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.44.214 (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not give medical advice. PrimeHunter 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

However, we can advise you to seek the advice of a medical professional, and that sounds like a situation that cries out for professional assessment.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crush Popsicles

We live in Penticton, B.C., Canada and this summer we were buying boxes of popsicles that you froze and then ate. In the box were three flavors orange, lime and cream soda.

We are not kids, but adults and loved these popsicles. We are snowbirds and came to Yuma, Arizona, but before leaving home we went to our local Walmart to stock up to bring what we thought would be about 3 or 4 boxes with us, BUT they did not have any and told us they were just a summer item and kind of a loss leader. We were certainly disappointed.

Anyway we have been looking at the Walmart's in Yuma, Arizona and they do not have any of these popsicles either.

Unfortunately we do not have the box, but know that it had Crush on the outside.

The big question?? Where can we get these wonderful popsicles in Arizona or even in California?

We were be very happy if you could contact us.

Richard and Dorothy Calkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.160.3.36 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The help desk is here to answer questions on using Wikipedia. Sorry, but I don't think I can help with finding popsicles. You might have better luck doing a google search. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it discouraged from writing negative information on wikipedia?

I've studied the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia. Is it discouraged from adding negative information, even if reliable sources are cited? Or must one always add positive information whenever negative information is added. For example, I added some information about crime in Lagos, Nigeria with citations from the BBC and the Economist Magazine (online). I could not find any references that say "Reports of crime in Lagos are all lies; the city is completely safe and carefree". I felt it would be original research and possibly untrue if I added "There's probably quite a few residents of the city who have never been robbed". I am not on an all out mission to add negative information. I also add positive information.Congolese 03:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Sourced information is fine, so long as it's added in a neutral way. Information on crime rates would be fine, so long as you don't give it undue weight. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes stats (and/or bare facts) are more interesting if you have a referenced comment interpreting them, such as trends, effects, social changes and comparisons with other kinds of crime in the city. You might like to check out articles such as Crime in the United States, Crime in Australia to get the feel of things. NPOV guidelines don't mean you have to deny facts, just keep them in neutral terms. Best, Julia Rossi 01:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trying to find info

im looking to find what 3 diferant types of rear axles are on a gmc safari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.100.227 (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You could try asking the reference desk. The Help Desk is meant to answer questions on how to use wikipedia. (You could also check the GMC_Safari article). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking question

1,000 make-believe bonus points to anybody that explains the following to me: What's the difference between getting "blocked indefinitely" and getting "banned"? - Rjd0060 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, a ban represents a formal revocation of editing privileges. It could be applied to a topic, or the project in general (in which case it could be for a year (common ArbCom remedy) or indef (from Jimbo typically)). Also, a ban has to be decided by consensus, ArbCom, or Jimbo. Can I trade my points in for flyer-miles? --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I've always wondered about that. Still kind of sounds the same anyways. Thanks! You can trade your points for anything you want. - Rjd0060 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the line gets a little fuzzy. Especially since according to the banning policy an indef block becomes a ban if no editor undoes it. (Which just begs the question at what point does the user go from indef blocked to banned?). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess if a user catches the right peoples' attention (meaning Jimbo, or the ArbCom), then they do a formal hearing and call it a ban instead. - Rjd0060 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 October 7#Ban vs. Block for earlier explanations. PrimeHunter 04:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seemingly invisible conversations in user talk pages.

Why are there questions/topics being started on user talk pages by other users but then there are only their own responses... seemingly responding to nothing? :-S Mentifisto 04:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes editors will post their replies on the questioner's talk page. (So each page gets 1/2 of the conversation). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, that's a bit weird and inconvenient especially for someone who wants to follow the conversations but thanks for clearing it up. Mentifisto 05:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. To avoid the confusion, some editors keep a copy of both questions and replies on their talk pages. (Ie, answer on other persons page, copy/paste back to own.) Or you could leave a note saying that you'll reply on your own page, and expect people to watchlist it. (Although that might not work with new editors). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For the people involved, it does mean they get a "new messages" banner each time there is a response. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely prefer it that way. My talk page has this image at the top, which basically sums up my feelings. GlassCobra 06:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting started

Hi, I am looking at adding a page to Wikipedia for Defence Reserves Support. I am currently undergoing their new website and have been authorised to transfer alot of the contect to Wikipedia. I have never added a page to Wikipedia before. Last week I tried and it looked good but this week it has disappeared. Could you please give me links or a descritpion on the basics for adding a page to wikipedia.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3adl1ne (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably should read our policy on conflict of interest. Basically, many here feel that it's a bad idea to create a page about something that you're personally involved in. Further, in order to copy material from another source, you need to either post a link on the original website stating that you agree to license your content under the GFDL or directly email the foundation. (Otherwise, it'd be considered a copyright violation and possibly deleted). For more info on submitting copyrighted work to Wikipedia, see here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Further, unless it's notable, the information probably belongs in a short section under the article of the Defence forces in the country it belongs to. Otherwise it smells like promotional spirit. Julia Rossi 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that I have received permission from the Department of Defence to transfer relevant information from the Defence Reserves Support website to Wikipedia to inform the public of their services to the Defence Reserves (which are not for sale or for promotional purposes). Defence Reserves Support DO NOT sell ANYTHING. They just provide support to the Defence Force. The Deaprtment of Defence, and myself think that this is useful infromation for the public to know and to be displayed on Wikipedia. Please let me know if there are any more concerns, or, if this acceptable, how I can make sure that the page content is not deleted if I am to create a page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3adl1ne (talk • contribs) 03:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing ?

59.93.3.215 06:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)If any body can edit and save articles in Wikipedia, how can we assure the reliability and accuracy of the articles?

As a matter of fact, we can't. That's why we've got so many people doing work around here and helping out, though. :) GlassCobra 06:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. PrimeHunter 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia won't let me insert a new picture into a gallery

For over a year I have been contributing to the Terraced House site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraced_house that has a number of galleries of terraced (row) houses. I created the Brisbane gallery last year and am trying to update it with a new photograph of a famous terrace of Houses in Brisbane. Here's the gallery:

The Mansions, Brisbane CBD	Harris Terrace.jpg Harris Terrace, George Street	A mixed row in Normanby, Inner Brisbane	Cook's Terrace overlooking the river in Milton
O'Keefe's Buildings Petrie Terrace	Petrie Terrace - on Petrie Terrace	Gregory Terrace Replicas 1988, Brisbane	Musgrave terraces, West End

The second item in the list (Harris Terrace) is the additional picture I am trying to insert. On previous occasions, on saving the page, there has been a message to the effect that there is no such image, so please upload one, which I have done. Now, instead of this message, the text "Harris_Terrace.jpg" appears where the photo should be, with the descriptive text "Harris Terrace, George Street" in its normal position. I also see that an American Contributor must be having the same problem (further down the page) with his picture of Elphreth's Alley in Philadelphia, which I know to be a famous street of row houses in the US. If you go to the edit page here and look at the code it looks correct, so what is going on here, please? --MichaelGG 07:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Harris Terrace.jpg apparently doesn't exist. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it doesn't exist, because I haven't uploaded it yet!! As I said above, on previous occasions when altering the gallery and saving it, I would be prompted to upload the file, which I have on my computer, but now it doesn't prompt me to upload. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelGG (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Then just go to Image:Harris_Terrace.jpg and upload it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you are actually supposed to upload images before using them in an article. It's possible (I don't know) that the way the software behaves when a gallery tries to display a non-existing image has changed at some time. PrimeHunter 13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P&H alpha crane

P&H alpha crane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.61.6 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

mobile miner tunnel boring —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.61.6 (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a question? PrimeHunter 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] searching of the date for the date of the ntsc exam

I want to know the date of the examination date of the ntsc exams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.21.202 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note the instructions at the top of this page. I'm not sure what you mean by NTSC anyway. Why don't you contact them directly? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings and thumbnailed pictures

this image is thumbnailed and floated to the right with the thumb|right option

I'm trying to place some pictures under headings underneath each other but the headings keep going near other headings and not underneath each heading with the pictures below... and the pictures stay where they should be bereft of the headings. How can I place headings underneath each other like they are when there's text under them? Mentifisto 09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Two bits of markup may help, if you don't know them already. First, the 'thumb' option to an image, combined with 'left' or 'right', 'floats' it to the side of the page (like this example here), and allows text to flow round it.

Second, the {{-}} template causes the flow of text to move below any floated text or images; there's a {{-}} before this paragraph. This can be used to prevent images extending into the next section (although it does leave a gap; it's sometimes possible to fill the gap by writing more text).

See also Wikipedia:How to fix bunched up edit links, a different but related problem; some of the advice there may help too. Hope that helps! --ais523 12:49, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

Yes it does, I didn't know about that {{-}} template, so now the headings are all set underneath each other... actually before you posted I thought that I had solved it in another manner... just by locating the images to 'none' and it worked when I previewed it but only because I had max two images under one heading (the other headings having only 1)... and I had to leave the first image on the 'left'... middle one on 'none'... but I want to place three images near each other under one heading in one row in 300px or less... but I can't and if I set them left, right, and center the center one will be set too far away from the left one and mysteriously the right one falls a bit down... how can I fix this? --Mentifisto 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have lots of images, you may need to set them out in a table. --ais523 13:37, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

Not lots... just three small ones (that easily fit on the page at 250px) on each row... --Mentifisto 13:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NNDB considered reliable?

Is the NNDB (Notable Names Database) considered reliable for citations when it comes to biography articles? •97198 talk 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it is. It is unsourced and unverified information. Personally, I've found more than one error on it. Wildhartlivie 11:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] calorimeter search

I'm taking a chemistry class. We were given a problem about a "bomb calorimeter". When I search for "bomb calorimeter", I get nothing. When I search for "calorimeter", I get a listing that includes an entire section called "bomb calorimeter". Why does the search for "bomb calorimeter" not work ? 68.54.10.173 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

When I ran the search, it redirected me to a general page on calorimeters, which does contain the section you mentioned. You can't find a separate article for a "bomb calorimeter" because there is no article solely dedicated to that subject. For whatever reason, it may have been decided at some point that there wasn't enough information to warrant an entire encyclopedic article. There are several types contained under the general listing. Wildhartlivie 12:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

bomb calorimeter redirects to Calorimeter, so writing "bomb calorimeter" in the search box on every page and clicking Enter or the "Go" button takes you to Calorimeter. You can also click the "Search" button to find other articles containing "bomb calorimeter": [2] PrimeHunter 13:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism

Could someone please tell me how one goes about reverting an article back to a revision that is more than one edit back? I've seen it done many times but can't figure out how to do so. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You can use an addon, like Twinkle, or then read this: WP:Reverting. --Ilyushka88 11:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! Wildhartlivie 12:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes on American Airlines Page

I have made changes on American Airlines page because some of the information like coshared partners was wrong so I update it. When I check back the page, it went back to the same before I had update. Is there a way that I can update it so that it would not change again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.27.179 (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by User:MilborneOne with an edit summary of "read the first sentence." I'm not sure what MilborneOne is talking about, and you might not either, but I'm not familiar with the article. Your best bet would be to ask him on his talk page. Leebo ^T/C 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your changes didn't include any reliable sources to back them up so others are able to check their veracity. Providing the source where you got the information will probably give your edits more staying power. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The revert [3] said "oneworld - please read first sentence". The first sentence in the edited part is "In addition to its oneworld, American Connection, and American Eagle partnerships, American Airlines offers frequent flier partnerships with the following airlines:". Without examining it, I guess the comment means that the reverted additions are part of oneworld and should therefore not be listed. PrimeHunter 13:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Leebo ^T/C 13:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the revert as it looked like the Oneworld airlines were being added in - as PrimeHunter as quoted the first line "In addition to Oneworld..", if they were other changes to the list then I apologise, but please note that the paragraph is about frequent flier partnerships not codesharing. MilborneOne 14:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lübeck Airport

The current text relating to the above uses the term "deceitful" regarding the use of the name "Hamburg". Lübeck Airport does not use the name Hamburg itself to market the airport but some airlines do. The proximity of Lübeck Airport to Hamburg and the surface connnections are superior to many European airports which identify themselves with their nearest city - e.g. Frankfurt Hahn which is further in time and distance from Frankfurt than Lübeck is from Hamburg. I consider therefore that the current Wikipedia listing is at least misleading, certainly unfounded and potentially defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwilson (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "deceitful" to "somewhat misleading", which seems a bit more neutral, but as I'm not familiar with the subject, I'll leave it to you and others to fix the rest. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting my account

How do I delete my account? I can't find that option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianaustin777 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Accounts can't be deleted, at least partly for copyright reasons. There's nothing to stop you just abandoning your account and never using it again, though. --ais523 16:16, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your account cannot be deleted. You do, however, have the right to vanish, which you can exercise by (1) requesting your user page (found at Special:Mypage) and/or user talk page (found at Special:Mytalk) be deleted, by adding the {{db-userreq}} template to them; (2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers); (3) never logging in to your account again. If you do this, you are still free to register a new username if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. Woodym555 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really any point in vanishing if the user page and talk page were never created in the first place though, like in this situation; in this case, it would be equivalent to abandoning the account. If you really wanted to, you could change the username, I suppose, but that takes time as it has to be approved by bureaucrats and wouldn't make a whole lot of difference (as it would change nothing but the credit for the Help Desk question). --ais523 16:19, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

True, could have deleted contribs? The best option is to just abandon the account. Also he may want to change the account to prevent his real name being released (number 2 of the template). Woodym555 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A name change for privacy reasons would be fine; the 'crats nearly always grant those. But that could happen whether or not vanishing happened at the same time. (And there are no deleted contribs, although it's kind of tricky for a non-admin to determine that without knowing how to query the API.) --ais523 16:27, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

As it is, i just checked and came up with 0. So the user has the requisite links if they want to do anything. I do hope you stay though and edit wikipedia. Thanks. Woodym555 16:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School Template

Hi,

I've looked on WP:TEMPLATE but I still can't find a certain warning template. It is about a shared IP address at a place ofeducation such as a school which is placed on the user talk page. The template is something like {{???|School Name Here}}. Can anyone help me out?

Many Thanks, 81.157.118.95 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

{{SharedIPEdu}}. It's not a warning, but an informational template, which is probably why you couldn't find it. --ais523 17:23, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

Thanks a lot! 81.157.118.95 17:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explain the use of { {

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know%2FNext_update&diff=168112023&oldid=168111921

The previous version has an error where the user's page gets copied to the template page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Next_update&oldid=168111921

Yet, the instructions on the page say to use two { so that the user's name and a link to user's talk page and link to contributions are displayed. Here are the instructions copied here for your convenience.... <div id="credits">This space is to credit the creators/nominators of the items in this Did you know/Next update template that in fact appear on the Main Page. If you replace or remove an item from the above template before it appears on the Main Page, make sure to re-add the hook to [[Template talk:Did you know]] at the '''correct date''' along with credits, and preferably add a note explaining why you did so.

Once again, using the above example, when I put user Jimbo Wales names in { , his user page gets copied, which is not what is desired. Only a link to user's talk page and link to user's contributions are desired.

Thanks. Archtransit 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your problem here was adding {{user:Jimbo Wales}} instead of {{user|Jimbo Wales}}. Note the pipe instead of colon. {{ causes whatever is inside to be transcluded. {{user|Jimbo Wales}} causes the {{User}} template to be transcluded with the name "Jimbo Wales" as argument number one. {{user:Jimbo Wales}} causes the entire User:Jimbo Wales page to be transcluded. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The {{ notation 'trancludes' a page. Generally speaking, the only things that are transcluded are templates, which are specifically designed for this; for instance, to transclude Template:User, write {{user}}, which produces Example (talk · contribs). Templates (and other transcluded pages, but in practice nearly always templates) can also take arguments, separated with vertical bars; for instance, it's possible to write {{user|ais523}} to produce ais523 (talk · contribs). You were using a colon instead of a vertical bar; so you were transcluding, not Template:User, but User:Jimbo Wales, a much longer page that isn't designed for transclusion. See the difference between {{user|ais523}} and {{user:ais523}} (vertical bar versus colon)? That's what was causing the problem. --ais523 17:22, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

Templates can get fairly complicated. A good beginning lesson is at WP:TMP or Help:Template. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong category:Packet (Sea Transport)

I created this category "Packet (Sea Transport)" and it was pointed out to me that "Sea Transport" should not be capitalised.

I created Category:Packet (sea transport) and transferred everything that I had put in Category:Packet (Sea Transport) to the correctly capitalised new category. How can I get Category:Packet (Sea Transport), which is now empty, deleted, please? --Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 17:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you create a page by mistake (such as in this case, where you created a category page with a typo in), and nobody has edited it since, place {{db-author}} on the page and an admin will delete it for you. --ais523 17:31, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

You can also tag an empty category with {{db-catempty}} after it has been empty for four days. In this situation, the category would have been speedy renamed, so you can tag it with {{db-c2}} immediately. For more information, see WP:CSD. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannot Change Wiki Skin

I was playing around with Preferences and modified my skin to be Nostalgia. Now I cannot change any preferences because the Save and Reset buttons on the Preferences pages are not active. Cleared cache, etc., nothing seems to work. I would really like to get back to the default skin - the Nostalgia one is horrid. IE 7. Thanks. (Sorry about forgetting to sign this.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizbin (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Use this link to bring up the preferences page in Monobook so you can change your settings back: http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/p/r/e/Special%7EPreferences_a6b2.html. --ais523 17:54, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

Heh. I guess it's all what you're used to. I use Nostalgia all the time, and prefer it. :) Corvus cornix 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Worked like a champ - thanks!--Fizbin 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting an article

I tried going through all the hoops, but I am not even experienced enough to be called a Wikinovice. Could someone please explain to me how to request an article? I went through the whole page from the initial link, and got to political sciences, but never actually saw a "submit here" link. if one exists, where is it? thanks, cadeeshak

You edit the page (using the 'edit this page' link at the top or the '[edit]' link for the relevant section) and add the link the same way as the others in that section. --ais523 18:18, 30 October 2007 (U T C)

If you can't figure out how to add your article request to WP:AFC or WP:REQUEST, tell us the title of the article you want, right here on the Help desk, along with any reliable sources you know about for the topic, and someone else can request it, or (if the topic is notable enough) create it for you. You might want to try completing the tutorial first. --Teratornis 22:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Employer wants me to write an article for the company

Hi there. My employer wants me to write a wikipedia article for a website that the company has on the side. I've told him that this is against wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, that we have to wait for a fan to do it for us, but since it's not illegal, he's probably going to tell me to go ahead and do it anyway. My supervisor is a very smart man, but he's not an expert on the culture of the internet. For example, he didn't know what chatspeak was or that sock puppets are considered bad form.

Does wikipedia recommend any course of action? Is there anything I can show him, like deletion rates, that might be a bit more persuasive than, "Well it's frowned upon"? Is there a bias against second postings of deleted articles? If I tell my boss, "If I post this article and it gets deleted for violations, then it will be harder for real fans who try to write one later to get their version approved," then he might let me off.

If I am allowed to write the article, then what are my limits? I've read the conflict of interest policy and the business page, but I think the boss will probably want to hype the new side business as much as possible and might not be satisfied with a factual, encyclopedic tone.

Would it be bad form for us to ask our website's users if they would please write the article for us? Needplausibledeniability 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Which website are you referring to? Please note it must be notable, or the page may be deleted. — jacĸrм (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There aren't firm rules about this. But yes, it's a bad idea for you to write about a subject you're that close to, and we don't like it when companies try to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool rather than as an encyclopedia. If the website has not gotten significant coverage by reliable sources, it's likely to be deleted, no matter who writes it. Also, understand that you put Wikipedia editors in a tricky position by asking for this kind of advice. Friday (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Corvus cornix 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Also, remember that if you are employed by this company, you may have a conflicts of interest, also don't forget that Wikipedia articles are neutral, so it should not be promotional, however, I (and all the rest of us here at Wikipedia) encourage to create the article, as long it is inline with Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Qst 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, we might become notable at a later date, but we aren't now. I don't think any newspapers or other sources meeting wikipedia's verifiability codes have covered us. I have included this in my explanation to my employer.

At present, I know all about tricky situations. If you guys don't feel comfortable telling me what to say to my boss, then how about something about wikipedia? Is there a bias against second postings? For example, if we post our own article and it's deleted for COI or notability, would it be harder for a fan to get a fan-written article past deletion later on? What about asking the fans to write it?Needplausibledeniability 18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No not really. We are interested in neutrally written articles about notable topics. If your page is deleted now and someone comes along and writes a page later , once notability has been established it will likely not even go to AFD. Your boss does realise that neutral means bad as well as good? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If he doesn't now, he will once I explain it to him. Needplausibledeniability 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the many good reasons created above, there's also the possibly that some user might find it entertaining to turn a promotional article into a snark. While this is good for Wikipedia, it may not be what your boss has is mind. Bfigura ^(talk) 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While Theresa, as usual, is correct, I must add that there is going to be an additional layer of suspicion if there is a history of spam/advertising articles being written to hype a particular company or website. We try to be neutral, but we're human (except the bots); and there's going to be that extra smidgeon of cynicism if a hype "article" is part of the topic's history. --Orange Mike 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about snarking. I wouldn't have thought to look for that on my own. It is exactly the sort of thing that my boss would want to be informed about. Needplausibledeniability 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

... but the bottom line is - if your boss asks you to write the article, then write it - your job is more important that wikipedia. --Fredrick day 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another option is to write your article on another wiki. Your boss might not know the difference; lots of people have heard of Wikipedia, but many do not realize Wikipedia is just one of thousands of wikis (albeit the most-visited one). For example, see: wikiindex:Wikicompany and wikiindex:Category:Business. Here is a link you can show your boss to illustrate how Wikipedia deletes up to several pages per minute. --Teratornis 22:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Write the article as a sub-page of your user page, and ask for comments after stating your own bias. After a bunch of folks work it over and agree that the subject is notable and adheres to guidelines, move it into mainspace. If the consensus of the editoprs is that the article is salvageable, you can show your boss what happened. -Arch dude 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help please re: Space Shuttle Explorer article

Yesterday I moved two images in this small article into a gallery, because they were sandwiching text and clashing with the "See also" section. An editor reverted my edits, saying "galleries are tacky". I made those edits after reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images which says "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other." and "If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery."

Now I am confused. If the article wasn't so small, I wouldn't have added the gallery, but are galleries considered tacky on Wikipedia? If so, why does the manual of style suggest them? Basil Richards 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly that editors' opinion. I've reverted to the gallery version and added a note to his talk page. - Rjd0060 20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I had a look too, and I must admit, in this case, I think it looks better on the page with the gallery. However, I do think the TV trivia you added was unnecessary. I think the MOS advice is there to prevent having an images on the left and the right facing each other with the text squished in the centre, but I can see what you are getting at - having the two pictures one above the other with a thin line of text between them is also unattractive on the page. I suggest you try again, perhaps using the preview button to sort out the best places for the images without using a gallery (but remember that people use different browsers and screen widths). Astronaut 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I meant to re-remove that after reverting to the gallery version but I got distracted. I've removed it again. - Rjd0060 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. I think the television special featuring the Space Shuttle vanishing illusion was more than just trivia, since the trick is possibly more well-known than the Space Shuttle Explorer replica itself, but I understand why it might not belong in the article, so I didn't mention it in my original question. Basil Richards 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The neutrality of an article I submitted is being disputed, how do I resolve it?

The neutrality of an article I submitted is being disputed, how do I resolve it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.102.249 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Graeme Bartlett rejected the article because he felt it read like an advertisement. You could start by reading the neutral point of view policy and see Wikipedia:Spam for more information. Leebo ^T/C 20:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Password

I have an account and have put an email address in it. My username is Nero and I keep putting the corect password in but it won't let me log in. Why?

You probably typed in your email address incorrectly. Since User:Nero has no contribs, you can create another account, go to WP:USURP, and "usurp" the username Nero (i.e. change your username to Nero and have the existing account removed). NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried to have it send your password to you via the pasword reset tool? If however there's a typo in the email address, there's no way to recover the password. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] circular sourcing

What is Wikipedia's policy on sources that cite wikipedia as their primary source? Cryo921 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That depends, are they citing the sources in another article, or the article itself? Circular sourcing isn't reliable, so citing another article that has no references would be bad. The best thing would be to cite the actual sources in the present article. (Ie, instead of article A referencing article B, it should reference books C, D, and E, which are cited in article B). For more details, see this section of policy. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I mean for example if wikipedia cites source A but source A says it got most of its info from wikipedia. Cryo921 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not really reliable. Unless you can prove the fact you're trying to cite has to come from one of the other sources they're using because it wasn't in Wikipedia when they cited us. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] password

this is username nero again. I did not enter my username incorrectly. I even put an email adress on it but it says i didn't when i try to get it to send my password. I can't logg on and I know i entered the right password. I need help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.36.66 (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have you caps lock on? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Right I had a look at the usename logs User:Nero isn't there. Which ( I think) means it s a very old account from before the database crash several years ago. there is a nero 7 could that be you? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Failing that there are loads it could be try this list to see if any ring a bell. Otherwise you simply have to create a new account I'm afraid. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help

please can someone tell me what's wrong in this page, or if now does it satisfiy the notability guideline? [4] Please tell me it with simple words, I'm not very expert in Wikipedia. thanks--Carlons 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the complaint (other than notability) is that It was written by the subject of the article, which would mean that it may not be NPOV see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryo921 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you put the word "art" into "Italian movement" and maybe you can start an article on Medialismo which would be great for the 'pedia. Being about yourself, it's a vanity article not really acceptable in wikipedia. Notability means someone widely known and written about by others, basically. The whole thing would suit your userpage very well. Links for you: What wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Hope this helps. Julia Rossi 03:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sources

I am an academic and I would like to add sources to substanatiate existing articles that currently contain no citations. How do I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.47.84 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Citing_sources Cryo921 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

and WP:FOOT and WP:CITET. --Teratornis 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

More basically, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You do not need anyones's permission: just do it. Be bold. Learn the basics of wiki syntax, click on the "edit" tab at the top or the "edit" link for a particular section, and add the references (as described on the pages linked above.) use the "preview" button on the edit page to make sure your new edits are OK, add an edit summary to describe what you have done (this is a separate box, not part of the change you are making to the article), and click the "submit" box. And thanks. Most new editors want to add content, but references are a lot more important. -Arch dude 02:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting in Japan

description of the negative meaning in the other culture (specify the country) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.97.12 (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a question? If English is not your native language, you might want to see the Japanese Wikipedia. --Teratornis 22:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This Doesn't seem to be about using Wikipedia so it would probably be better directed to Wikipedia:Reference_deskCryo921 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving a Section

I'm trying to clean up a section that has a large and massive specific example of a general theory within it. The topic has had some discussion and is deemed controversial by some...I'm not sure that I've seen the consensus that was achieved.

I'd like to just move the section into its own page and reference it within the main (general) article, including a paragraph explaining it.

How do I go about moving sections and starting them on new pages while maintaining the overall integrity of the original page?

--Ryandwayne 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Summary style. --Teratornis 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First, whenever you split a section like that into its own article, make sure in the removal edit summary, you note where you are moving it to, with a link to the new page's name, and where you took the material from in your edit summary for the newly created page, with a link back to the page of origin. In that way you will be in compliance with the GFDL, and everyone will be informed of to where the material dissapeared so you'll be much less likely to be reverted for apparent "blanking." My question is, is the material sourced, or at least sourceable? If the former, that's good; be sure to import the sources. If the latter, it's not a great idea to create new unsourced articles. Consider moving it to the talk page of the article, noting your concerns that it doesn't fit/goes into too much detail, etc. If it's not clearly sourceable, consider simply deleting it noting that it isn't. If you are moving it, instead of making any overt reference to the move in the article proper, consider leaving behind a summary of the material with a hatnote such as {{main}} for the new article. That may be what you meant above when you said "including a paragraph explaining it," but I wasn't sure. With regard to the controversial aspect, this may not be relevant, but note two things: any negative material about living persons that is not well sourced with reliable sources should be removed with prejudice (see WP:BLP); controversial theories that do not have published sources are usually considered original research, which has no place here. Best of luck.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you refer to Localism (politics)#Localism in Thailand. The article wasn't created with that but it makes the article look like a really bad coatrack - so bad that it might be added to the coatrack examples. Something should certainly be done but I'm not sure that section deserves a place anywhere. It has very serious WP:NPOV issues and there are probably (hopefully) better articles discussing Thai politics but I haven't looked. PrimeHunter 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. There was discussion on this topic but not much has been happening since the Spring...and I don't feel like consensus was reached. I do think that the section is out of whack for the topic and doesn't belong. As for it's NPOV, I can't say. It uses references, but I know nothing about Thai politics, which seem very contentious. This is why I'd like to move it to its own section so that its NPOV can be discussed while the main article receives attention it deserves. And actually, on the talk page people are discussing the topic and an unsigned person jumps in as if it were a Thai specific topic. Actually, looking at the whole talk page, only unsigned people debate or more berate about the Thai localism as a topic...which they are thinking of as a sufficiency economy. This is making me rethink moving and instead deleting the section. --Ryandwayne 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia whether somebody want to use the material for an article about Thailand (which doesn't have its own wikiproject). If it's removed first then you can give a link to the last version it was in. PrimeHunter 18:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Article on open source software

So,

I have a question on a page I created which was deleted. The page was en.wikipedia.org/wiki/magento .

Now, I had seen other articles on osCommerce, the Apache HTTP Server, MySQL , and many other widely available FREE softwares on this site, and I thought it would be helpful to include a new one as open-source software is becoming very prevalent.

So I put the article up and it was flagged as advertising. I thought this was incorrect, because one there is nothing for sale, it is FREE open source software, and 2, it was similar to these other articles.

So then it was deleted, only instead of it being because of advertising, it says it was not notable. I guess it could have concentrated more on how it is notable because it is an improvement over existing solutions, but that was not originally the reason given for deletion and kind of came out of left field.

As far as I can see, either the oscommerce, apache and mysql articles should be deleted also ( I don't agree with this) or this one shouldn't have been. Can you shed any more light on this?

Thanks, Cm32107 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles that fail to meet certain basic guidelines may be deleted at any time under the speedy deletion policy. In this case, the article was deleted for failing the notability guideline. The other articles you mention (mySQL, Apache) don't appear to fail the notability guideline, so they haven't been (and shouldn't be) deleted. However, even if there were other articles that failed the guideline, the fact that other articles don't meet a particular policy isn't an excuse to ignore that policy. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but wouldn't the fact that it is a competitor to another open source program, oscommerce, which is considered notable, and is also considered an improvement on such, as cited in third-party references, make this notable as well? I'm really trying to fall under the guidelines, but I thought I had made a good article and this is why I'm a bit confused.

Simply being a competitor to a notable software package does not make the competitor notable. How many thousands of text-editors/word processors compete with MS Word or Wordperfect? Also, simply because something is free does not make it immune from the "reads like an advertisement" deletion reasoning. If the tone is overly promotional, that's grounds for deletion as spam.

Basically you need to show, through verifiable sources that that software is notable on its own merits. -- 68.156.149.62 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katrina

The article on Hurricane Katrina is closed for editing, I have information on the impacts of hurricane katrina that I would like to upload should I email it to you? 84.65.9.50 23:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You can put it in the talk page of the article. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually scrap that. I've unprotected the article. You should be able to directly edit it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)