Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk

This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.
For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.

Search or read Frequently Asked Questions

Search the help desk archives

If you can't find an answer, click here to ask a new question.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Special help services · Archived discussions · How to answer

Shortcuts: WP:HELPDESK WP:HD WP:Y

1 April 23
2 April 24
3 April 25
4 April 26
5 April 27
- 5.1 Users with articles

[edit] April 23

[edit] Why is contacting actual Wikipedia people so hard?

It's very simple, I wanted to request someone - someone who is not me - do an article on the arts & crafts supply "Puffy Paint" as I can't find anything other than store links to help explain to people who've never seen it what it is. Wikipedia keeps wanting me to search for something completely unrelated called "Puffy Planet."

I cannot find a way to request this. Nor can I find anyone who actually WORKS for Wikipedia to put in the request. It's VERY annoying. Just because this place is publically edited - which, frankly, is dumb as people enter incorrect information just to troll the site (such as when I found someone had changed The Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants to say it was about four transvestites rather than teenage girls) - doesn't mean it shouldn't have official staff you can contact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamiSings (talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're looking for Request an article. To answer your larger question, while Wikipedia does have staff most of them are volunteers and aren't generally going to be able to answer editing questions any better than the rest of the community can. Further info about contacting Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Contact us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Confirming quality for first page - So it won't be deleted

Hi,

I've created my first page for Wikipedia and was wondering how I know if it has been accepted by the editors?

I moved the page from my sandbox last Friday 20th April. The page can now be found via Wiki/Google and has had 50 or so views.

How can I tell if the page is of a high enough standard to be accepted and remain live?

Thanks for your help.

Englishmaninmelbourne (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be referring to Preshill, The Margaret Lyttle Memorial School Junior Campus. Dismas|^(talk) 07:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks very good for a first attempt. If you hadn't said so I wouldn't have known. The prose seems quite acceptable and most importantly you've included a number of reliable sources, so I'd say that there's little chance of it being deleted outright. That's not to say that it is without problems, though. Here are a list of the most obvious problems I saw while skimming through:

I've added a missing punctuation mark and there may be others like this since I just skimmed it. It would also be a good idea to look at the spelling of "Preshil"/"Preshill" as there seems to be some disparity in its title in different articles on Wikipedia. So it would be good if you could make a quick review of it.
There is also the issue of the alert tags on top and bottom...
The top tag says that the article is an orphan. It's generally a good idea to address tags as soon as possible so if you can think of any related articles (schools with similarly experimental design, schools in the vicinity, other design projects by the same architect, etc) then it would be good to link them to your article.
The tag at the bottom says that you haven't added any categories to the article yet. The best way to do this is to look at other similar articles and to copy the tags that they have that are applicable. as an example you could check out the way they handled it at Melbourne Grammar School.
The gallery of images you have is appealing in a way, but Wikipedia often prefers to minimize the use on non-free content. Many of the images have licensing problems in that you haven't drafted a license for them when you uploaded them. Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously so this means that if the licensing isn't cleared up the images may be deleted at any time. I know this can be rather confusing to a new editor so if you need help with the licenses, you could try asking at WP:IMAGEHELP. If it turns out that these are non-free images I think you will probably have to reduce the number of them that appear within the article.
But finally, the biggest problem that the article faces is that it seems rather likely to me that it will be merged with the article on Preshil the institution. I don't know if there is really enough difference between the institution and the campus to warrant two articles like this. Since your campus-related article is well sourced, the information is likely to be retained, but it will probably ultimately be merged in with the information in the institution article. It may be a good idea for you to pre-emptively consider good ways to merge the two articles since you seem to be familiar with the topic.

I hope this helped. Sorry to be so negative. It's an interesting and informative article, but I just wanted to cover every angle of it that might be susceptible to criticism. -Thibbs (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Upload an article from My sandbox field

Hello

please write me how could I upload encyclopedic text which I have done? I tried to put it a week ago, but I dont have any answer for it. Please, it is very important for me.

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanakvark (talk • contribs) 08:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean the article located at User:Stefanakvark/sandbox. You can move this to mainspace by clicking the dropdown menu at the top of your screen (between the Search bar and the watchlist star) and selceting "Move". Then enter the new name for the article, and it will be moved to mainspace. Whether it belongs there is unclear - it needs reviewing by someone with more knowledge of maths than me. There are suggestions of original research, so I would strongly suggest putting it through AfC first (add {{subst:afc submission/submit}} to the top of the page) so it can be properly assessed. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, significant part of the text is copied from published sources. So, you need to paraphrase it, unless you are an author of those texts. Ruslik_Zero 18:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] categorize the watchlist by subject

Is there a way to categorize the watchlist by subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxal 0 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You can sort your watchlist by namespace (use the drop-down menu above the list itself) so that you only see edits to article, or talkpages, or userpages and so on. However, to the best of my knowledge you can't categorise it by subject - your watchlist lists edits as they are made, so they can only be organised by time. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with "by subject". There are preferences to group edits to the same page. See more at Help:Watching pages. It says "Related Changes can also be used to monitor changes to pages belonging to a category". There is no option for a type of article when it's not a single category. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Moving an article from my sandbox to Wikipedia

Dear Editors Sorry, but I could not seem to find and answer to the following. Maybe the answer is obvious--but it was not to me. I have almost completed my article "Isothermal Microcalorimetry (IMC) in my sandbox. How do I move it from my sandbox to Wikipedia? Thanks for your help DanDaniels DanDaniels (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You can click "Submit" in the box at the top saying "Finished? Submit the page!". Then an editor will review the submission. Headings should never have all capitals. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The draft needs work on the layout and formatting, so please take a look at WP:LAYOUT.--ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Protest Internet censorship in India

The new IT Act law in India is worse than SOPA or PIPA. Tomorrow am MP will raise a motion to annul the law. Please protest Indian Internet Censorship the way you did with SOPA & PIPA by blacking out. We desperately need awareness in India and many people use Wikipedia. The law directly affects wikipedia. You will have to take down any material that is 'objectionable' to someone without any trial or opportunity to present your case.

http://www.legallyindia.com/Social-lawyers/mps-to-be-taught-draconian-it-act-rules-as-indianet-support-galvanises-for-annul-motion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.35.238 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to request this kind of help. You should bring your concerns to the WikiMedia Foundation (try here), Jimmy Wales (try here), and possibly at some of the analogous locations at Wikipedias in the Indian languages (such as http://hi.wikipedia.org). -Thibbs (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted page on James Wing Woo

I have just discovered that my martial arts teacher, James Wing Woo, had a page but that it has been deleted. If possible, I would like to see that page and also to find out any specific reasons as to why it was deleted. He is a highly respected gung-fu master and has had parts in 15 Hollywood films, including "Marathon Man," which was Laurence Olivier's last film and also starred Dustin Hoffman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.131.113 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Wing_Woo. Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You could ask one of these Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles to put it in your user space, create an account, provide the citations, notabilty seems okay to me, then move it to main space and see if it stands up?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of online translators

This page doesn't exist yet. I was trying to translate a some Russian text and discovered there are a few out there now. One even translates from four different websites for comaparison side by side. Some sites have articles here and some don't. I am wondering if it should be a list only for now with wikilinks and urls, an article, and possibly a category for those that have pages already. I am not sure how to create a category.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Creating a category is quite simple. Basically you add a page to the new category and then save. When you see the redlinked category you edit it to provide a brief definition and you add it to other categories. The process is laid out in depth here. -Thibbs (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. "...add the new category to an appropriate parent category." Does anyone have any ideas which parent categorie(s) would suit best?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with Category:Technology in society and Category:Online services to start with. There may be several other categories that would be appropriate as well. -Thibbs (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have Comparison of machine translation applications. The Platform column says Web application for many of them. I don't think there should be a separate list for online translators. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. There also seems to already by a Category:Translation software. -Thibbs (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks x 2. Should I blank the category I just created, and just add those not in the comparison tables as external links at the bottom? Or a section 'web translators not in tables yet' type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

I added a speedy delete tag to the category I created and links on existing comparison page--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Head Restraints

I would like to correct the informaion on the Hutchens Device page and also make a new page for the Hutchens Hybrid and the R3 head restraints. What do I do to correct the information on the Hutchens page and on the current HANS page, since it has issues with words like mandated HANS, which is simply not true. A head restraint spec. is mandated that the HANS device is certified to, like other devices. Tashline99 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

At the top of nearly every page on Wikipedia you will see a row of tabs at the top of the article. Just above the article name (in bold at the upper left) you see "Article" and "Talk", and then far to the right (just left of the "Search" bar, you'll see "Read", "Edit", and "View history". If you click the "Edit" tab then you should be able to see the raw Wikicode which is mostly the text that makes up the article. Altering this text and then clicking save at the bottom (below the text field) will allow you to make permanent the alteration you have made. It is considered good practice to leave an edit summary for articles (by filling in the field just above the "Save page" button), and remember that sources for the material you add are often essential as well. -Thibbs (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] I am missing Twinkle

When I pull up a page, Twinkle options are not there. Neither is Wikilove for that matter. Is this something involving temporary maintenance and are others experiencing it? Does anyone know why it might not work? I generally edit using Google Chrome but am on Firefox right now; however, I have not had this issue with Firefox in the past. I also checked and I do have javascript enabled. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this is being discussed on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Something certainly just happened because my diff viewing is rendered quite differently. -Thibbs (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mine too, I heard mention of a new media-wiki software being rolled out. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] what has happened to restore to previous version?

up until yesterday i could look at a revisoin then restore toa previous version but i cant now it seems there achange to the wikipedia code as the eidt usmmary is different--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this just kicked into effect 15 minutes ago. It apparently is having an effect on Twinkle usage so you may want to look in at the discussion unfolding there (see the above comment). -Thibbs (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I still see the "undo" link in the page history. Are you asking about something else? RudolfRed (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] creating a list of large jewelry chain stores by country

Hi:

I found a list of reatailers by country which is very helpfull to anyone looking to find retailers in any country around the world. I tried to find a list like that for large jewelry retailers and couldn't. I would like to start a list like that by supplying the information on the United State large retail chains which I am very familiar with and have sources to support, and I want other people in other countries to add to that list their large jewelry retailers. How do I do that?

Thanks Eadini (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a sandbox page for you to start the list with. User:Eadini/List of jewelry stores by country. It may stand up to wikipedia scrutiny once it has a few more entries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note Category:Jewellers by nationality. A list should usually provide additional information over a category. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Advantages of a list and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jewellery retailers seems to be stores, I think Category:Jewellers by nationality is persons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] publishing a page

Hi, Please may I know how long it takes for a new page to be published?

thank you Star writer (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

An article is published as soon as it is created in the mainspace. Many users decide to create a page in their user space by creating an article like User:Ryan Vesey/Xerotine siccative (an example of one I'm working on) and moving it to the mainspace when they are done with it. In that case, you could say it is published as soon as it is moved. Is there a specific article you are talking about? You haven't made any other edits from this account. Could you have created an article through articles for creation as an IP? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It can be published immediately (within a second of clicking Save page) or it can be submitted for review. The review time varies. If you want to make a new article then I suggest you use Wikipedia:Article wizard. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Revert single-instance of image use?

There is/was an image used for an artist, this was a B&W lithograph. The image has been replaced by a colorized and "enhanced" version ("Quality-Update" in file history) which is currently used numerous places on WP. The "Quality-Update" has now replaced the original version used on the artist's page, and no longer represents a "faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art". Although tempted to challenge on that basis, I would be satisfied if the original pre-colorized version only be restored for use on the artist's page.
Artist: Willy_Stöwer
Original image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/6e/20111008172228!St%C3%B6wer_Titanic.jpg
Image used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St%C3%B6wer_Titanic.jpg
~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like it if the original black-and-white version was restored everywhere. "Quality-Update", really? Colorized = Fail. —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 22:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

I agree, the original black and white version should be used, it existed as such for several years. The colour version should have been uploaded under a different name, if at all. But still, a semblance of consensus should be achieved before doing so. Яehevkor ✉ 22:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Adding false colour to the image in the Titanic article was a poor idea (and did men really wear purple trousers in 1912?). But adding false colour to a good copy of an artist's work is a really appalling idea. I would restore the original image if I knew the proper way to go about it. Maproom (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto -- but I'd thought it would be non-controversial to just use the original version for the page of the original artist. (I've started discussions on other related talk pages). ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I reverted to the original b/w. I agree a good colour one can be uploaded as a new file.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] How to update images?

There used to be a button you could click on an image page where you could upload a new version. Anyway, the fair use image representing the cover of a book needs to get updated with that for the current edition, and I could just upload a new one and request delete of the old, but I am just wondering if there is a way to simply update the image like you used to be able to do. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There should still be a link saying "Upload a new version of this file" for images hosted at Wikipedia such as fair use images. Which file is it? If it's hosted at Wikimedia Commons then you must go there to get the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I must be blind. The link was there- just in a different place. Sorry to trouble you. J JMesserly (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You have to do it from the commons image page, just below the image file history thumbs. The link to the commons page is below the main image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gmail

Please help. I am very frustrated. I've been able to get into my gmail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.62 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid we can't help with that. Below the page where it says "Sign in" there is a link labeled "Can't access your account?". Perhaps that is of some help? Anyway, in case of probelms with your gmail account, you would need to contact Google, as this is the help desk for the English version of Wikipedia. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gmail

Please help out of gmail. I i cannot get into– itt---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.62 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.9 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. Thanks! Monterey Bay (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Viewer Ship Tool?

Is there a viewer ship tool (or something close to it) that I can see how many views a article receives each day?--Dom497 (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, click on the "history" tab at the top of the page, then click "Page View Statistics".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Asshole Wikipedia editor changes Carnivore entry I made

Q: I have proof that a new program that has enhanced (not superseded carnivore like everyone believes) called Predator has been initiated by our Government. Some Nazi editor decided that my contribution is not verifiable. Well, it's tough to put this information out there and quote someone who has close ties to the program without raising every eyebrow which I'm sure the govt is curious how a civilian has any detail of the program.

If you look at this editor, he thinks he is god... written all over him.... what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.64.113 (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)‎

First, stop making Personal Attacks. Second, read up on Verifiability. While it would be great if we could take peoples words when they say their contributions are truthful, many people add information that is not true. As a result, when there is a controversy, we require that information come from Reliable Sources. If you can find reliable sources for your claims, then they can be on Wikipedia, otherwise the editor was right to remove them. If you do have reliable sources for the information, see Referencing for Beginners for some tips on how to reference the sources. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

also, when you write "our Government", it helps if you say what country you are in. Maproom (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See Carnivore (software) — the IP added substantial amounts of information about an allegedly secret program, and the only source statement given was "Confirmation of the secret program has been revealed by credible sources." This indeed is not adequate for verification purposes. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] My login has been compromised

Hello:

My login no longer works and although I have requested an email password reset several times, it has never gotten to me. I believe the email address on the account has been changed.

I have a history back to 2005 with the Kazari login. I would like to keep it. I do not want to create a new login if at all possible.

I am prepared to prove who I am but I am uncertain who to do this with or how. (As per "If your account is compromised, it may be permanently blocked unless you can prove you are its rightful owner.)

Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.42.11 (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See a very informative discussion on another editor with the same issue at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_23#Recovering_former_account.3F. Per that discussion, you would need a WP:Sysadmin (the people who run the servers, as opposed to on wiki admins) intervention to force reset a password. You could, if you can satisfy the required users of your identity, get the old account renamed so that you could edit under the name again, but the contribution history of the new account would be separate. That request would be made at WP:BN Monty ₈₄₅ 23:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Making political propaganda

"In early 2012, the "Friends of Syria" initiative was established, which resulted in multi-national conference in Tunisia, in order to find a solution to the Syrian crisis. Successive meeting was held in Turkey during April."

I quote the article "Syrian Uprising (2011-present)"

It is located under the "Peace proposals".

Given that the countries that had the meeting. Urges the opposition to not even talk to Assad regime. And had to smuggle in weapons and its intelligence services is in the country of Syria. And out of the meeting came the news to them armed opposition groups would have more weapons. Is it hardly "Peace proposals" Rather, the opposite Inciting violence. My suggestion The article should be changed. A separate section should be dedicated to "friends of syria" countries. There also is written, what they do. And what they said publicly. Which countries these are. And perhaps what some of them more prominent countries known representatives said. As the American Hillary Clinton. To cite just one example. That there are no dialogue before Assad resigned she says.... For this page should be factual? Make it so— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinhart567 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't make it clear what your dispute may be, regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please take this up in the first instance on the talkpage of the article in question. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be a WP:Content dispute accidentally brought to the wrong forum. There is already a Friends of Syria Group article with a talk page where it should be discussed. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] April 24

[edit] About hotel Prag Continental which is in guwahati ,Assam,India.

hi! <<apparent advertising removed>>
GOD Bless,Devilata Basumatary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.70.30 (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Your post here seemed to be an advert, and Wikipedia does not allow advertising. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Date format error didn't show up for 2½ years

In this edit, September 2009, I accidentally added a malformed {{dts}} template, which caused it to have one of those big red display warnings (my coding made the template think something happened on the 9th day of the 16th month of the year and the 9th day of the 20th month of the year), but I just now noticed and fixed the template. Can you imagine why this error didn't put the article into a parser error category, comparable to what I get if I remove the {{reflist}} from a page with references? Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The missing reflist error is generated by Cite.php software extension. It uses MediaWiki interface pages to call the errors. We have modified those interface pages to add categories and links to help pages. {{dts}} uses the #time parser function and no one has updated the interface pages to add an error category. Have to figure out the interface for this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Found it at MediaWiki:Pfunc time error, also two other error messages. Let me look at this a bit, as we might want to extend this to other parser errors. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Article versions comparison gone bad ??

The "new" design for article version comparison makes it way harder to see what has really changed. How does one get the old style back? Electron9 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In "My preferences", "Gadgets", you have the option of ticking off the old colour scheme for difs. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New "diff" view is horrible and illegible. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Found an now removed answer: NOTE: There is now an "old style diffs" gadget: Go to My preferences > Gadgets > Appearance > (X)Display diffs with the old yellow/green colors and design. (from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)) Electron9 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Vanden Brook#Wikipedia entry

Tom Vanden Brook#Wikipedia entry says:

"According to USA Today, a new user to Wikipedia created a page on Vanden Brook on February 8, 2012. The entry alleged that Vanden Brook "'gained worldwide notoriety' for his 'misreporting' of the 2006 Sago Mine disaster in West Virginia." Wikipedia editors removed the page and banned the user."

This log entry indicates that the deletion occurred on the same day.

Question one: Would it by WP:OR to change the above to "Wikipedia editors removed the page on the same day and banned the user"? If the suggested change is allowed, do I just cite the log entry?

Question two: Assuming that the above is allowable, could I instead write "Wikipedia editors removed the page within X minutes and banned the user"? If so, what do I cite to establish the number of minutes? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It was done within less than two hours; but that information is accessible only to admins. The editor was indefinitely blocked (not "banned") because the username was that of a business (Atlantic Press) rather than for the creation of attack pages. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a little confused. The wording does seem awkward to me, but do you wish to change the wording of a quote from USA Today?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The phrase "Wikipedia editors removed the page and banned the user" comes after the direct USA Today quote. I can change it, but I need to provide a citation to a reliable source. Likewise, I could change "banned" to "blocked", but not without a source. The current source says he was banned and clearly implies that this was because of the attack page.

I also think that how long it was up is important. Vandalism that gets reverted within a couple of minutes (I often see it happening in less than a minute) isn't as serious as vandalism that sits there undiscovered for months. I think it would help the reader to better understand the issue if we said how quickly the page was removed. (How long was the page up?)

On the other hand, if the editor was blocked because the username was that of a business, then Tom Vanden Brook#Wikipedia entry -- and the source used to back up that statement -- is misleading. Be that as it may, no way am I going to try to fix it without a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're trying to use Wikipedia (in the form of a link to the logs) as a Self-Published Source on itself. This is generally allowed as long as it's not unduly self-serving. Wikipedia tends to try to minimize charges of inaccuracy created by vandalism by pointing out that most obvious vandalism is quickly removed. So pointing out how quickly the vandalism was removed is self-serving to a degree. Whether or not it is unduly self-serving is a content question and should best be discussed at the article's talk page. If you want to discuss the use of Wikipedia as a source on itself, I'd recommend WP:RS/N. They are usually pretty responsive to specific cases like this. -Thibbs (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also note: I think you can cite those portions of the log only visible to admins since ease of verifiability is not a concern for Wikipedia. As long as the information is accurate and capable of verification, and as long as Wikipedia can be cited as a SPS on itself in this case then I think it should be OK to use such a cite. -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I wanted to know; whether it is even possible to do what I have in mind. Now that I know I can, I will go back to the article talk page to discuss whether I should. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] entries on wikipedia

How can I place my company and work profile on wikipedia for purpose o research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frangipani & Dolphin (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the policy on notability and conflict of interest. After you understand those, and still feel you can create an article on your company, then WP:YFA will tell you how to create the article. RudolfRed (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist changes

I've long been entirely happy with the blue triangle that used to appear on my watchlist to the left of articles/talk pages when an article/talk page had had more than one edit on a particular day. I could click it to show which edits had been made by which users and I could hover the cursor over any of the edits to see what had been altered. Yesterday, the blue triangle disappeared and instead there are brackets saying "(n changes|hist)". Now, hovering the cursor over the changes frequently produces either nothing or "diff truncated". Clicking anything takes me out of my watchlist - OK, I can check changes, but, for a couple of months or more, the watchlist has taken around two minutes to reload, which is a pain. Previously, I could open another iteration of Wikipedia and deal with changes while leaving my watchlist intact and easy to use without disturbing it. Why has the blue triangle disappeared? (And why is my watchlist slow to load? It's had c3,000 items on it for a year or so and was just fine for several years.) --GuillaumeTell 16:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This might be due to the new version that was recently rolled out. Try raising your issue at the Village Pump, where the other issues are also being discussed. WP:VPT RudolfRed (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] I feel like I'm outnumbered by ignorant people on an article. What should my next move be?

I made a recent addition clarifying that the term "African American" does not refer to a race, it merely refers to a person being at least partially descended from native sub-Saharan Africans. I included some true, verifiable statistics regarding the genetic makeup of African Americans (evidence shows that, for example, they are on average 5% Native American, 18% White European, and I would imagine highly mixed with East Asian also).

However, I was constantly reverted. The reasons given were ridiculous - WP:RS, even though the sources obviously met the criteria of the article. I feel like it's a case of the truth being crammed out. I feel like such an addition is highly important to clarify in the African-American article, and it is highly frustrating to me that such a fundamental and important point to make about African-Americans is missing from the article entirely.

Thoughts? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You could take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) See the guidance given at WP:DR RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

From a quick review, you will need sources that are much more reliable than the ones you have cited.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For which statement? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First: Don't refer to your fellow editors as "ignorant". It's impolite and it likely to piss off the very people you want to convince. See WP:CIVIL.

Second: Follow WP:BRD. You're free to make WP:BOLD edits, but once you've been reverted, take it to the talk page. Don't edit-war. Again, this is likely to alienate the editors you are trying to convince.

Third: Gain WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page. If you can't convince them, then you should concede the point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"If you can't convince them, then you should concede the point." so if an editor is simply outnumbered on a highly important point, they should concede it? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the way WP:BRD should work:

You make a bold edit.
You get reverted.
You start a discussion on the article talk page explaining why you think your edit makes the article better. At the end of this discussion, there are one of two outcomes:

You have successfully changed the other editors minds' and your edit is accepted.
You have failed to change the other editors minds' and you concede that consensus has not gone your way.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're placing far too much emphasis on WP:BRD. I will engage in formal dispute resolution if "consensus does not go my way". I'm simply here asking for advice from experienced Wikipedians before I do so, to see how else this may be resolved, or if other Wikipedians can make the correct change. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, this experienced Wikipedian is advising you to follow BRD. You're free to ignore my advice, of course. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube videos are seldom if ever reliable sources for anything; and weyanoke.org is an advocacy group, not a source of serious scientific information. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To which statement are you referring? (i.e. which statement do you believe to be poorly sourced) Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It needs to be explicitly stated, in the lead, that "African Americans are composed of many different races and ancestries", as it is such a fundamental and crucial point to make regarding African-Americans. The mention of "at least partial ancestry" does not make the point. Any help getting this important information in the lead of the article is appreciated. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want help, I suggest that you start by indicating that you have read and understood the advice given above, and that you are now willing to follow Wikipedia's policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. That is a necessary starting point. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Was hoping for more pragmatic advice. Anyone? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To start off with I have a couple of questions. Why does it need to be explicitly stated? If it is such a fundamental and crucial point wouldn't multiple reliable sources discuss that point and therefore wouldn't it be easy to find these sources? I think you have gotten some good advice above, Bold Revert Discuss and if you can't get consensus that way dispute resolution. The one thing that won't help your case in anyway is to be uncivil to other editors like you started out this topic. Just because other editors do not agree with you that does not make them ignorant. GB fan 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you're trying to impose "factual" standards on an article which, like the term African American itself, only exists becasue of strong emotional issues. The words nigger and negro became politically unacceptable in polite society (nothing to do with facts), so a new term was needed. Maybe you could go back to that derivation. Debate the real meanings of nigger and negro, rather than individual parts of a compromise neologism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] How do I learn if changes/updates are enough to eliminate the "problems with this article" box? article is Eva Feldman

I'm trying to edit/augment the biographical article about Eva Feldman, an American neurologist. It has been flagged for poor citations, etc. -- I'm trying to learn how to add them, but at what point will the article be reviewed and the red-flag boxed elminated? We are extremely anxious to get this resolved. Thank you for any help or advice. Mapreddy (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't have any official review process to remove a tag. We're a community of volunteers. Usually, such tags are removed when someone else has stumbled upon the article and decides to remove it. What I recommend is that you go ahead and start adding references to the article. See reliable sources to see our policy on what counts as a good source and what doesn't. After you feel that you've fixed the problem, what you can do is post another request on the help desk asking someone to look over the article and remove the tag if they agree that the problem has been fixed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper archives online page deleted (!)

Hello, The useful reference page "Newspaper archives online" was deleted by "Discospincer" on April 22 (2012) with a deletion code of "G8." This is an extremely useful reference page to locate digital images of newspaper in archives throughout the world. Please reinstate and protect this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.76.144 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper archives online was moved to List of online newspaper archives, which was moved to Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives. Goodvac (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the move have created a redirect automatically? Is there some reason why it shouldn't redirect?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Point 6 at Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting: "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's unrelated to the reason for deletion. The page got moved three times a few days ago; a bot fixed the double redirect from the old title to the first new title, but when it was moved a second time, the administrator who did it chose to move without creating a redirect. As a result, the redirect went to a nonexistent page, and thus it qualified for G8 speedy deletion, which includes redirects to nonexistent pages. Of course, it would have helped if someone had checked the history to see that the original title still existed, but that's not a huge deal. You'll note that someone has recreated it. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my comments applied to List of online newspaper archives. Most all of this is true for Newspaper archives online, and since the reason for deletion can easily be fixed, I've restore it. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] I need help regarding moving a page

I am working on a draft for a new article which was in my sandbox. I then moved it to become an article, but now think my decision was premature. I attempted to move the page again, hoping to return it to my sandbox. However, that was not an option, so I chose User, thinking that would return it to my Userpage. it looks to me as if all that move has done is rename the page by placing the word User in front of the title. I think it's still appearing as a live Article. Can anyone please advise me how I ensure it is not live for the time being? Kim Traynor (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have cleaned up after your moves by deleting Mapa Scotland, Talk:Mapa Scotland, User:Mapa Scotland and User talk:Mapa Scotland. Note that the move form has two fields at "To new title". You should have changed both fields to move back to your sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] April 25

[edit] use of restricted image

How does one go about obtaining permission to use an image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.188.245 (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you looking for MediaWiki talk:Bad image list? If not then please clarify what you mean by restricted image, and which particular image you are interested in. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

One gets permission from the person who owns the right to the image. Finding out who that is can be a problem, but it is what needs to happen. Carptrash (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The image which I would like to use is on the Bad image list. That page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list) suggests that "Requests for additions, removals, or exceptions may be made on this page." There is no place there to make such a request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.188.245 (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Just go to that page, MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list, and click "New Section" at the top, and write your request, along with an appropriate justification. Rwessel (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Picture not updating

I recently uploaded the picture 'Stuart_Neilson.jpg' for the Stuart Neilson wikipedia page but even after rendering down the size and removing the previous image the old image appears. Why is this? TunaStreet (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to resize image yourself, there is a bot yo do the task. BTW, I can see the image is now of 225 × 295 pixels, seems to be it is updated! --Tito Dutta ^Message 00:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The two versions of File:Stuart Neilson.jpg look identical to me except for the size. I cannot tell which of the two versions is displayed at Stuart Neilson but I assume it's the new version. Do you believe otherwise? Or are you referring to the old version still being visible at File:Stuart Neilson.jpg? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Ads

Alright, I am seeing ads on Wikipedia right now. Not just any ads though, but the ads one may find on a far less respectable website. I realize that my computer may have a virus, placing these ads on here, but am I the only one, and if not, does anybody know why these ads are appearing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.98.218 (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any ads. Please consider registering as a wikipedian. That will probably make them go away. Maybe. Carptrash (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing them either. Your computer likely has some sort of malware or virus. Dismas|^(talk) 03:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is funded by donations and does not display advertisements on articles. If you see advertisements, then something at your end must be placing them. Some browser extensions or plugins may do it. A plugin called Codec-C is known to do it although it is marketed as needed to play videos. Your computer may be infected with malware - consider using anti-malware software. You may be using an Internet access point (such as public Wi-Fi networks at some hotels or cafes) which injects ads into all kinds of web pages - try accessing Wikipedia via the encrypted HTTPS connection (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ). -- John of Reading (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent problem: Category misuse on Filipino people's articles

There seems to be a lot of editors who do not understand how to categorize people here. They simply assume that when a person has a Spanish/Chinese/Japanese,etc. sounding surname they immediately categorize them under "Filipinos of _____ ancestry". These articles either have no reliable sources or makes no mention of their ancestors having those ancestries at all. I realized that they've created these new articles such as, "Category:Filipino people of Spanish descent" and "Category:Filipino people of Chinese descent". If you look closely you will also see that some have used it on their personal talk pages!? Is there an easier way to fix this instead of going to each article and removing the category tag? Bleubeatle (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Update. For some reason I can't hyperlink these articles at all. Please just copy and paste their titles on the "Search" box to view it.Bleubeatle (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Categories aren't articles. They're categories. You have to put a colon before the word "Category" when you want to link to it. I've done this for you here. Dismas|^(talk) 04:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for fixing my linking. So what do you think I should do with these categories? Should I nominate them for deletion? They seem pointless. Most of the people listed on it are just claiming themselves to be of Spanish ancestry without reliable sources.Bleubeatle (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because a store has rotten fruit on the shelves, you don't necessarily shut down the store. You take out the fruit. In other words, there are likely many legitimate entries in those categories. The problem lies in taking out the ones that don't belong. Is it a big task, yeah. But then you can request help at relevant WikiProjects. Dismas|^(talk) 06:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I already did.Bleubeatle (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For users, just kindly drop notes on their user talk pages to switch to subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality; without looking, some may need to be created. Since you're suggesting it, you might help them. Dru of Id (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I might do that.Bleubeatle (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Through one of these interesting wikilink things

that allows us to leap through time and space, I ended up at Johnny P. Curtis and the more I read the more I was appalled. But responding to what I found there - as far as I could tell, written by the subject of the article or his agent - seemed pointless. I started making changes but finally felt out of my league. There is stuff I do on wikipedia and stuff I don't do, and fixing this article is a "don't do." So, perhaps you'd like to look at it and see what you think. Or perhaps point me at a better place to post this? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the article back to a stub version which isn't as promotional in tone. If you'd like to improve on it, please feel free. Dismas|^(talk) 03:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, actually I want to get as far from it as I can. I have the sort of emotional involvement that does not make for good editing. Again, thank you for your part. Carptrash (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"I have the sort of emotional involvement that does not make for good editing." So do most of us, I guess. I congratulate you on recognising it. I eventually learned that by moving away from something in which I am emotionally involved, and editing other articles instead, I am able to do more for Wikipedia, as well as reduce my own blood pressure. Maproom (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted a little bit of cleaning up - grammar and referring to the subject by his first name - articles are supposed to use last names. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the doubtful notability and poor to nonexistent sourcing. IMNSHO if a ref is not inline it isn't a ref. Roger (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Modulate -Resubmission

Hi, I am hoping after a few weeks of editing and completely rewriting this article there are no errors or issues. Again, I have tried to follow the procedures and guidelines to the best of my knowledge. Any helpful tips or advice to ensure approval would be greatly appreciated to avoid further frustration. Thanks! :)

Sydirasky (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read our notability standard for bands? After reading Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Modulate, I can't tell how you think it is notable. Have you read what we consider independent reliable sources? Your first reference is to the band's label which is hardly independent. The Guardian and the BBC, for example, would be good sources; has Modulate received significant coverage there? —teb728 t c 07:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, nothing should be redlinked more than once in such a short article. Your hyperlinks (e.g., 'Metropolis') go places having nothing to do with your subject. Will look further tomorrow. Dru of Id (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes I have read both and set of guidelines which is why I created the page for the band to the genre of music they are from. Instead of using a wiki link for the band's label what do you recommend I use as sometimes press coverage for smaller bands may not easily accessible? I can check for the other references that you have mentioned. Cleaned up the red links, but I am puzzled as to why the hyperlinks to the bands label would have nothing to do with an article? I understand that subject matter varies from article to article with bands and musicians, but since Metropolis records is their major label (not to mention well established) I assumed or thought that this would be a reliable source? I'm also unsure what you mean that the hyperlinks have nothing to do with the subject? If you mean the lower half of the article, I can clean that up with no problem, but the other hyperlinks I've used, I used in good faith for referencing after a considerable amount of research. Again, thanks for any and help and advice! :)

One other quick question and this is just more out of curiosity, would it be possible to have someone who has more knowledge on a subject matter of an article to review it? I understand and I am aware of how vast Wikipedia is and not everyone is familiar with every single article and the subject matter it contains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydirasky (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sydirasky (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that catches my eye is your use of discogs as a source. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't count as a reliable source since the website is almost entirely user-created (and the original author isn't listed). I think allmusic is generally the go-to source for album and release data. Secondly, the refs aren't formatted at all. You could look at how the refs are formatted in other band articles (e.g. at The Beatles) as a rough guide. Regarding notability, I think you should be fine as long as you can find multiple reliable sources that cover the band. If doubts persist then search for higher quality sources. It looks like you've made a fine job of it so far. Good luck! -Thibbs (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Thibbs for the help and advice! Much appreciated! :)

Sydirasky (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. There's a 'Discussion' tab where you can post, and editors there are experienced in formatting and sourcing band articles. Dru of Id (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dru of Id! Thibb also directed me there as well and I'm currently seeking help there. Thanks! :)

Sydirasky (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] How can I?

I use my iPhone in many cases I need to find an answer to my many questions. So I look for the wikipedia, and Wikipedia only. But some times I have difficulty to understand the meaning, and mi first langue is Russian. I need a translate options on my touch version of site. Or maybe I can't find it? Please , help! Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.151.187 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend a visit to the Russian Wikipedia or the Simple English Wikipedia. Alternatively, you might consider searching for the 'Google Translate' application in your iPhone's App Store. NTox · talk 06:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia app I have on my iPhone lets me read a particular page in another language, and lets me switch to a different-language Wikipedia. Have a look at the icons at the bottom of the page. --ColinFine (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] New to this please help! - Finished article in Sandbox

What happens now?

I need to get it included (hopefully)! And add images to it.

Can't find anything in wizzard & FAQ etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cevedit (talk • contribs) 11:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The article in your sandbox is a long way from finished. The worst thing is the repeated use of "Mini Mandarin", in bold-face and italics, and capitalised; there is no reason for this, and it makes the whole article look like an advertisement. Many other changes are also needed. Maproom (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Check out wp:MOS--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article on this fruit, at cherry orange: it is not a very good article, and it would be better for you to improve it rather than start again. If you have reliable sources for the name "mini-mandarin", you can add that to cherry orange as a synonym.

Your article has a number of wikilinks, while the cherry orange article has hardly any; but some of yours are not formatted correctly. Commercial information, such as who imports the fruit, is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article unless there is something significant about the particular importers handling it. Nor is information about how to eat it (which currently appears in cherry orange. Your mention of folklore is original research and should not appear in the article unless you reference a reliable source which states the information you are adding. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is weird. Clicking on the link cherry orange takes me to a page on Citropsis, a very short article which starts "(Redirected from Cherry orange) ... Not to be confused with Cherry Orange", with the last two words being a link to the real, longer, article on cherry orange. I guess a redirect has got screwed up somehow. Maproom (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Case matters. There's a difference between cherry orange and [Cherry Orange]] Rojomoke (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] License plates with 0

Good morning to all. I am trying to find a list of license plates in the U.S. and Canada that only use the number 0 (zero) instead of the letter O. Right now, I only can find about 12.

You can respond by emailing me at: <redact>

I appreciate any input sent.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.77.4 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Error message using Book Creator

I am receiving this message when trying to download a new book using MediaWiki "Book Creator" software:

Error:Version mismatch between javascript & PHP code. Contact admin to fix installation of collection extension for MediaWiki.

Can you please resolve problem. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.37.46 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be a problem with the browser you're using. Try purging your browser cache and trying again. Or perhaps try another browser if you have one. -Thibbs (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] "Miracle on Ice" correction needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_Ice

1) The "Miracle on Ice" is the name in American popular culture for a medal-round men's ice hockey game during the 1980 Winter Olympics at Lake Placid, New York, on Friday, February 22.

2) In 1999, Sports Illustrated named the "Miracle on Ice" the Top Sports Moment of the 20th Century. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/news/1999/12/02/awards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.183.196 (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of those sentences currently appear in the article. The second one is sourced, and the source seems to support the assertion. If there is an error that needs correcting, I'm not seeing it immediately. Can you explain in more detail what kind of correction you are hoping will be made? -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Attach a photo to an existing article

Hi, I'm sure this sounds like a stupid question and the answer is readily available, but I can't find it: How do I upload a photo and attach it to an existing article? I have created an account and gone into the edit section of the article, but can't see any means of attaching a photo to it. I uploaded one photo but it just put it into Wikicommons rather than the article. Please help. Thanks.203.217.48.132 (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Depending on how you want it to appear, there are a number of different ways to do this. You should check out WP:IMAGE for the full story. -Thibbs (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You posted this question from your IP address. If you had used your account, I could look at the image you uploaded, and help you place it correctly, but I don't know what image, or article you mean. If you identify the article and image, or your account, I can try to help. (It isn't a stupid question; getting images into articles is easy when you know how, but tricky when you don't and almost every new editor has issues at first.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

True. The main problem with images is that the process is awkward. It's not as streamline as normal text editing. This may be partially on purpose to ensure that people aren't uploading inappropriate content images. But yeah it can definitely be confusing for new editors. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] A bluish box in the article

Hello! I am pretty new to editing. I created this article yesterday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nil_Hilevich And two bluish boxes appeared there in the middle. I have no clue what I did wrong and why they appeared. What are they and how do I remove them? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PearCloud (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The boxes appear if you introduce space between the beginning of the line and the sentence. I have removed the spacing, so it should be fine now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki bots

Is there any way I can stop bots re-adding bad interwiki links? The example I've been trying to fix for a while now is chromotherapy which keeps having sk:Aura-Soma and hu:Auraszóma readded by bots. These articles are (badly written) ones about one chromotherapy company, which would never be an overview of the topic (the company was even considered too obscure for en.wiki). They should not be given as interwiki links. - filelake shoe 15:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tips on stopping these bots can be found here. It looks like you've already tried commenting out the links with no success, however I think your style confused the bots. Try commenting them out individually and in situ. Also, I haven't checked the other language articles, but it might be worth checking up to make sure that these languages don't use the brand name as as generic term like the English "Aspirin" or "Band-Aid". -Thibbs (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Name spelling correction edit reversed?

I made a spelling correction to a name in an article which was reversed as "not significant". I believe proper name spelling is significant. Whose decision was this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darksquarebishop (talk • contribs)

You should be able to determine who edited an article by viewing its history. Doniago (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The spelling correction was reverted as a vandalism or a test edit. According to references [1] the correct spelling is Hang Li-wu. Not Dr.Han Li-wu. Regards.Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I made the correction. Another editor thought you were playing around, partly because you made a change and did not include an edit summary. While an edit summary is not required, it is helpful in cases such as this. I made the correction and added an edit summary with a link to a site showing the correct spelling.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well this is odd. I used the same site, but a different page, which has a different spelling.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose posting both links to the talk page, to see if someone can sort it out. I'd do it but I have to run to an appointment.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I posted to the talk page.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] rucker/woods

darius rucker met tiger woods at the bas when woods was 18. what was tiger woods doing at a bar when he was 18? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.78.225.247 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is just intended to help people use Wikipedia. For answers to specific factual questions you should try posting at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates

The name of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates is most likely named by a page in ns:MediaWiki, where? -- Lavallen (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not named in the MediaWiki namespace, and addition to the category is not automatic by the MediaWiki software. Pages are added by Template:Pp-meta which contains the category name. This means only pages with a protection template, but a wrong one, are in the category. Protected pages with no protection template are not in the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on subtitling

Many apologies, but I have made an error with subtitling in the article diabetes mellitus. Today, I tried to edit the section on epidemiology in this article by adding a section on the United Kingdom, so I put in a subheading "United Kingdom" under the subheading "Epidemiology". However, for some strange reason, there is now a dotted line around the first sentence. Do you know what I might have done wrong there? Many thanks in advance for any help, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That ocurred because you put spaces in front of the prose. Any time you put spaces in front of words on Wikipedia it will be surrounded in a blue box

Like this

I fixed the problem for you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this so promptly - I was very impressed by how quickly you fixed this one! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Users and IPs

I am trying to become more proficient with Wikipedia and trying to watch pages that I may need to use in the future. Is there a specific page that one can go to to request to block a User or IP, similar to the page protection page? Or what templates would I need to place on user's talk pages to flag them for review? swinquest (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For simple vandalism reports, you want WP:AIV. Note that before reporting you generally want to go through a series of template warnings on the editor/IP's talk page, culminating in a level 4 warning. (see: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace) There are several other boards for reporting problems, such as WP:ANEW for edit warring, and WP:ANI/I for serious conduct issues not covered elsewhere. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Red links turned to blue

Hi, for some reason all the red links in articles have turned to blue (as in, there already is an article to be linked-to). I tried to see if my preferences had inexplicably changed for some reason, only to find that the option that used to exist there had mysteriously vanished (or, at least, I could not find it). Any help to correct or explain this would be appreciated. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Isthisaredlink shows red for me.--ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's showing blue for me! Hamamelis (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's red for me. What is your skin? What happens if you log out? Try to clear your entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter. The other ideas didn't do it, but changing the skin from MySkin to Chic did. This is very much appreciated! Hamamelis (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. If you want to choose link colors independent of the skin then see Wikipedia:Link color. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, I'll check it out! Hamamelis (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Temp IP

Due to a HD crash, my current IP is temporary, and I noticed "Associated namespace" on contrib page -- should I / how do I let people know that my temporary IP is associated with my other IP? Hopefully, I'll be using previous IP soon [wish me luck]. Previous=User:184.76.225.106 -- Temp=98.26.28.41 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC) And... it's a borrowed computer, and I'd rather not have it be a permanent associated namespace -- 98.26.28.41 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to do what you're asking. You could create an account, and then your contributions would always be attribited to you, no matter which computer or IP you're using. WP:ACCOUNT RudolfRed (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Associated namespace" is an unrelated feature. If you hover your mouse over it, it should say "Check this box to also include the talk or subject namespace associated with the selected namespace". See Wikipedia:Namespace for more aboout namespaces. Creating an account is the way to go if you want your edits to be identified to you. Accounts have many other benefits. You can link your previous IP address on your userpage if you want to take credit for the edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Definately create an account. It has many benefits that you don't get with an IP. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure what "Check this box to also..." meant. Will check: Wikipedia:Namespace ~Eric F 98.26.28.41 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Search engine results

WP:ELNO item 9 forbids the use of links to search results pages in the External links sections of articles. Is there a similar restriction regarding links used as inline references; and if so, where is it please? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing to cite search results inline? If so, you should be aware that this wouldn't pass WP:RS and WP:V in most cases because search results for most search engines are volatile and won't produce the same result if the same search is performed years, months, or even weeks later. This means that the verifiability of the claim will be unstable and time-limited. If you think you've got an exceptional case then I'd recommend asking for review at Reliable Sources Noticeboard since that board sees questions like this all the time. There is nothing I know of that forbids such a reference per se, but in practice it is almost impossible to find a scenario where such a reference will be usable. -Thibbs (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No: I'm wanting to explain to an anon editor, who has added such a ref, why it's bad practice. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. I guess you could point him to some of the discussions they've had at RS/N in the past if you can find any directly on point. I know that there are a large number covering Google search results for example. Otherwise I'd just explain to him that the volatility of search engine results make such references almost completely unverifiable. -Thibbs (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Going back a few revisions

While clicking Random article, I came across the article at Navas de Oro, which someone had converted from an English stub into a Spanish(?) article. I went into the Page History to try and revert back to the stub, but couldn't figure out the best way to do it, especially as there had been a couple of bot-performed revisions since the Spanish text replaced the stub. Would I need to revert one revision at a time, with an explanation for each? Is there a faster way to do it? Am I even taking the proper approach? Madam Fatal (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The simplest way to do it, is to open the history, load the last good revision, then hit edit on that one. There are some warnings, but when you save it the page will be reverted to that version, make sure you leave a good edit summary of course. Note: this will wipe out any good edits since that version, so be careful, and if necessary re-do the good ones. Tools like WP:Twinkle make it easier to do, but are not required. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And you aren't going to hurt the bot's feelings. If there is anything in the article that the bot will handle, it will do it again. Sometimes it is worth salvaging, but on an article with that much added, nope.Naraht (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance! (And thanks to Nyttend for fixing the problem!) Madam Fatal (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Previewing a redirect edit

When doing a preview on a REDIRECT edit containing other statements such as "DEFAULTSORT", "Category", "R from" or "R to", none of the categories (both visible and hidden) show up rendered, and I've lost count of the times I've discovered careless typos or misspellings only after saving my edit. Is there any way to make the preview show me the entire rendered result so I can catch these errors before saving? Cbbkr (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed this behaviour too. I don't know of a workaround. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to create the page in a userspace sandbox. While it's not appropriate to have userspace pages in content categories, nobody will complain if you do it for just a few minutes. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your skin? Both visible and hidden categories show up at the bottom of the window when I preview redirects. Right above that is a list of transcluded pages. A red link there like Template:R from missspelling indicates an error. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm using "Vector": no transclusion list, no categories box (blue or red).Cbbkr (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(I forgot to add: No customizations.)Cbbkr (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's odd. If I preview http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asteriod&action=edit then the bottom of the whole window says (links and formatting removed here):

Please note:

When you click Save page, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead.
Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view.
Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission.

Templates used in this preview:

Template:Main other (edit) (protected)
Template:R from misspelling (edit) (protected)

This page is a member of 2 hidden categories:

Category:Redirects from misspellings
Category:Unprintworthy redirects

Hidden categories: Redirects from misspellings Unprintworthy redirects

Do you see any of this? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Although the preview does display a list of categories, it is the list for the currently-saved version of the page and not the edited version. Try adding or removing categories before hitting "Preview", and you'll see that the software is not being helpful. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It works correctly for me. The vertical list under "This page is a member of 2 hidden categories:" shows the currently-saved categories as it should. The horizontal list in the category box at the bottom shows the categories of the preview after "Hidden categories:". If I for example change {{R from misspelling}} to {{R from incorrect name}} before previewing then I see "Hidden categories: Redirects from incorrect names Unprintworthy redirects". Do you have "Show hidden categories" enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? What do you see in the horizontal category box, or do you have one at all? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I just tried a sample edit, adding the Category "blah", a new valid Category, an off-the-wall "R from" template and an intentionally misspelled "R from altarnative name" template to a pre-existing list, previewed and IT WORKED, red entries and all! Also, the transclusion list, etc., is there as well. All I can figure is something's changed as it used to never show this stuff before. For me, the problem no longer exists... Cbbkr (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] New Draft Page

this is my first attempt at writting a wikipedia article and I am wondering if someone could offer some advice as to how it is looking at this point. I'm creating it on my UserTalk page.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwfortune (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ehhh I don't know. If I were to review it, I would probably reject it because it does not establish it's notability, and it is written a bit like an advertisement. If I were you, I would read WP:NPOV, and WP:Your first article to get a feel for what goes and what stays. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] I am new

Hello I am Newt and i want to become an editor but i have some learning difficultys so I might need some extra help. I want to write an article called 'Beekeeping in Algeria' but I dont know how.

Thank you. --NewEditor2012 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would try the Article Wizard as a good first step. That is a step by step guide through the process of creating an article. If you need further help make sure to ask. Good luck! -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles Beekeeping, Glossary of beekeeping, and those in Category:Beekeeping by country may help. Dru of Id (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also check out other 'Beekeeping in' articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Business proposition

Good Evening- My name is Arnold Vimmeroute. I am a Chief Executive of 'Mitt Romney for President 2012- Delaware branch' and would like to speak to a senior administrator about some PR proposals that were previously discussed with Jim Wales back in January 2012. Thank you, and look forward to hearing from you. --MRFP2012Delaware (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to discuss something with the administrators, I would try posting a message at the Administrators' noticeboard. -Thibbs (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Mr Jim Wales accepted $50,000 in our agreement for PR policys to be implemented and he needs to collect his tax receipt. --MRFP2012Delaware (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You're at the wrong part of Wikipedia. This is a page intended to help people who don't know how to use Wikipedia. If you want to talk to Jimmy Wales then please visit User:Jimbo Wales#Contacting me or contact him at his talk page (located here). If you would rather go through the WikiMedia foundation then please visit http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you have been blocked. In case you are serious, "administrators" at Wikipedia are volunteer editors like me who help with certain aspects of editing. We are not official representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia, we have nothing to do with finances, and most of us are far apart and have never seen a Wikimedia employee. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] April 26

[edit] Portal:Current events's Wikinews articles question

In Portal:Current events in the Wikinews articles sections there are "News briefs: April 21, 2012" posted multiple times on different dates, why? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it twice, under "April 22, 2012 Wikinews articles" and "April 21, 2012 Wikinews articles". The inclusion under April 22 originates from Wikinews itself. I don't know their practice but the inclusion traces back to this edit by a Wikinews administrator. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So the question would be better for some Wikinews helpdesk? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems so. You can also ask the Wikinews administrator who made the linked edit at wikinews:User talk:Pi zero. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Historical figures sometimes considered autistic & List of people with autism spectrum disorders

Should we have articles like Historical figures sometimes considered autistic? Michael Fitzgerald claimed at least 19 historical figures were autistic. Does that mean they are "sometimes considered autistic"? Shouldn't we put the claims in the articles about the person who made the claim (and if it is important enough in the article about of the "autistic" person) instead of doing this WP:OR WP:SYNTH thingy?
Should list of people with autism spectrum disorders be renamed to list of people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders? Those are two different things, right?

Von Restorff (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

On the second one, both of those are one and the same, and I believe the first one's wording is better. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first question, I think "sometimes considered autistic" means "speculated by reliable sources as having been autistic". These would be people who fit the profile of a person within the autism spectrum but for whom medical/psychiatric diagnoses have not been made. This would probably mostly be historical figures. Any claim that a historical figure is considered autistic will need a source, and if the claim is made for a living person then you should delete the claim first and ask for sources second. If a person is listed under the list of "Historical figures sometimes considered autistic" (and I think it's fair to consider this a "list article") then I would expect the information to also appear in the biography of the person in question. -Thibbs (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Files

How much experience do I need in working with files to become a file mover? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a goal. Just something you get when you need it. Von Restorff (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I just want to know so I can decide when to appropriately request it. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of years maybe? :-) Wikipedia:File_mover. Trust me, it shouldn't be a goal. You do not need to become a file mover. When you do, it will be easy to become one. Wikipedia:Hat collecting. Von Restorff (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no fixed rules. As far as I can tell you have never uploaded a file to Wikipedia or edited a file page so I don't see reason to speculate about it now. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys! I was just wondering because it seemed to peak my interest and I just wanted a general knowledge on the subject. I did not intend on filing now. I also am not hat collecting. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear that. Sorry if I came across rude, this is the permission they usually ask for, and I am glad you are not one of them. Von Restorff (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Housewives of NJ

Who is the lady (she wears a cap on her head) related to? Is she in Teresa's or Caroline's or Kathy's family On Housewives of NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.98.249 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Entertainment 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. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified statements and potential correction?

In a page on which I have recently been working there are two particular statements which are potential problems. Against a heading of "Famous people with a connection to Charlton Kings" are two entries without verifiable references. "James Gill occasionally visits Charlton Kings." "Corrinne Wicks, is an actress from Cheltenham." There is a disambiguation page for James Gill. Corrinne Wicks has a page about her. In respect of James Gill this could be a person on the disambiguation page, someone else entirely, or just someone making a personal statement about themselves. In respect of Corrinne Wicks there is no verifiable evidence cited of her connection to Charlton Kings. A search on Google confirms Cheltenham link but so far has not yielded anything about a Charlton Kings link. How is this kind of entry to be dealt with apart from the 'review history' record which can make this kind of problem visible? Sjeans (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

These are unsourced pieces of information which means that they can be removed at any point by someone who challenges or questions their validity. So one option is simply to delete them. It looks like you've gone the extra mile and have attempted to search for sources on Google and that's commendable. If you can find sources to add then that would be another solution, but failing this there is also a middle-of-the-road approach available by inserting "{{Citation needed}}" (everything between the quotation marks) after the unverified claims. This flags the claims for other editors as needing sources and allows editors who are potentially familiar with good sources to link them. This is all available without using the 'view history' option.

An examination of the article's history can be revelatory in such cases, though. In the case of James Gill, for instance, I can see that this information was added to the article by User:82.69.6.125 in this edit. Judging by this editor's talk page, it looks like he has a history of vandalizing the Charlton Kings article. So I'd be suspicious of this addition. As for Corrinne Wicks, the history reveals that she was added by User:Ashayler in this edit. This appears to have been User:Ashayler's only edit so there is little information to go on. You could try to write to this editor to ask for a reference source, but considering that the person hasn't edited since September 2011, this may be pointless. -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Sjeans (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] New to Wikipedia editing

I was going through a list of different wikis out there and noticed that rickipedia was not listed. Rickipedia is a wiki about the Mummy Franchise. How do I add to this chart? Thank you, Felix Fllopez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

In order to be included in the list, a stand-alone article should exist on the site first, and for that to happen, it needs to be notable such that it warrants being the topic of an article (i.e., it needs to have been the subject of significant treatment in published, reliable sources that are independent of it, and from which material can be synthesized and cited to write an article with verifiable information) and then someone has to have the inclination and ability to write that article. In point of fact, there are many thousands of wikis that are not included in that list, most of which are not notable at all, as we use that word here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] A tool maybe?

Is there a way for me to view the distribution of my edits throughout Wiki. I want to know how many edits I have done to various different pages.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Go to your contributions then scroll to the bottom of the page and then click on "Edit count". If you want to know what edits you've made to a particular page, you can use the User Contribution Search tool; if you want to see a page's history without isolating your edits from others but in comparison, you can use the Page History Statistics tool.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikichecker is a useful tool; however, it doesn't work 100% of the time. Sometimes I need to refresh the page a couple of times are press the back button on my browser and click the link again. It will show you what day of the week you make the majority of your edits and how many edits you have made each day. It also has information about the distribution of your edits and your top edited pages. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] deleting

How do I delete a page from Wikipedia that was produced ages ago. I need to replace the whole page with up to date information and new logo. I am employed by the organisation Round Square. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admarkroundsquare (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Really it needs to be edited from where it is. It's a year and a half old~, infrequent edits, and very stable. Be careful explaining changes (see Help:Edit summary), and do not remove sourced content without a clear improvement, update, or talk page consensus. Since you state they employ you, you also need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Dru of Id (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for a spamusername. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Watchlist

Is there a way of viewing your watchlist by page instead of recently changed? MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 13:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

By clicking the "View and ddit watchlist" link you can see which pages you have listed broken down into alphabetical in several categories. also known as Special:EditWatchlist IIRC. 2eschew surplusage (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

user:js/watchlist is a script including an option to sort watched pages by namespace number and then by page title. It also includes the possibility to quickly unwatch pages. See the description for how to install it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

For the article Ra.One, there had initially been a reference from a reliable source - a print magazine The Week. I had come across an article which had this URL. Very, very inconveniently, the article has decided to go poof. Its gone, vanished, and has left me in the lurch because a lot of valuable information from this article had been used. I'm at a serious problem, as I could do with the details. The magazine is a print magazine, so I guess the content could be available in a respective print edition; the problem being, I can't find the edition on Google. I endear somebody to help search for the older edition.

The details of the article are :-

Title - Khan, Super Khan

Author - Ruma Malia

Date - November 2, 2011

I'd be hugely obliged. Thanks in advance! ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to have a weblink to the article if it's in a print magazine. Simply citing the print magazine is sufficient to satisfy WP:V. The ease of verifying the information and indeed the access level aren't at issue for Wikipedia. I've located a copy of the text in a Google cache and I can paste it on your talk page if you are interested. But if you are just concerned with linking it in the article, rest assured that a working weblink is not a requirement for a print source. -Thibbs (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Love dont live here anymore

Wiki love doesnt seem to love me anymore. It keeps comming up with "invalid template" (in the actual error message there are angle brackets instead of quotes). I had this issue multiple times yesterday trying to award a barnstar, and today trying to give someone some strawberries. Grrr! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Which exact templates were you using? The barnstar for User:Dsp13 appears to be working. -Thibbs (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism, too broad a term?

Sometimes I think that different terms should be used for the two following situations.

I'm editing Elephant to change the entire article to "Francis Miccel stinks"
My organization Mu Mu Mu considers the fact that the name comes from "Moose Might Meld" to be private to the organization even though it was published in the New York Times in 1896. Before Wikipedia, this was totally obscure, but Wikipedia has increased the number of people outside the group who know this ten thousand fold. So any time that the article on Mu Mu Mu is unprotected, this fact is deleted by a Mu Mu Mu member.

Is there a better name for the second?

In my opinion, in the second case it's still a vandalism (since it's the removal of actual factual information, properly sourced) motivated by an editor lacking the requisite NPOV. We can't prove motivation; we can show vandalism. Some editors, however, might argue that it's a content dispute/edit war. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to call it an edit war and thus a disruption. There are legitimate reasons why an entity (especially a living person) might want certain verifiable information excluded from Wikipedia, but because Wikipedia abides by a set of rules that dictates full reporting, the only good way to prevent this information from being restored is to make a formal complaint to the WikiMedia Foundation asserting a legal claim to privacy in this case. Edit warring is really unproductive. It's like trying to prevent the spread of libel by burning down the newspaper stand. -Thibbs (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

One reason that I would like the answer is the three reversion rule. If the second is Vandalism, then 3rr doesn't apply. If it isn't Vandalism, you are.Naraht (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well if you've warned the editor that you consider his blanking to be vandalism and he persists without discussing it then I think you'd be justified in treating it as "obvious vandalism" and reverting. Keep in mind, though, that this is unlikely to solve the underlying issue. I'd argue that you shouldn't get in trouble for that, but there's no guarantee that all administrators will agree with your determination that it was vandalism and you might end up getting a block for violating 3RR even if you considered it vandalism. Really a much better step if discussion has reached its limit is to contact an administrator at WP:AN3 or at WP:AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Article has been locked at various times over the issue and almost all of the "Vandalism" edits have come from IP editors. Discussion has already occured on the talk page and the current situation is the consensus. I both looking for terminology and feelings on the 3RR in this situation.Naraht (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are justified in reverting multiple IPs that continually blank the same information from the article provided that the issue has been discussed. They would seem to have the strong appearance of being the same person. If you've warned the person on their talk page and on the article's talk page that this material has been determined by consensus to be proper for inclusion and that blanking it is considered vandalism, then you should be OK considering it "obvious vandalism" (a 3RR exception). But again just because it's justifiable doesn't mean it's advisable. I would council taking the matter to WP:AN3 or WP:AN/I. Hitting the revert button over and over is not a good solution even if it may be allowable. -Thibbs (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Expanding on the sentiment in Thibbs' post immediately above, vandalism can be contextual. If a person blanks for a putatively valid reason, that is not vandalism because there's no bad intent (though people are well advised to always leave an edit summary on such edits or it will be assumed otherwise), but once they have been warned, or consensus is clearly against them and they continue with that knowledge, the very same edit, for the very same underlying reason, is transformed into vandalism. To put a fine point on it, if a person made what looks like a perfectly legitimate edit if viewed in a vacuum, but the context is that they have been warned three times that a discussion was closed finding against the addition of the material, I would consider that simple vandalism and would refuse a block on the basis of 3RR no matter the number of reverts. The distinction I am drawing is that it does not need to have the appearance of "obvious vandalism", such as blanking, for me to consider it obvious vandalism indeed, for purposes of applying the 3RR exception. However, you have to realize that some admins might apply the rule reflexively; it's no fun being already behind a 3RR block and arguing nuance of whether or not something was or was not obvious vandalism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] trying to do an Afd

I've done stages 1 & 2 without problem, bt when I follow the instructionss by usg subst ...on the aricles for dscussion page, ll that hppens is that the reason for proposed deletion appears, sans header &c. I'm sure I'm missing something terribly obvious, but what?? TheLongTone (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. You were missing the template: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ copy that to the nomination page and then you just type the reason in the text= field, and set the pg=pagename to the article you are nominating, and if possible the category (but that isn't critical). If you plan to make frequent AfD nominations, you may want to consider one of the tools like Twinkle that can do most of the nomination process for you, only requiring you to provide the reason for deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I though I was doing, cut & pasted from the instructions page, which makes no mention of the last two parameters.TheLongTone (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Monty's code from step II with the code in step III. You did step I and III at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion correctly. The problem was step II where you omitted the code mentioned by Monty when you created the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mattress World of Michigan. The code is on the instruction page. It creates a heading and it is this heading which is then transcluded together with the rest in step III, causing an entry in the table of contents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 26. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll use Twinkle the next time I try to do his: I'll read the instructions (yet) again, but I got the impression that one clicks the link in the afd notice & that does itTheLongTone (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It only does it automatically if you click the "Preloaded debate" link (no longer displayed) on the nominated page, as described in the step II instructions. I guess you didn't click that link when you created the nomination page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Password

I wanted to edit an article and i asked for an updated password for my user name. It must have been sent to some now forgotten email account, because I don't see an email anywhere. I have since found my original password. Can anything be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.118.117 (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The original password will still work if the emailed password isn't used. Just log in normally and set a current email address at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People by century

Category:21st-century American people and Category:20th-century American people are both Category:Container categories and now contain only subcategories; should Category:19th-century American people and so on be similiarly classified as being container categories ? what about Category:19th-century Austrian people, Category:19th-century Armenian people etc. Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to do that if it's possible. It's certainly tidier than having multiple pages (200+) people all crowded into a parent category when more specific subcategories exist. At a certain point you may see diminishing returns for your efforts, though. If the parent category only has a handful of entries then it might be preferable to leave it as is. It's a matter of editorial discretion I'd say - a judgment call. -Thibbs (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made between revisions

Why have you made it so much more difficult to see the changes made by revisions? The previous system of putting the changed text in red was much clearer.Mark126 18:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You are likely to get a better answer to this question if you post it at WP:VPT instead. --Jayron32 19:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has the option "Display diffs with the old yellow/green colors and design." PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For registered users only. I for one prefer staying the hell away from the toxic drama that is the Wikipedia community and am therefore stuck with whatever the community of "established" users agrees upon as the standard interface. Ah well, anyone knows that IP editors are regarded as third class denizens anyway. Just another brick in the wall that used to be an open door known as anyone can edit. --213.168.72.198 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This and many other things regarding the software is actually decided by developers and not users. There have been some protests at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Diffs. Most registered users have never made an edit. If you register an account then it's still completely voluntary what you do, and customization options is only one of the benefits. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's the page warning prospective registrants of the drawbacks? --213.168.72.198 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Incremental search suggestions

I've wondered for some time now how the ranking in Wikipedia's search suggestions (the "typeahead" suggestions which come up when you start typing in the search box) comes about. Are the suggestions sorted strictly by number of searches and/or article hits, or are there other parameters? --213.168.72.198 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] skin pressure

I have been having problems in do behalf of air flow i believe it is flowing out of my body of my legs and my shoulder blade area and was not sure of what should be done and their is also alot of pressure feeling like fluids of some sort their as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.21.33 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but we cannot offer medical advice. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is just a general question about how the human body works, you should try posting at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] April 27

[edit] Users with articles

On Wikipedia, I once saw a list of users that also have pages about themselves, but I can't seem to find it anymore. Can someone please link it to me? —Bzweebl— ^talk 02:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles I think. AlexiusHoratius 02:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Compliments to the excellently efficiency of those who are regulars at the help desk! —Bzweebl— ^talk 02:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120427022630/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

Personal tools

Interaction

Toolbox

What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link

Print/export

Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Contents