Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

January 20

How to start a Wiki Project

Hi. I would like to know how to start a new project in Wiki, like Project: electric vehicle. Any help?---North wiki (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be redundant to WP:CARS, as this project encompasses all automobiles from small hatchbacks to large SUVs, regardless of propulsion: petrol, diesel, LPG, LNG, CNG, ethanol, electricity. It is inefficient and cumbersome to have a separate WikiProject for what is no more than a slight variation of an existing topic. What next, WikiProject: hybrid vehicles, WikiProject: small diesel hatchbacks? OSX (talk • contributions) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, that's unfair and rude. It's also completely wrong. There can always be subprojects. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports has many subprojects underneath it. To be more helpful to the OP, the proper place to go to start a new Wikiproject is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, though you may want to look at contacting some of the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles to see how to work a new Wikiproject in, considering the likely overlap. I apologize for the rudeness of my colleague. I hope these links help you investigate starting a new project. It may be better to work within the framework of Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles instead of starting a new project, but if you feel that doing so is necessary, please feel free to do so. --Jayron32 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Amen to Jayron32, and I'm sure OSX didn't mean to come out so negative. We all get fretful at times. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ---North wiki (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to copy text for use as free information on a website I am planning but i don't understand what I read here in Wikipedia regarding this

I would like to copy helpful information regarding Health, Aging, Nutrition, Aids for Seniors and healthy food sources. My website theme will be all about health and well-being and nutrition supplements that are available to achieve this. There will be no charge for this information. So I would like to know exactly how I can copy text information from Wikipedia or Wikipedia Books and copy it into articles I would like to publish on my website. Not as my own published documents but somewhere, somehow making reference to the source (Wikipedia) as in fact the source and perhaps including a hot link to click on that would bring the reader back to the source.

Can I legally do this? If so, can someone outline the steps I would need to follow to accomplish this.

Warm Regards, Pumpsoil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpsoil (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:REUSE. – ukexpat (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd share something I recently discovered too - when viewing an article, there's a 'Cite this page' link in the toolbox on the left side of the page. Clicking that has a lot of useful information. CaptRik (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Move article

I have changed History of art auction sales from an article about only history to an article about art auction containing the history. The article is not finished, but the structure/chapters is/are changed. Therefore, I would like to move the article to "Art auction", but I can not move the article, because Art auction redirects to History of art auction sales. Will somebody please move the article for me. Thank you very much. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done :) [stwalkerster|talk] 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A very premature move! Only a few sentences have changed. Unless a lot more updating is done, it should go back. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Only a few sentences have changed" is not correct. As I have read above, the structure is changed (History of art auction sales is now just one chapter of the article). Please, see also that the {{Update-EB|date=January 2011}} is still in the top of the article. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The_Seventh_Coin

Could you do me a favor? Could you help me write a summary for movie The_Seventh_Coin? Here's a summary from this site: http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/the-seventh-coin.html but I was wondering how to write in my own words. Can you help me? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is some useful info at WP:PLOTSUM. Personally, I wouldn't write a plot summary without actually seeing the movie. Also - please keep it brief - there is often a tendency to write excessively long summaries with too much detail.

You might get ideas and inspiration for style from some of our featured articles, such as The_Boys_from_Baghdad_High#Synopsis, Fight_Club_(film)#Plot, The_Pit_and_the_Pendulum_(1961_film)#Synopsis, Sunset_Boulevard_(film)#Plot.

Others may perhaps know the film, and be able to assist more directly, but I hoped these thoughts might help a bit. Good luck,  Chzz  ►  02:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ambigous page

Can someone point me to policies and guidelines on disambigius pages. I've encountered a few pages which upon some considerable thought seem glorified disambigous pages. One such page is Box turtle for those wanting an example. The issue arises because two seemingly similar subjects are on closer inspect different things but the article either talks about them as two or more subjects duplicating what should be in other specific subject articles or the article talks about the subjects as one, misleading the reader. I'm looking for a policy or a guideline where I can read more and perhaps initiate (if appropriate) a recovery of the articles to disambigous pages. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 05:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DAB covers this, I believe. --Jayron32 06:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken something it doesn't seem to mention the situation above. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 06:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I’m not totally sure what problem you perceive: Are you thinking it needs a hatnote to the effect of “This article is mostly about North American box turtles. For Asian box turtles, see Cuora and/or keeled box turtle.” If so, WP:DAB was apt, for WP:DAB#Disambiguation links talks about hatnotes and has a main-page link to Wikipedia:Hatnote. —teb728 t c 11:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at it this way. If the page did not yet exist. Creating the page as follows would be normal.

Box turtle may refer to:

• Terrapene, a genus of turtle endemic to North America.
• Cuora, a genus of turtle endemic to Asian; a member of which was previous classified as Pyxidea.

{{disambig}}

Now that is exists as a mixed article I am looking for information on if this should be resolved, and if so how. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The usual practice is not to create a disambiguation page for only two relevant articles, but to deal with disambiguation by hatnote. – ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The usual practice is to create a disambiguation page because neither of the names are the same as the disambigous page. If you think otherwise please provide an example where neither article titles are the same as the disambig term and the third common term is used for searching. Also if you just added hatnotes, I'd really like to know what you would do with the Box turtle article? Turn it into a red link? Leave the article as is and overlap content which would be a duplication of another article? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the best option is to move this discussion to the talk page of the article, start a WP:RFC to see what others think about solving the problem. I think your solution of turning this into a DAB, and then splitting the text between the two resulting articles has legs, but insofar as you seek discussion to decide how to proceed regarding the proper way to manage that, that discussion should happen on the article talk page of the affected article, and not necessarily here. You may also want to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. --Jayron32 17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was intending to take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Turtles once I had established what policy or guideline it came under. It seems now there is no guidance on what to do here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that rather than there being “no guidance on what to do here” you don’t like the fact that the advice doesn’t support your position. Simply converting the article to a disambiguation page would lose general information interesting and informative to non-biologists. If you were to split the information in already in the article into two articles, common name titles should be used per WP:Use common names: like North American box turtle and Asian box turtle rather than “Terrapene” and “Cuora” (The latter titles are OK for taxonomy articles.) I realize that the fact that a common name spanning two genera is unsatisfying to biologists, but most Wikipedia readers are not biologists. —teb728 t c 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Oh, and you asked for an example of hatnote use: A somewhat similar case is Thrush (bird) —teb728 t c 22:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason this was brought up was because the article Box turtle couldn't cover any information that wouldn't fit better in the two other articles. It just so happens that these two groups of turtles have the same common name, other then that they're pretty unrelated. Look at Styx, Styx (band) and Styx (disambiguation); the first two articles are related only because they share the same name, the disambiguation page serves to help readers find the distinct page they want to read about. I think a disambiguation page is the perfect solution for Box turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that putting a polyphyletic group is not that sound and in this case there should be two articles; and it is good you brought the issue with this article up. Now the thing to evaluate (before you propose anything on the talk page) is if there is a "box turtle" (the american or the asian one) which is encyclopedically more "important" (because it was named much earlier, because people think about that box turtle normally when they think about a box turtle, because it is much more abundant, etc). If so, that orgasism should be at Box turtle with a hatnote as suggested above (e.g.: this article is about the American Box turtle, for the species Cuora, see Asian box turtle). A disambiguation page with only two different options is generally not suggested (even if taxonomically these species are on the same level; as that carries little weight here...) L.tak (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand the sense in that. My question at the beginning is where is the policy or guidance on this? Can you point to any. If there is none, then fine it can move to a talk page discussion on a case by case basis. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As it says above, the policy or guidance is WP:DAB, which talks about primary topics, hatnotes, and the choice between hatnotes and disambiguation pages; and also WP:Use common names, which says the article titles should be the common (in this case English) names rather than the names of the genera. —teb728 t c 01:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to have given the subject little thought and therefore your posts make no sense. I'd love to think DABS actually said anything that would resolve the situation, however reading it does not suggest that. Let's say you got agreement and changed the two topics to common names North American box turtle and Asian box turtle. You hat noted them to point to each other, I'm with you up to that point. But, here is the issue: What would you be doing with the third Box turtle article? Would you 1) leave it alone? 2) delete it and make a red link? or 3) make it a disambigous page? And the answer to that third article is found where in the WP:DAB guidance exactly? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think actually I have given it more consideration than you. In answer to your question I would remove from box turtle anything that doesn’t apply to Terrapenes, adding a hatnote reference Asian box turtle. I would move box turtle to North American box turtle (as the source of that article), keeping the resulting redirect from box turtle, for as the article says, the American genus is the most common meaning. (So in summary box turtle would be a redirect.) I would also give consideration to each of the articles at Special:WhatLinksHere/Box turtle to see which links need to be changed. I see no need for a disambiguation page. —teb728 t c 02:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC) To put it a little differently, box turtle should be the primary article or a redirect to the primary article. (And I believe the primary article should be the one on the American genus. —teb728 t c 02:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd move Box turtle to North American box turtle, but what would you do with the article Terrapene dealing with the same subject matter? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Box turtle should not be a separate article, bottom-line. It appears to be an incorrect or not totally agreed upon common name. Thus, only certain readers would expect it to discuss North American box turtles while the rest of the world would expect it to serve as a disambiguation page that lists both Terrapene and Asian box turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at Terrapene: it is only a taxonomy stub. Box turtle contains the most of the content on the genus, and it is mostly about that genus. —teb728 t c 03:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Oh, in direct answer, I would keep it as a taxonomy stub. —teb728 t c 03:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's incorrectly named! The state of the other article is immaterial at this point.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of where the content is not but how it can be effectively be re-arrange. Also the suggested move Box turtle=>North American box turtle would be against WP:COMMONNAME, because if North American box turtle was common it would not currently be a red link. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So would you be happy with taking London (United Kingdom) and London, Kentucky and having a combined topic dealing with both locations of the same common name called London? I don't think you would, and you won't because it's not logical and thus you have the same situation with the Box turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer your multiple choice question two sections above: my choice would be: 3: have the primary topic (according to WP:DAB) at box turtle (that is the american OR the asian, up to the experts). To answer your rethorical question about london (to make the policy clear): No, I would hate to have both on one page. Just as I (and everyone it seems, you make a good argument!) agrees with that there should be proper disambiguation. Your example is very informative. Let's take that case:

• we use WP:DAB as the guideline (so we have a guideline to follow now)
• there is a primary topic (the city london in the UK)
• Thus London is where the main UK topic is situated
• other uses are at London (disambiguation), because there are many more London things (not just two).

Now in your case, we have to do the same.

• reading WP:DAB as the guideline
• determining if there is a primary topic (and put the primary topic species under box turtle.
• determining if there is an alternative topic (yes) or multiple alternative topics (no)
• put at box turtle the primary topic with a link to the secondary topic in a hat note (similar to the hatnote in Lonond)
• If this is a sensitive or non-straightforward matter: first discuss it as a suggestion (with arguments) on talk:box turtle.

Should you wish help in doing that, you are free to ask me! L.tak (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both choice 3 and the London example. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

wiki online reader app

i would like to know how to get an online wikipedia app for nokia 5233, instead of visiting the site everytime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.84.8 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this help? --ColinFine (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Can Edit History Be Removed - in some situations?

This is really a policy question.

For example, say I make three separate editing contributions to an article. Assume that over that period of time, no other edits were done by others. Thus, the View History tab would then show the three successive edits I made as the three most recent entries listed.

Now, say for some reason I decided I wanted to revert the article back to the state it was in BEFORE my three edits took place. In other words, take it back to the state it was in BEFORE I chose to start editing the article. Say I elected to do this, reverting it back to its state prior to my edits.

Q. Given that the article would now be fully returned to the pre-edit status, IDENTICAL to what it was in before my edits were done, will my three edit history records be deleted as a result, or will this last action incur a fourth edit record in my name?

Thanks for your advice.

Graeme Dennes (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The last action would be a fourth edit. Contributions are recorded in the edit history and will continue to be thus recorded unless subject to oversight, although oversight is a fairly big deal and is only used in narrowly defined circumstances. What you're saying makes some sense, given that it returned to the original state, but in practice the software doesn't distinguish between edits, but simply records changes. - Bilby (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, your edits will be preserved; reverting to a prior version of the article merely creates a completely new version with identical text of the earlier version. See Help:Reverting for more details. It is technically possible to remove edits from public viewing using two tools known as Wikipedia:Revision deletion (or RevDel) and Wikipedia:Oversight. Revision deletion is done by administrators, and the RevDel-ed pages remain viewable to admins, but not to other editors. Oversighted edits are done by a very tiny number of elected admins called "Oversighters", and are only viewable by them and other select Wikipedia functionaries. Edits are not normally RevDel-ed or Oversighted except in very limited, well defined, situations. --Jayron32 06:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So oversighters can see oversighted edits? I thought it removed them from the database entirely. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why oversighters shouldn't be able to see oversighted edits? What if they want to undo an oversight action? As far as I know, oversighted edits cannot be seen by non-oversighters. HeyMid (contribs) 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I find the edit history of JUST ONE PART of a page?

How do I find the edit history of just one part of a page? It might be a section, a paragraph, a template, or just one word. I've been banging my head against this for days, trying to find who added a merge template to a page. On a heavily edited page it can take a long time going back one edit at a time. One would expect the Edit Summaries to be helpful, but often they don't provide the detail needed to zero in on one part of a page. No doubt it'll be as obvious as the nose on own face, but I sure can't see how to do it at this point.

Thanks in advance, Michaeloqu (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You can use WikiBlame (link). Enter the name of the article and in the "search for" parameter, put {{merge}} (or whatever template you're looking for). The system will return the revisions containing that string. See the manual for more detailed instructions. Goodvac (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Should Pirg be made into a disambiguation page, due to the existence of (and higher prominence of) PIRG?

Resolved

Unfortunately I'm unable to do it myself, because I intentionally locked myself out of my account for schoolwork purposes. Maybe someone would like take care of it? Thanks, 75.4.194.121 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Handled by hatnotes. --ColinFine (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Perdu password

Hello. My mot d'passe is perdu and I don't know how to retrouver it. Can you please aider me to help me retrouver it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.157.201 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you avez registre with un email address, vous can demander un email avec the password. Sinon, bad chance. Desole. --ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Be sure you are at the right Wikipedia. Si vous recherchez la Wikipedia français, il est a cet URL: http://fr.wikipedia.org. Cette Wikipedia est la Wikipedia anglais, et le mot de passe entre le deux est différent. --Jayron32 13:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I crois that this person is looking for the Franglais Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Voltage optimisation

Need help on whether to merge 'Voltage optimisation' or delete article which is a persistent spam magnet and seemingly created as the result of spam. Voltage optimisation comes about, from the electrical engineer practising his skill of designing any electrical power supply system, in such a way that it ensures that any equipment or electronic device drawing power from it, is supplied at a voltage which is within the tolerances that the equipment is designed and rated for when operating at the point of use in the circuit. This also included minimising unwanted effects, such as phase lags, from running rotating machinery and other power quality problems. However, over the last decade, sales and marketing departments of some companies it appears, have high-jacked the term to mean simply the installation of their mains power conditioning equipment and so we have a parallel article titled Voltage optimisation . This is also at the expense of excluding the VO work that needs to be done when designing low voltage electronic circuits and so is misleading readers of this article at this level too. Because of this marketing effort, any editor that googles for 'optimising voltage' will find only the phrase 'voltage optimization' and all references leading back to the websites of companies selling this equipment. Worse, because many editors don't understand the subject they are inclined to believe the sales lingo and it add to the article together with the outlandish claims for cost savings. That is not to say that the equipment is a scam, it isn't and it can help in a few situations, but the explanation of all those that I've read over the years amounts to pseudo-science and misinformation. Worse than that, if any sales and marketing nonsense does get noticed and removed from the article, it get put back by anonymous editors who we believe are representing these manufactures. Googling “define:Voltage optimisation” shows that Wikipedia is appearing to give legitimacy to their marketing effort at the expense of more responsible and honest companies that offer equipment that does the same thing but using more correct terms like power conditioning equipment. Lastly, I have brought this here because I alone cannot turn the tide and need some input from current practising electrical engineers. Unfortunately, wikipedia appears to be the only online reference tool granting legitimacy to this sales and marketing push, Google “Define:Voltage optimization” and see. This is the sort of nonsense that puts WP in a bad light. I would have no objection if the article was really about VO and about choosing the right wire gauge to prevent undue voltage drop and how to work out the right heavy duty power capacitor to correct for lag occurring in a large factory etc. Instead , it is becoming apparent that by having two articles about this equipment, it is allowing misleading non encyclopedic rubbish to be transferred over to WP under the radar of other editors who would otherwise spot it if it turned up under the proper term power conditioning. --Aspro (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a good discussion to have, but what you should do is start a WP:RFC at the talk page of the article in question, and see where the consensus lies. Its a complex issue, and there are a few noticeboards you may want to notify of the RFC, like Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You'll want to maintain the discussion at the article talk page, but notifying appropriate noticeboards tends to attract the attention of editors that specialize in resolving conflicts about specific issues. --Jayron32 17:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will start following that when things around me become less hectic.--Aspro (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Should I report a sock?

I've found a page (Sam Darcy) where the vast majority of edits are made by users who have neither User: nor User talk: pages (check out all those redlinks). Finding this unusual, I checked the contribs - and noticed that most of these users have edited this page and no other. Is this a sock farm? What should be done? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Find the oldest apparent sock (usually called the "Sockmaster" and file a report at WP:SPI under that name. Provide an explanation with links and diffs, in this case you'll probably want to use the checkuser=yes parameter, as this situation could benefit from the use of checkuser, and sit and wait for admins and checkuser to complete the investigation. --Jayron32 16:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Afraid I can't do that - the article was speedied a minute before you posted the above. It would be an admin task to recover the necessary info. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll file the SPI, and you can make additional comments on it as needed, given that. --Jayron32 17:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you file it, I'm ready to post the results. :) TNXMan 17:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll file it, if you like - I deleted the article and have just finished boggling at the contributors' list - at least a dozen SPAs. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Already done: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NaSTATV. --Jayron32 17:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Storing a draft article

I have registered as a user and have drafted the content of my article/references ready to copy into wikipedia I have read the many instructions which suggest I can enter it in draft form, save it to work on later (it will take me several goes to put in all the references etc) and only 'go public' when I am ready - how do I do this? It also seems I can submit a finished draft for editorial comment before 'going public' which would be most helpful - how do I do this? Thanks Lakpha (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've left some introductory links on your talk page. To create a draft article, I recommend the Article wizard; and once your draft article is ready for review, the instructions are here. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Category name change

Whom do I contact to find out how and why a category name has been changed? Category talk:The Los Angeles Times people. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of Category:Los Angeles Times people, User:Good Olfactory was involved, so I would start with them. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It was done via a WP:CFDS: here is where the request was raised. Looking at the next few raised after that, it looks like a general change. The code C2B is explained here. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Myasthenia Gravis

I added a real person to the Myasthenia Gravis page, someone notable who, I know, had the disease, Tony Randall. I met him almost 30 years ago at one of their National Association events in NYC.

Hi,

In regards to the above subject line, as a first time account holder, I thought I could add this information easily to the other 'real' notable people who had this disease. At the time, Elizabeth Dole, was Chair of their organization, which was right before she chaired The American Red Cross, which was well before she became a senator. My concern is that I don't think I entered it properly because after I hit 'save this page' the type didn't match the others. Does that occur later? Again, I'm very new to this & not very computer savvy. Sorry for this inconvenience. D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.228.14 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I could have tidied up your edit, by adding a bullet & adding a link, but instead I have reverted the edit as you gave no evidence that he had the disease. He become chairman of the association, but any info I can find suggests that he did not have the disease but had been invited to support the association. If you have a reliable source for him having the disease, please quote it as a reference. Please read WP:V and WP:REF. I hope you will forgive me for slightly tidying up the format of your question and shortening the header. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed this is perfect example of why reliable sourcing is so important when adding facts to articles. You had a good faith, strongly held, but anecdotal belief that a fact was true, which it turns out appears to be incorrect or at best, very dubious.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing tag on article

Hi - the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Chartered_Accountants_of_India has a tag "needs to be expanded" since Apr 2010. It has been substantially expanded since then that I think the tag should be removed - I am unable to remove the tag correctly and furthermore I am not sure if we are entitled to remove the tag at all - is this a Wiki Admin task ? Can someone review the page and decide or then leave a note as to what needs to be done ? It has much more information than, for example, the AICPA article - also can someone review the "essay" tag - ? I don't think it reads like a personal essay any more. Any help will be appreciated. WikiCpa (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. Anyone can do it if they think the issue(s) has been resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey - thanks for doing that and moreover thanks for cleaning up the article - just what was needed!WikiCpa (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI - comment possible? Appropriate?

Hi. I'm not a party involved in the ANI case, i.e. not the editor who report to ANI, not being 'accused' in ANI or a party named within that ANI. I came across a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. An editor is accused of Sockpuppet/vote recruiting here. I notice that any editor can comment on that investigation at that page. However, I'm uncertain that if I, without admin right, can or is appropriate to make a comment at ANI. ---North south E W (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have more examples, or suspect more sock puppets, or something similar, then you sure can weigh in. CTJF83 chat 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no place on Wikipedia where the opinion of an administrator counts more than the opinion of a nonadministrator, period. This is a fundemental principle. Administrators are entrusted with certain tools that allow them to do certain things, with the consent of the community, but all admins are equal to all non-admins in every other way, and non-administrators are invited and encouraged to contribute to discussions on the Admin noticeboard and indeed anywhere else on Wikipedia. Your opinions matter just as much as anyone elses. See WP:NOBIGDEAL. --Jayron32 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all. ---North south E W (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you feel you have something to contribute to ANI, by all means do so. However, based on my own experience (for what that's worth), ANI is a particularly contentious forum, so don't be surprised if you receive responses you don't like. I know I have and was sorry I said anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

trying to put text vertical in a table

I am trying to put text vertical in a table. Could you help me with the code?Jrats (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) See this help page. Apparently one has to use an image file for each fragment of vertical text, because browser support for rotated text is so unreliable. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

For an infobox location map,

What are the numbers I'm supposed to put here?

| latd= |latm= |lats=|latNS=N | longd= |longm= |longs=|longEW=E

The coordinates from Google maps are: 32.782198, 35.935543

fallingrain: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

From the provided link I'd try :

| latd=32 |latm= 46|lats=52|latNS=N

| longd=35 |longm=56 |longs=5|longEW=E

CTJF83 chat 22:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was perfect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. CTJF83 chat 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there an option to use the decimal format too, or is that only in {{coord}}? – ukexpat (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be only in CORD -- but I'm not sure. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that in some infoboxes, at least, if you put the decimal coordinates in the "latd" and "longd" fields and leave the other fields blank (or delete them), the decimal coordinates will be correctly displayed. It seems to depend on how the particular infobox is coded. Deor (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes do vary - some allow deg/min/sec form, some allow decimal degrees, some allow either. In most cases, those that allow the deg/min/sec form will accept decimal degrees in the |latd=|longd= fields (or their equivalents), provided that the min/sec fields are omitted. So, |latd=32.782198|longd=35.935543 should work.

(For the converse situation, where the infobox only permits decimal degrees but you have deg/min/sec values, put these through {{decdeg}} as in |latitude={{decdeg|32|46|52}} |longitude={{decdeg|35|56|5}} )

It's always worth checking the documentation for the specific infobox to see which forms it permits. {{Infobox settlement}} has the deg/min/sec form (|latd=|latm=|lats=|longd=|longm=|longs=), but if both |latm= and |longm= are omitted (or blank), allows decimal degrees to be passed through |latd=|longd=. The {{Location map}} template itself has both sets of parameters - there are |lat= and |long= for decimal degrees, and there are also |lat_deg=|lat_min=|lat_sec=|lat_dir= with |lon_deg=|lon_min=|lon_sec=|lon_dir= for the deg/min/sec form. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

January 21

baby great white sharks.

Hello, could you please inform me how long a baby great white shark (pup) is at birth? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.211.23 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Science 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.--Danger (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My reply wasn't good enough?! – ukexpat (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There are approximately 3-5 ft at birth. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Contacting OTRS

WP:OTRS says look at WP:Contact us to find how to contact OTRS. WP:Contact us has no email address for OTRS. THF (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Contact us has a section called "Provide licensing permission" which links to Wikipedia:Contact_us/Permit, which has the information you need. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like the right address to contact for BLP problems that need to be discussed off-wiki? If it is, it needs to be added more explicitly to the three article pages. If it isn't, I still an answer. THF (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed far too much. Perhaps you want Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject)? That has an email address near the bottom, and is linked from WP:Contact us via "Report a problem with an article", which links to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, both pages give the same email address. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Composite article under one name

The article Christopher R. Johnson seems to contain information about more than one person with the same, or similar name. This is noted on the Talk page, and my own attempts to make sense of the info have led me to a similar conclusion. Is there a "standard" way of indicating this in the main article, that at least directs readers to the talk page? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 13:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Answering my own question. I'm going to pick on the person the current article matches most closely, move it to Christopher W. Johnson (for it is he - see here), and remove any and all information that can not be backed up by references.

You may want to add a hatnote to direct people who are looking for the Glaswegian from the R. page to the W. page. Hatnotes are an area where covering misinformation is useful.Naraht (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

See, for example, Samantha Power and Samantha Power (actress); but even then, there can be confusion since both of these women appear to have been born in exactly the same place, although three years apart. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Two articles about the same Topic

Someone has made an article about Me and my Monsters and I believe that that I write my version before the the other persons version.

My article

There article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.20.196 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a tough situation. While "your" article was written first, no other articles link to it. The other article is more complaint with editing guidelines (i.e. correct article title) and all wiki articles link to it. There are a few avenues to take here, but I'm not sure which is best. Rehevkor ✉ 16:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely should not have two on same topic in this situation. WP:MERGE has some information about merging multiple pages into one. DMacks (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The process to go through is described at Wikipedia:MERGE#Proposing_a_merger and Help:Merging#Proposing_a_merger. The content can be merged under one of the titles, removing redundant content and leaving that content which best meets Wikipedia ideals with regard to well-written and well-referenced text. There is no preference given to the article which was first, just which content, from either article, is best, even if content comes from both articles. --Jayron32 16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in this case. I have tagged Me and my Monsters for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. You can't create a Wikipedia article by copy+pasting text from elsewhere. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I have merged the infobox box as I think that's all that was salvageable. Rehevkor ✉ 16:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...and I deleted the article as confirmed copyvio even back to its original creation. DMacks (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...and then I created the redirect so we can avoid having this happen, even accidentally, in the future. --Jayron32 17:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

template - normally closed

Please enlighten me about temolates, sometimes I goto articles and they are closed and sometimes opened, I would like to arrange for one to be permanently closed, how is it done - Specifically in relation to the one at the bottom of this BLP Julian Assange. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You add " | state = collapsed" according to the docs. Rehevkor ✉ 17:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I had already gone ahead and done that. But yeah, you add "state = collapsed" to force it to collapse. It looks like someone just tried to enter the word "collapsed"; the Navbox templates use so many parameters that every one is defined, so you need to indicate the parameter and its value. --Jayron32 17:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Its only working now because I have just edited the template definition. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks all, I had the idea it was an issue in the template definitions - I will have a look and learn how to do that in future. My issue was just that although connect to the subject, on his BLP article, some of them are imo tangential and imo better to leave closed for users that really want to investigate the broad field of information. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Family

My mother was living maid for the covent back there between 1946/1948 until she got married her name was Hermina Caraballo . I also had an aunt whose was Isabel Robledo do you have any info . on any of these ladies, my mom passed away around 1949/1950 would like to have as much info on her. Any info. that you can give me is deeply appreiated regards Mary M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.181.192 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mary. I have to admit I'm not sure anyone will be able to help you here. There are other websites that can be used for tracing past family members and such information but Wikipedia generally does not contain such information. A cursory search myself wielded very little related to these two people. If you believe your family members to be notable you can always file a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Rehevkor ✉ 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what "the covent" refers to. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 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.Template:Z25 PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Railroad Museums in Canada

Good day! I am a director on the board of the Northern Ontario Railroad Museum & Heritage Centre in Capreol, Ontario. We have a museum with rolling stock & a museum house (the former railway superintendent's) full of memorabilia & pictures of the last 100 years. We actively serve the public from May till September.

It has come to my attention that we are not listed on your site. How would I go about having this added to the list of Railroad Museums in Canada? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railway_museums#Canada

Thanks!

Wendy Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.201.134 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wendy. Generally in a case like this the best option is to give a shout at the article talk page: Talk:List of railway museums. The people there will be more likely to assist you in adding the entry or do it for you. In this case there is already an article to link to at Northern Ontario Railroad Museum, and I have amended this onto the list for you. I have also created a few redirects to make the article easier to find in the future. Rehevkor ✉ 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably a better idea would be to leave a message on the talk page of the Railways Wikiproject. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

printing

the article shows 10 pages of information but only prints out the 1st one.. anyway to get the additional pages for viewing?? Jconway587 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)--Jconway587 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Which article are you asking about? —teb728 t c 21:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have worked some related issues. but we need to know the article and your browser version. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

recommending wikipedia pages on facebook

Why can I no longer recommend a wikipedia page on Facebook? It appears that that option is no longer available and I am very upset about it...my friends and I do it all the time and really miss it.! 173.3.137.142 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How Facebook behaves has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I believe you'd have to contact Facebook and request they rectify this. Rehevkor ✉ 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

January 22

Copyright violation in Tracy Edwards (sailing/business/Qatar)

A large part of the article Tracy Edwards is a copy of this Guardian article (which is an interview with Tracy Edwards). It is cited in the Wikipedia article (and yes, the text is changed from first person to third person, great!), but it's *way* too close to be even "only" plagiarism. As the Guardian article / interview is quite interesting, it'd be unfortunate to delete everything... so I'm posting here in case you (yes, you!) feel like investing time to save worthwhile information. If not, I'm shortly going to delete all copied information (and leave an external link to the Guardian article) because unfortunately I myself do not have the time right now to rewrite the article. BTW, the topic is sailing/racing and to some extent also business in/with Qatar, if that should stimulate anyone. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Having compared the articles I can see what you're getting at, but am just as unsure how to deal with it. The text "paraphrased" from the Guardian article is spread throughout the article. I wonder if the other text is also "paraphrased" from the other sources. I can't access the book sources though. Just chiming in with my opinion here, I'll let someone more experienced with copyright issues assist in dealing with it. Rehevkor ✉ 03:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to say, the best option may be to stubify the article, which will remove the copyvio issues, until someone can rewrite it correctly. Rehevkor ✉ 03:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Annoying logout

Whenever I log in, I'm automatically logged out on the next WP page I open. I doubt it's cookies, the Firefox passwords dialog lists everything correct. It's really getting on my nerves. Autoconfirmed, Mac OSX, Nicky Nouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.155.178 (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a private browsing setting? It may be on. Long shot, but clearing your cache may also help. Rehevkor ✉ 03:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I had that this morning. Deleted all my cookies in fireFox and it seems to have cleared up. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that worked. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 04:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Text formatting of multilingual translation

Hi there everyone, I've been looking at the page Mother tongue mirroring which has a lot of bilingual/multilingual examples, but I'm not sure how to format them properly. Take this example from German:

German:

‘Handschuh’ ‘glove’, *hand shoe

‘Zahnarzt’ ‘dentist’, * tooth doctor

‘Faustregel’ ‘rule of thumb’ *fist rule

‘Lehnwort’ ‘loanword’

I'm sure that italics and quotation marks should feature in here somehow, but I'm not quite sure how. Also, there is an example from Mandarin Chinese (indentation is from the original editor):

Mandarin:

         hǎo bù hǎo?        好不好?  ‘Is it good?’ *Good, not good?
         nán bù nán?        难不难?  ‘Is it difficult?’ *Difficult, not difficult?

This throws a non-latin script into the mix, making things even harder. I tried looking at the Manual of Style, but there didn't seem to be anything specific to this kind of situation. If you can tell me the proper formatting for these examples, I will be most grateful. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 03:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a table of some sort would be the best option in this case. There could be a column for the original language, figurative translation, and literal translation. See Help:Table for more information. Intelligentsium 03:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Submitting photgraphs.

I have an extensive collection of photographs and would like to make submissions. While I have not officially copyrighted any of my images, the ones in question have all been shot and processed by me. Might my contributions be accepted for the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.108.190 (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If they are taken by you, you can upload them under any license. However, you must create an account first, and it would be preferable if you uploaded them on Commons, here. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 03:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that you are required to release the imagines under certain licenses when uploading, please see Commons licensing for details, should you choose to upload there. Rehevkor ✉ 04:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Some people find the choice of a license daunting. If you feel that way too, {{cc-by-sa-3.0|attribution details}} would be a good choice. —teb728 t c 08:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On Commons, you don't really need to worry about the syntax of the various license templates because you can select a license type from a list.

Once you've got a login, start off by going to commons:, then from the menu down the left select Upload file (if you don't see this, expand the "Participate" menu). Then select "It is entirely my own work". Fill in the form.

One of the items in the form is titled "Licensing", and starts off as "None selected". Click the down-arrow to expand the drop-down menu, then select "Multi-license with CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL (recommended)"; that will add the appropriate license tag. Then finish off the form. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Martyn_Godfrey

1. Hi! Could someone do me a favor? Could someone please clean up an article about an English-author? Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Godfrey 2. Also I wonder if the Category:American_Christians should go in the Ann_Dunham article because it says she was Christian. Thanks Neptunekh2 (talk)`

Martyn Godfrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have worked on the article since this was posted. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've answered the other question - it was also asked on my talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Download to Nook

Is there a convenient way to download Wikipedia articles to a Nook? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.143.80 (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is referring to a Barnes & Noble Nook (which I had never heard of before I went searching for it just now). I don't know the answer, though. --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't get a good answer here, trying asking at Village pump (technical). -- John of Reading (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

When browsing the page you want to download, look on the left-hand side of the screen. Under Print/Export, click on "Download as PDF". Since the Nook accepts PDFs, it should work. You will then have to upload that PDF to your Nook, but since I do not have one, I am not sure about the exact way you would do it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

finding error log history for a particular date

Hi Support, I am trying to find an error message going back 4 months for insurance purposes. I have gone into control panel- admin tools-event viewer- system & found error messages but they only go back 6 weeks & I have no idea how to go back further in time as I need to go back about 16 weeks. I would appreciate any help you could offer. Thanks Sherry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.220.29 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Computing reference desk. They specialize in answering computer 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. --Danger (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Trivia section

Does a "Student activities" section of an university falls under "trivia" policy which is needed to be avoided or tagged with template like "It contains a section with a list of miscellaneous information." i read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections), but still confused.--180.234.37.178 (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Not all list sections are trivia sections and the accompanying page. Lists relating to one topic are normally appropriate, assuming you verify the list by citing reliable sources. Trivia is explicitly defined as "isolated" information that belongs nowhere else in the article; an example is given at the bottom of the trivia page. Xenon54 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Original source of file uploads

I am trying to upload my company's logo for inclusion in an article. As "Original source" I have given: "Original material uploaded by the copyright holder", but I keep getting the error message "You must give the original source of the file, the author of the work, and a license". It's not clear to me what is required, and I can find no examples. I hope you can help, please.Olehenriksen (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is your company Ole Henriksen? If that is the case you have more problems on your plate, please make sure you are aware of our guidelines on conflicts of interest, and your account will likely be blocked for having an inappropriate name, as it would seem the account is here only to promote the company, see WP:CORPNAME. As for your image woes, I suppose this is a help desk so I should at least try and help. If you're trying to upload it as fair use, you generally need a url for the source. If as a free image, well for now you'd be out of luck, as you'd first need to send some evidence of permission via th OTRS system. Rehevkor ✉ 13:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Logos has details of uploading logos under "fair use". -- John of Reading (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Last time I uploaded a logo, I cliked "Upload file" in the toolbox on the left of the page, then clicked the word "organization" in the line "It is the logo of an organization, brand, product, public facility, or other item" on the page that came up. If you do this, then near the bottom of the next page there'll be a drop-down box called "Licensing", for which one of the options is "Logo". Choosing "Logo" creates a canned fair use rationale appropriate for copyrighted logos. If you do this and fill in one or two compulsory lines that you'll see in the summary field, that should fulfil the license requirement. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) The error message (which as far as I can tell is given only at the Wikimedia Commons, not upon a Wikipedia upload) covers three different requirements—if you leave off any one you will get this same error message inclusive of all. So, since you have stated you are filling in the original source field, have you filled in the author field, and (what I suspect is most likely the problem) remembered to choose a license for the file from the dropdown license menu near the bottom of the upload form marked "licensing"? Also since it appears that you trying to upload at the Commons, which is only for suitably freely licensed or public domain files, are you sure you're uploading it in the right place? (Few company logos are freely licensed or PD). Maybe you should be following the advice of those above for a fair use upload on Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unbiased opinion?

Hi,
I have come accross several places where there is an evolutionist belief stated, such as "this creature is believed to be 300 million years old," but it does not say that the belief is according to evolutionists. I was wondering, is that being unbiased? Because not everyone who reads WP will be an evolutionists. I am not, for one.
Thank you,Paperfork ♠ 12:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is allowed and there is a guideline specifically mentioning it: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Making necessary assumptions. There is huge scientific consensus about evolution. Wikipedia doesn't want to mention various contradicting religious claims all over tens of thousands of scientific articles. The evolution article itself mentions creationism but scientific articles about various species can assume evolution. However, a scientific reference for a specific number like 300 million years would be nice. Evolutionists don't agree about everything. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in the FAQ at the top of Talk:Evolution. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

... although I agree with you that "believed to be" makes the science of evolution enter into the territory of religion. "Thought to be", or "predicted to be" might be better in this context... Hope (but am not sure) that helps! L.tak (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. FYI, that example I gave is not an exact quote. I was making reference to the fact that I have seen things like that before. Paperfork ♠ 03:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I am writing an individual article for a musician of a notable band. All of the members of the band have individual wikipedia pages except for one. The band in question is Panic! at the Disco and the member in question is Spencer Smith. It folllows the notability criteria for the wikipedia music page, having released multi-platinum albums, worked with other bands, been on tv/radio for a half an hour or more and has been nominated for large awards and has won the VMAs. However someone keeps removing the content written and stating that the page fails the criteria. How can I prove he is notable so that the page can stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilime180 (talk • contribs)

Article in question before redirecting here. I won't comment on specifics but, Wikipedia:Notability (music) specifies that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band." He does not inherit notability from the band, so their accomplishments do not automatically grant him his own article. I'm not really seeing evidence of him being independently notable in the article itself. Rehevkor ✉ 16:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A complicating factor is that your work is being reverted by an IP whom I suspect is a blocked user editing logged out - see the 12 June 2010 entry in the history. I don't have the experience to comment on what difference that makes. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In October 2008, there was a discussion about the article that resulted in a merge/redirect. See here. Then in July 2009 the article was restored here, not clear why. Then in 2010 there's been a battle to put it back to a redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BrightBlackHeaven (talk · contribs)? He was blocked for being a compromised account apparently. Also complicated. Rehevkor ✉ 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Spencer Smith has done little outside of his work as a member of Panic! at the Disco. What more is there to say about him that isn't already said in the band's article? (edit) The other band members who do have their own articles, have done other things: Ryan Ross and Jon Walker left to form The Young veins; and Brendon Urie has done some work as a session musician and singer for Fall Out Boy. Astronaut (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the policy issues (and am too lazy to figure it out) but if the article was nominated for deletion and the decision was a merge, it would seem that an unmerge has to be justified other than just an editor coming along and doing it. Also, from the comments here, it still doesn't sound like Smith's notability has changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be considered notable though since he has also played the drums part for other bands such as Black Gold and He also is promited my promark drumsticks? Jon Walker from Panic at the Disco didnt do anything notable until he left Panic at the Disco and he had a page before.Just sayin.Emilime180 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilime180 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Your last attempt with the Spencer Smith (musician) article didn't mention Black Gold at all and the Black Gold article (if I have the correct band) doesn't mention Spencer Smith at all. If you can find a reliable source linking Spencer Smith to Black Gold or other notable acts, then why not be bold again and add it. As for promoting a certain brand of drumsticks, I very much doubt that will help unless you can find a reliable source saying something about it (like the size of the deal, how long it'll last, how unusual it is for this brand of drumsticks to seek promotion deals with musicians... ie. not just mentioning it in passing). Astronaut (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Brain drain

What is the main reason for Brain drain? Is it because of political instability or personal problems or own interest or anythng else. Plz post ur opinion.i wld b very glad, if u can post whether your are also a brain drainer r nt ? Sorry,for my poor english .Thx in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosh003 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the information you seek can be found at Brain drain? Rehevkor ✉ 16:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Acetic acid article

I don't know how to correct the article. I just wanted to alert someone about the section on Vinegar, the first sentence of which is:

Scetic acid comprises typically 4 to 18% of vinegar, with the percentage usually calculated by mass. are used directly as a condiment, and also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.107.223 (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That section of the Acetic acid article had a couple of minor typos - now corrected. You could have corrected this yourself by clicking the small blue [edit] link to the right of the section header. Astronaut (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

making small changes to EDIT a film within WIKIPEDIA

HOW CAN I EDIT INFORMATION ABOUT THE FILM " ABOVE US THE WAVES " WITHIN WIKIPEDIA FILES .I AM A LEGITIMATE CONTRIBUTOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babs4andbill4 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:How to edit a page will be of some use to you. Rehevkor ✉ 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Click on this link to the film's article and click on the "edit" tab, but please remember to switch off caps lock before you start typing - lots of all caps is difficult to read and often comes across as shouting. Astronaut (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking in references

I have noticed on multiple occasions that in references and inline citations, such as a newspaper reference to The New York Times, the newspaper title or other entity of the citation is linked to that article. For example, the reference would say author, date, etc., and then (usually) link The New York Times, the title of the newspaper in this example, to the article of the same name. I always thought that looked odd—to wikilink inside a reference. Is it favorable to do this or not? —Untitledmind⁷² (let's talk + contribs) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't read a policy/guideline on this. However, I do add links inside references to journals/newspapers/etc. if the linked article exists. So, I would link Mumbai Mirror (like I did in this edit), but not Momento24 (an Argentinian web journal I cited with this edit). I have received no complaints yet. Astronaut (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I too know of no page directly speaking to this, but my sensibility is that, though the issues are not exactly parallel, the manual of style section for overlinking and underlinking is instructive by analogy. The concern addressed by linking a source is making verification as easy as possible. If someone wants to check a reference, especially if it's not freely available online, they might first want to check the availability of the source and the article on it may contain information facilitating that. Few would need to read our article on The New York Times to learn how to gain access to an article cited to it, but they might for, say, the Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery. Of course, if the citation provides a direct convenience link to the document cited, then linking the newspaper/journal it appears in seems rather useless. Also it seems to me that like article links, if you're going to provide a link to a source, it should only be necessary to link the first use of it. Linking the NYT for 70 citations in a row has no utility I can see.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As of this time last year, this was not directly addressed in any policy or guideline. See this discussion, which fizzled out before any consensus emerged. Some argued that repeated links in references aren't a bad thing, because references aren't read as prose, and because clicking on an inline link within the article body skips preceding references. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll wikilink publication and publisher if there's articles on them, but not place of publication, year, etc. I believe it can be helpful for readers wanting more information about the reliability or notability of the source. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sub Metal- New Genre classification

I don't appreciate that I'm at the forefront of my own style of music and you have these people on here deleting it cause I'm so called "insignificant" which is completely ridiculous. All of you can't think of anything on your own which is why you're here. I'm here to make a mark. What I would appreciate is a little help with this not being deleted: Sub Metal

Main article: Sub Metal Sub metal comes in only one form pioneered by the recording artist/composer Butterfly Molly. In it's entirety, the genre pretty much speaks for itself but can be identified with the ears honed in on heavy drum beats, hard/crunchy guitar riffs, deep bass guitars and most of all. The Sub Bass. All working together on a downtempo/half stepping groove to create one of the most powerful and engulfing sounds/music this millennial generation has heard yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unseenmusicgroup (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Sub metal" does not seem to exist outside that article. Without reliable sources it just seems to be something you made up and has no place on Wikipedia. Your username seems to be a violation of our username policy as it's being used to promote your self and the "music group". Rehevkor ✉ 17:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at the discussion, but it is likely that what you are interpreting as "insignificant" is the phrase "not notable". "Notable" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia: if you are not notable, nobody is saying that you are unimportant or insignificant: they are merely saying that so far, no independent reliable sources have written substantial content about you. That is the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. So far you have not provided one single reference, let alone the multiple independent reliables sources that are required for a Wikipedia article. See WP:MUSIC. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As the admin who deleted the article, I'll echo what others have said. Not notable is not the same as insignificant. Wikipedia is not the place to make your mark; make your mark in the music world, and someone will write about it, then we can. It doesn't start here. We are not a primary source or even a secondary source, by design. We are a tertiary source—summarizing, and organizing what other reliable sources report.--SPhilbrickT 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to "whitelist" my Talk page so that it will not be protected by the anti-vandalism filter?

Usually I edit as user:Agradman, but recently I've been using WikiBreak Enforcer to lock myself out so I edit less. But I still check my talk page, and I often want to delete stuff from my talk page. Unfortunately, an anti-vandalism filter is triggered whenever I try to do so. In order to get my deletions around the filter, I have to delete stuff one line at a time.

Hence the question: Could I whitelist user_talk:Agradman from that anti-vandalism filter? In my 2 yrs of wikipedia editing, I have never drawn a single instance of vandalism, so I'm not worried about side effects.

Thanks. I suppose my identity as user:Agradman could be verified by sending an email through that WP account. 75.4.194.121 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anything on Wikipedia:Edit filter for any kind of whitelisting, but it may be worth a shot asking on the talk page there. But tbh, I doubt it'd be possible, you'll probably just have to put up with the extra click to confirm your edit. Rehevkor ✉ 18:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not get an admin to undo your Wikibreak so you can unsubscribe from the Signpost. That should reduce the clutter on your talk page. You can then recreate your Wikibreak. Buy why bother, it is only a month before the wikibreak is over. Astronaut (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories drive me crazy

United States District Court for the Central District of California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor just added the category "Government in Orange County, California" to this article. It already had the categories "Government in Riverside County, California" and "Government of Los Angeles, California". Puting aside the issue of why LA is the only with with "of" instead of "in", what do these categories mean? Using Orange County as an example, do they mean articles about OC government, or do they mean articles involving governmental entities located in OC? I wish Wikipedia categories had real descriptions as to what the category is intended to encompass. So many times it isn't obvious, at least not to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To me the "of" would mean itt is part of the county gov't, and "in" would leave it open to any gov't in the county, that could be local, state, or federal. CTJF83 chat 20:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable inference, and I had the same thought, but doesn't it seem odd that there is no category for LA County that uses "in", and wouldn't it be nice if the categories actually had a clear description? Using your inference, the LA County cat should be removed, and the other two should stay. Then, of course, there are the other counties that are located in the Central District - haven't looked at what categories exist for them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya, they aren't always 100% clear. You could always go to WP:CFD and propose a rename of the LA county to "in" CTJF83 chat 22:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

getting to your website

getting redirected to advistising sites when looking up specific subjects when using google. ie. use of spurs click link gets redirected. not good for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.181.164 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This sounds more like a problem with Google or just a case of mistaken identity. Can you have any specific examples? Rehevkor ✉ 19:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This has come up before - example - and is probably a virus at your end. Read this help page at Google. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Gadget that easies to switch articles between only two languages. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease!

Subject: Gadget that easies to switch articles between only two languages. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease!

Can someone create a gadget that easies to choose between Polish and English articles (or other languages of your choice), removing all the other languages from the sidebar? I would like to have this option in my account preferences. I would love something like this. In touch phone that would be especially helpful as the screan is very small and to tap the chosen language out of list on the side is frustraiting. Im interpreter and I would find that function very useful. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonikaUK2007 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Post your request at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals CTJF83 chat 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unclear how to add a discussion item in physics portal

The article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_Point_Method" provides a link to the Physics portal to discuss the page. Following that link, however, it is unclear how to then contribute to a discussion about the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.127.50 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Click the portal link, then the "discussions" tab, or click here CTJF83 chat 23:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But if you want to discuss the MPM article itself, rather than discussing the Physics project or the Physics portal, click the "new section" link at Talk:Material Point Method. The link that Ctfj83 gave above is for discussing the Physics "project". If you want to discuss the Physics "portal", this is the link. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks for the correction CTJF83 chat 23:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)