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.
• 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.

Ask a question

April 26

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Check this out: http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/wiki/User:AnkhMorpork# --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

deleting

Round Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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)

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! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 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)

You did? How awesome! Please do paste it on my talk page, so that I can verify whether I have missed anything. Thanks so much, you've lifted a great burden :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

From Thibbs's "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.". I disagree, multiple brothers of "Mu Mu Mu" are likely to edit to remove that information since that information is considerred secret to the fraternity by all of them.Naraht (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Like Fuhghettaboutit said, vandalism can depend on context:

• If someone who knows the general consensus at an article persists in making edits contrary to this consensus then they are vandalizing regardless of how many different IPs he uses.
• If a newcomer who is unaware of the prior consensus is editing in good faith then he is not vandalizing even if he is making edits similar to those that vandals have made.
• If you are unsure whether or not the edits are vandalism then it is safest from a 3RR perspective to treat the edits like non-vandalism and instead use discussion to solve the problem.
• If you are sure the edits are vandalism then you can revert them without worrying much about 3RR.
• If this is a long-running issue and you need help to determine whether or not the edits are vandalism you should try posting at WP:AN/I, and if you need help to determine whether or not the edits constitute disruptive edit warring then you should try posting at WP:AN3. If you are posting to either of the previously mentioned boards then I'd recommend using details from the actual disagreement rather than using a hypothetical scenario because a determination of vandalism very often depends on the specific context.

Does that cover everything you needed? -Thibbs (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It has its own meaning not strictly analagous to the real world one here. Leavesteps789 (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that vandalism may seem too broad word for some edits. New words could be created. HOMER (Human Observed Modification or Edit Revision), dreadit (disruptive edit) Fredit (frustrating edit), etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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. Monty₈₄₅ 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)

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)

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)

Just found Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 28#20th and 21st-century people by nationality and it appears that the rationale is to containerize them all, can I go ahead and do this ?...GrahamHardy (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Assuming you've not heard any recent discussion arguing against it, I think you'd be doing Wikipedia a great service if you tackled the job. The nominator's rationale from the CfD you posted would apply with equal force to the 19th-century people categories. I think it's a much tidier solution than what we currently have. Thanks for offering to take on this job. -Thibbs (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

All I'm planning to do is to add a Container category tag to them and remove the individual articles - I'm not planning to create sub-categories for them to be put in ! Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

You could write the page – but only registered users can create pages in the Wikipedia namespace... PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I could request the page (not the content) to be created by someone else. I could then add content, plenty of it. But there's no way in hell the community would ever prominently link to such an essay from the registration page, regardless of how well-written and validly argued. --87.79.130.182 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This was the first discussion I saw a link to, if it has any information the other one didn't.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

I believe plain old fashioned alphabetical order is the primary sort criterion. Roger (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Try entering "por". The suggestion Portugal is listed long before Pornography. It's clearly not alphabetical, at least not exclusively. --195.14.222.182 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I 'think that article hits is the method in use. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, it just occured to me that I'm a dummy. I could have tested that by writing down ordered lists of suggestions and then crosschecking them with the hits for those articles. I'll do that now. --87.79.130.182 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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. Monty₈₄₅ 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)

April 27

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

Please change the colour of the text of your signature - it is currently unreadable. Roger (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can read it. The signature complies with policy in that it links to both the user and talk page (only one of the two is required by policy). You may not like its display, but there's no way that Bzweebl can be forced to change it. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I can read it too, and it looks great imho. --87.79.130.182 (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The signature is discussed at User talk:Bzweebl#Signature difficult to read. It uses the CSS3 text-shadow property which is unsupported by some browsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, I remember seeing in some articles a citation style something like ^:33 where I believe 33 may be the page number. Does anyone know where this is documented, and, also, an example article in which it is used? (I can't now remember the specific places in which I've seen it.) 86.160.221.37 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See {{rp}}. There are examples in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Rp. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 86.160.221.37 (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to search all articles in a category; can't figure out how...

For example, I'd like to search for the word "limestone" in all 29 articles in Category:Caves_of_France

Also, I'd love to search for the intersection of that category and Category:Limestone_caves to see which of the caves of France are limestone caves.

I've spent an hour looking at various pages like Catscan, Advance this or that, chat rooms. I'm not getting anywhere. Is this possible? Thanks. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to do that on wiki, but using WP:AutoWikiBrowser you can run an intersection filter on two sets of categories, which resulted in the following list:

1. Aven Armand
2. Aven d'Orgnac
3. Cave of Niaux
4. Chauvet Cave
5. Cosquer Cave
6. Grotte des Demoiselles
7. Lascaux
8. Padirac Cave
9. Trois Frères
10. Vercors Cave System

Hopefully someone else will know of a better way to do it. Monty₈₄₅ 06:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You say you looked at CatScan but it does do an intersection search. Click the radio button for "for pages by category", then enter two different categories into the fields. Here's the search of the two categories you wanted (it returns the exact same results as Monty845 found using AutoWikiBrowser). I don't think it can do a word and a category though. However, what you can do is use the internal search engine and restrict your results to the mainspace (in advanced options). Place your category name in quotes (without "category:"), together with a separate search term and then it should find the intersection. Here's the search you were looking to do. The problem is that the category name needs to be relatively distinct one, something that is not likely to be in the regular text of articles or your search will generate false positives. The format of most categories is sufficiently distinct though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both! Wonderfully helpful. And now, finally, I know how to spell fuhghettaboutit. And I'm not sure if I can ask a further question here, or would have to create a new question, but at this search result at Cat Scan, is there an easy way then to search THOSE PAGES for a term? Say, "beetle"? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. You could using the internal search engine do the same search I set up but place both category names (again, without "category") in quotes and then also search for beetle, i.e., this. Note that that finds nothing but I don't know if that's because the search method doesn't work, or because there's nothing to find. Maybe a more accurate method, though I don't know that one would characterize it as an "'easy' way", would be to do a Google search of all the pages found using the intersecting category search, in the disjunctive, restricted to the English Wikipedia (use site:en.wikipedia.org), and to the mainspace (use -inurl:wiki-User -intitle:Talk -inurl:wiki-Wikipedia -inurl:wiki-WP), like so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about creating a page for a small business

Would creating a Wikipedia page for a small but up-and-coming business be considered as advertising and cause the page to get flagged as spam? According to the "Starting an article" page, it says that promoting of business isn't allowed. However, no prices or services would be displayed. Simply information about the company and what it does would be displayed. Would this be ok to create or would this cause some sort of conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.191.74 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains articles about notable subjects. If said small business had been the subject of coverage in books, newspapers or other reliable sources, then it would be fine to create an article (although it should be done by someone with no connection to the business). However, if the company is not notable, then it has no place here. See WP:ORG for the notability guidelines for businesses. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Very possibly. It is oft-assumed that "advertising" means blatant requests to buy something. However, it is much broader.

The article must meet wp:N, which means there much be coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. This is often hard to achieve for a new, up-and- coming business. Wikipedia is deliberately not interested in leading, but following. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And see WP:CORP and WP:RS for further guidance. If you are connected with the company, please also read WP:COI, WP:BFAQ and WP:BESTCOI. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You obviously should also read WP:UPANDCOMING! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Do we have an essay on every subject?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that one back in 2008 after one too many arguments for retention on "He's up-and-coming; They're gonna get bigger; If you delete her now, you'll have to create a new article when she becomes more famous; It's a rising concept/meme/ideology; They show enormous potential; This could revolutionize the field." grounds. It was improved a bit by another editor, and has apparently proved of some utility, judging by the number of talk page discussions that link to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

reinstating Excelsior Jet

The entry for Excelsior Jet was deleted some time ago, I think because the author resigned from Wiki.

I am a big fan of Excelsior Jet, though I do not work for them. I have a page about their products on my website at http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jet.html

I got a hold of the original Wiki text, now updated. I would like to get it inserted. I tried reading the instructions for inserting and reviving pages but I could not make any sense of it. It asked me to contact a "deletion authority" but did not tell me who that was or how to contact them.

The following text describing Excelsior Jet is objective. Everything can be verified. There is no puffery or sales talk. I can't see why anyone would consider any of it controversial or incredible.

collapsing draft text

Excelsior JET Developer(s) Excelsior LLC Stable release 7.6 MP2 / March 5, 2012 (2012-03-05) Preview release 8.0 alpha preview / February 20, 2011 (2011-02-20) Operating system Windows and Linux Type Ahead-of-Time (AOT) native code compiler, runtime, and deployment toolkit for Java applications License EULA Website http://www.excelsiorjet.com Excelsior JET is a commercial Java SE technology implementation built around an ahead-of-time (AOT) Java to native code compiler. The compiler transforms the portable Java bytecode into optimized executables for the desired hardware and operating system (OS). Also included are a Java runtime featuring a just-in-time (JIT) compiler for handling classes that were not precompiled for whatever reason (e.g. third-party plugins or dynamic proxies), the complete Java SE API implementation licensed from Sun Microsystems, and a toolkit to aid deployment of the optimized applications. Excelsior JET has passed the "official" test suite (TCK) for Java SE 6, and is certified Java Compatible on a number of Windows and Linux variations running on Intel x86 and compatible hardware. It may produce DLLs and NT Services for Windows, and shared libraries for Linux. The latest version also supports the Equinox OSGi runtime and Apache Tomcat at the JVM level, enabling ahead-of-time compilation of Eclipse RCP (Rich Client Platform) applications and Web applications. Excelsior JET Embedded implements the Java SE for Embedded technology in a very similar manner, the only major differences are in licensing and pricing. See also Excelsior JET Homepage Protection of Eclipse RCP Applications From Decompilation Excelsior JET Embedded Homepage GNU Compiler for Java Category:Java development tools

I have collapsed your draft text. Notability is the issue here. I suggest that you follow the articles for creation process.--ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As this was deleted by Prod I have restored it as a contested deletion. It is now available at Excelsior JET. GB fan 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I create a page about myself?

Hello,

Can I create a page about myself?

Cheers, ANON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.199.209 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

1. WP:COI
2. WP:Autobiography
3. WP:Notability
4. You'd have to make it at WP:Articles for creation because IPs cannot create articles in the mainspace. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

...or register and get an account so you can do it yourself. Registering is always a good idea anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bullcrap

when i try to edit the page about ebay that speaks the truth about them stealing money and being dishonest crooks then you leave it on there. no sense in hiding the truth people need to know that they scam people and have been know for fraud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.84.221.206 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would try to express your opinions elsewhere as this is a factual encyclopedia and not an opinion based forum. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You should also watch your IP edits of some articles. A friend edited the CIA article with an IP and we never saw him again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous Data

Many of your articles are being tampered with, specifically relating to jews

For example, Bob Diamond (banker) was listed as jewish, now it has been edited to make him "irish-american". Bob Diamond, is, and always has been jewish

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England is a Jew, it has been removed from his article

Rick Wakeman was born into a jewish family, removed from his article

There are many, many examples of this.

You will become a pro-zionist joke if you continue to blatantly peddle lies about people's background — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.50.169 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a general consensus that biography articles should only include mention of the religion, ethnicity and/or sexual orientation of the subject if it is directly relevant to their notability and if it is referenced from an impecabbly reliable source that quotes or cites the subject themself.

BTW we don't care what pro-zionists or anti-zionists think of us. Roger (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) In the first place, Wikipedia can't be "peddling" lies because it does not sell its information – "peddling" implies a monetary transaction.

Secondly, Wikipedia is by definition a communally produced entity, and all article edits are individual acts which virtually anyone can carry out, so Wikipedia can't in itself be promoting any particular viewpoint, although individual editors/contributors, or self-organised cabels of them, might do so.

Thirdly, how would concealing various well-known individuals' (alleged) Jewishness be "pro-Zionist"? This would suggest that those (supposedly) doing so consider Jewishness as something somehow shameful: a "pro-Zionist" agenda would surely be more likely to promote Jewishness by publicising the Jewishness (if factual) of admired prominent individuals.

Fourthly, from where are you getting your "facts" about various individuals' alleged Jewishness? For example, you mention Rick Wakeman: the 1978-published book of that title by Dan Wooding I happen to have to hand not only does not mention his (or either of his parents) being Jewish, but describes his teenage attendance at a Baptist church, and he is fairly well known as being a lifelong practising Christian; it's difficult to reconcile this with your claim of his being Jewish. It may be that he has some Jewish ancestry, as practically everyone in Europe has to some degree, but that doesn't make him (or them) Jewish, any more than my own possible (though unconfirmed) 1/8 or 1/16 Jewish ancestry makes me Jewish instead of being English and Wiccan. Your assertions require corroboration from Reliable Sources – the "put up or shut up" principal applies, methinks. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.15 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Irish American is not a religion. (Though Irish Catholic might be considered one...) - Purplewowies (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

~ THERE NEEDS TO BE AN UPDATED MOST VISITED ARTICLES BY UNIQUE VISITOR ANYWHERE ON THE ENTIRE WEB ~

WHY ISN'T THERE??????? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages -- Edit: DO NOT Reply without an intelligent answer. Thingstofollow (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you not follow the link at the top of that page where it says, "For updated lists, see external links on Wikipedia:Statistics"? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Did you not read the question CLEARLY, IF AT ALL?Thingstofollow (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

glad there's one intelligent person in the room -- Found it --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2012_April_21#.7E_Wikipedia_Most_Visited_Page_.7E

still doesn't explain unique visitor nor really anything, it's not even a confirmed answer, it's maybe, 100% not helpful. Thingstofollow (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well excuse us for trying to be helpful. Perhaps if you didn't SHOUT and adopted a more civil tone, that may help.--ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The chances are unique visitor information would be collecting data that may contravene privacy policies on WMF websites. If not, feel free to write some code to generate this information Thingstofollow. Moaning about the lack of something on a website generated by voulnteers in their free time (particularly ALL CAPS SCREAMING) isn't the way forward. 86.166.65.244 (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Message for Thingstofollow --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it made me laugh, but a dollar to a donut the intended recipient won't understand.TheLongTone (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing that gets me is that almost every piece of prose on this site, in newspapers and on the Internet is written in sentence case, yet a surprising number of people think that THIS IS HOW TO DO THINGS. Perhaps one should need to apply for a caps lock licence before being given the key to put on their keyboard. Brammers (talk/c) 16:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible some folks are used to plain old typing, where all-caps was the only way to emphasize, and italics, bolding and the like were not available. Some editors (though not this one, I think) may come from cultures where capitalization as it is used in Roman alphabet languages does not exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty Good Privacy page 2 digital signatures

The last sentence says "To do so, PGP computes a hash (also called a message digest) from the plain text, and then creates the digital signature from the hash using the sender's private key.

How can the receiver read the digital signature if it is encrypted with the sender's private key?

I believe that it should be the receiver's public key otherwise how can the receiver decrypt the digital signature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.244.123 (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the second image down at Public-key cryptography. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing sections

I have made minor editings of small sections large articles that have MANY sections in them. Then when I click on the button to save the page, YOUR SERVERS TAKE FOREVER AND A DAY TO DO THIS. It is extremely frustrating, and in fact it is nauseating!

It is clear what you are doing. You are replacing the ENTIRE ARTICLE in your database. Do not do this -- it is very, very inefficient and time-consuming.

JUST REPLACE THE SECTION THAT I EDITED, and then leave all of the other ones alone!

I am an electrical engineer with a master's degree from Georgia Tech, and I know how to do things efficiently. Yes, I do. If you insist that you MUST rewrite the entire article into your computer's memories, then do that later on, and do not bother me with your server's hesitations and wasting of time. Computers are supposed to be fast and efficient -- So Make Them So! All it takes is an act of will to do so.

Dale A. Wood MSEE Georgia Tech 1980 Bachelor of EE - Auburn University 1977 MA in mathematics - Univ. of Alabama 1996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.99.85 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And how much money have you donated, Dale A. Wood, MSEE, to support our microscopic staff (mostly volunteers and a couple of temps) as they try to maintain one of the planet's most heavily-trafficked websites? Have you ever volunteered to help during one of our Summers of Code? Have you ever made specific suggestions at any of our places for such suggestions, such as the Technical section of the "Village Pump"? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DONTBITE RudolfRed (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have any problem - it is very fast, probably your ISP is a bit slow? Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 04:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, how about we all sit down and drink a rainbow? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Dale Wood, sorry if I came across a little nasty, but you don't get a lot of helpful attitudes from volunteers when you begin by attacking us; and a flat statement like "All it takes is an act of will to do so" is really a little silly. You're an engineer; you know better.

It is possible, as Dipankan suggests, that the problem is in your feed rather than our servers; it is possible that our servers are overworked (we only have so many); and it is possible that our code could be improved. As I said, we have a tiny staff; and we have a place where suggestions for improvement can be made, to be pursued by our volunteer and paid programming staff - it's called the Technical section of the "Village Pump". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dale, are you using the edit from the top of the page, or the ones in each section? My connection has 15Mbps download and 5 Mbps upload, and I have to wait a while on larger sections as well. The nearest fiber-optic node is actually accross the street. If you do have skills and a solution and would like to volunteer to improve wikipedia, I am sure that can be arranged.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WP does indeed store articles as whole entities, not in sections. So when an update is made, a whole new copy is stored. In additional to technical difficulties with storing an article in sections (after all sections are fairly fluid, and can be changed at a drop of a hat), a piece-wise store of an article would add considerable work every time the page is viewed (where even more things would need to be pieced together than are now), while saving (perhaps) *some* work when the article is edited. Since the former is (hopefully) far more common, storing the article whole is a win for the system overall, even if it slows down editing. In any event, it's unlikely that the size of any article (excepting, perhaps, a few of the very largest), has a more than modest impact on the time taken to store it - writing 100KB to disk is not really much more expensive than writing 10KB, at those sizes the seek time implied overwhelms the transfer time by a order of magnitude or more. In fact, given that a piecewise store would frequently need to generate several updates to the database (especially if the sectioning changed), and it might well be slower. Could the WP servers use a bit more grunt, especially at busy times of day? Sure - and we should all send them a few bucks to make that happen. Or perhaps the WP team needs to work on the databases write caching, but storing articles in sections seems quite the wrong direction to move in. Rwessel (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

{HELP ME} How do I edit an info box?

Hello,

I am interested in editing an info box (the box on the right side of the screen with summary information about an article). For example, how can the name George W Bush be deleted from the list of Fascist persons on the Fascism page. I mean...really?!?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRANNELISW (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The template was vandalised. The reason you couldn't see it in the article is becaue all you would see is {{fascism sidebar}}. You'd have to go to {{fascism sidebar}} to fix it. 28 bytes has fixed it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For an infobox, click the "Edit" tab at top of the page. However, the box in Fascism is not an infobox. It is called a sidebar and is a template which is transcluded from another page so it can be shown on several pages while being maintained in one place. Sidebars usually have "V T E" links in a corner for View, Talk, Edit. Click the E. I have reverted George W Bush who was added an hour before your post.[1] Thanks for reporting it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

April 28

toolbar

hi i used to have wikipedia on my toolbar. i can't seem to get it back there, can you help me with that. missing that access ease thankyou donna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.50.242 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone makes a rude comment about tools - which browser and which toolbar? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, so I'd also ask the same question as yours. I've never heard of such things before. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 04:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a Firefox add-on toolbar here (see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Toolbar). Also, without any add-on, you can have Firefox default to searching Wikipedia rather than Google or Yahoo and others. First go to view → toolbars and turn on "navigation toolbar". Now go to the search filed and click on the down symbol in it and choose "Wikipedia (en)". If you have some other browser or you use Firefox but none of this is what you meant, please advise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The OP may mean a shortcut to WP. I know in IE8, I just go to the favorites menu and select 'add to favorites bar' when I am on a site.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

New page, need some input

Resolved

 – by Orange Mike CSD (A7)

CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Family_tree_of_Makhdoom_Jahania_Sindh

Patrolling new pages I came across this, is this an article? There is a Family tree of Muhammad article, with context, explanations etc. but this one has nothing, does this qualify under CSD(A7)? Some input would be appreciated. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Senators of Sri Lanka

Dr.Andrew.Martin.Samarasinghe a Physician by profession was appointed to the Sri Lankan Senate in 1952 and reelected in 1955 for a six year term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.52 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And, do you have a specific question? ~This information should be placed on the talk page of the article that you wish to add it to, with your source. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If this person was a member of the Senate of Sri Lanka, then we certainly should have a (properly referenced) article about him. Andrew Martin Samarasinghe and Andrew Samarasinghe are currently both redlinks. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrew M. Samarasinghe (another red link) is listed at List of Senators of Ceylon. —teb728 t c 01:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Need some image help

Yup, a new page again, I have deleted this image from the article Mobile Forces Source, as it would appear to be a copyvio, using the developer's logo etc. on a game screenshot and just (badly) adding "source" in the middle (and also changing the no. of modes from 8 to 9 at the bottom). I checked the FB page and can find no licensing info, my problem is that despite logging in across several wiki sites (commons is listed when I log in), I am not recognized at Commons, even if I type my username and password.

• 1) if necessary, please delete the file from Commons (I'll AfD the article)
• 2) why am I not recognized at Commons, despite the logo appearing (alongside wiktionary, wikibooks etc.) when I log in here?
  

Thanks in advance. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Captain_Screebo says there is an unattached Commons account created 3 April 2011. It has no edits. If it wasn't created by you or you don't have a working password for it then you can request usurpation of the username at commons:Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests. If you can already log in at Commons then use Special:MergeAccount. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Commons account has a stored email address. It is not visible. If it may be your account but you don't have a working password for it then try commons:Special:PasswordReset and see if you get a mail. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll give those a try. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Prime, you're a wiz on technical questions, reset the password, entered the provisional one, did the merge thing and now all is fine, so I have nommed the image for delete over at commons. Great! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Charles Boyer

Charles Boyers son was 20 at the time of his death. Not 21to as you have listed in charles Boyers page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.7.150 (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This type of information goes on the talk page of the article, with a source, thank you. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, he was at least 21 and maybe 22 (see here). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A Google search ("Michael Charles Boyer" OR "Michael Boyer") (1943 OR 1944) suicide (20 OR 21 OR 22) (1964 OR 1965) finds many conflicting sources. He was apparently born in 1943 or 1944 and commited suicide in 1964 or 1965 when he was 20, 21 or 22. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to update, improve this bit, his gravestone states 1943-1965 so he was at least 21, there is no dob, have added a ref for the suicide. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have provided dates of birth and death, citing to a reliable source. He was indeed 21.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tidied and removed my obsolete ref now. Good work! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding displaying of non-defined parameters

I created a template which is still located in my userspace at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Unsolved. As can be seen the template includes several parameters to state individual problems. A test transclusion of the template with all but one of the parameters defined can be seen at here.

How can I achieve that if fewer than the 10 problem parameters are defined, a line such as * {{{13}}} for an empty parameter will not be displayed on the page the template is being transcluded onto? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally, you would simply add a pipe after the number: {{{13|}}}.

But you have formatting on this field, so you need to use a conditional: {{#if: {{{13|}}} | ''{{{13}}}'' }}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it and now it seems to work. Thanks for your suggestion. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Copyrights and using and citing of such material

Dear Sirs, A colleague and Wikipedia editor/user out here, recently created two new articles (stubs) i.e. St. Luke's Church, Abbottabad and Old Christian Cemetery, Abbottabad. I know he is a good editor and a competent and serious and responsible scholar. In both these articles he has cited material from and made reference to some recently-published material (from UK) and has also given some names and examples, historical information and other data from these new articles/material, which I understand is copyighted to various journals in the UK. I must stress that he has nowhere directly copied or otherwise abused copyright or plagiarised anything -- but all the same, I wonder if the societies/organisations publishing articles from which information has been drawn and used (with appropriate citations) might not object? Is there any way (apart from references and citations already made by the creator in the article) i can indicate or show that copyrighted material hs been utilised/referred to? And do i need to, or is it ok as it is? Im not a very experienced editor and am not sure what to do about this and how to proceed. Id request help please. Thank you.AsadUK200 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Facts themselves are not subject to copyright. As long as only the facts were used, and there was no direct copying of text, no close paraphrasing of text, and no copying of structure/format of the source, then it wont be a copyright issue. Citing to the the source(s) used is all that is expected. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to express our thanks, though, for your effort to keep these things clean. So many inexperienced editors are careless about copyright (I got my own wrist properly slapped early in my career here myself), and this kind of thoughtful query is much appreciated. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I join OrangeMike in thanking you for your concern. I took a quick glance at the first of the two articles, and don't see any red flags regarding copyright, but sometimes checking that out requires close review of sources. If any of the societies/organisations have some concerns, they can write to us and we will take a more formal look, but frankly, there are many other examples needing more attention, so I don't plan to investigate further, unless asked.

On a related point, it did take me some time to realize that "Tarin" was referencing to a comment in another reference. It isn't the ideal style. The author is using references both as informational footnotes and as proper references, which leads to some confusion. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Due weight beyond just viewpoints

Is there a policy that states that articles should roughly reflect the sum total of secondary sources about the subject? WP:DUE (naturally, as part of NPOV) only talks about viewpoints, but not about the overall weight given to all content. So I'm asking about "due weight" as in accurately reflecting the weight attributed to all aspects of the subject rather than the rather narrow focus on minority views discussed in WP:DUE. --87.79.211.105 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That policy states "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint", where the prominence is (implicitly) that reflected in sources. Do you think something more definitive is needed? If so tweaking of Policy wording is carried out at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but I think the current wording is consistent with your statement.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the word "viewpoints", which considerably narrows the focus and thus the "jurisdiction", to NPOV-related issues. My question is whether there is a policy outside of NPOV and NPOV's purview that addresses due weight apart from viewpoints. --87.79.211.105 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If I want to have an article rated for quality...

... and the WikiProject related to it seems a bit... dormant... can I get the article rated elsewhere? If so, where? The WikiProject is WikiProject Deaf and the article is History of deaf education in the United States. I've done a large amount of work on the article since it was last rated. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly some WikiProjects are asleep at the wheel: (Wikipedia Music Project), this is intensely disappointning as one expects expert replies, and there are none.

If anyone is tempted to reply "we're all volunteers", bullshit, yes we are, but I don't advertise a service that I don't do (even for free). This is very frustrating as <WP seems to be filling up with bullshit by the minute and the so called "projects" are noticeable by their absence. GRIPE! Basically, why should I try to edit to quality when there are loads of fanboy, trivia and basically "mymatesaysso" articles, and it's a fucking battle to get them deleted, and where's the time to do quality editing and create articles? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, wait. You seem to have very strong feelings about this. I do want to say that WP:DEAF isn't necessarily inactive, more that everything posted to the talk page of it in the past year never seems to get a response. I am a member of said project as well. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Er you misunderstand me, I am talking about noticeboards being inefficient and giving people the impression that there is some wiki-authority listening. I am a relatively new user (2 years) but I see WP going to shit as there is a huge influx of fan material and less and less editors prepard to defend, correct to wiki standards. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... depends on the noticeboard... but yeah, there are several inactive WikiProjects I've happened across. And the assessment pages on several that are active never receive ANY edits, even though they include a section where you can list works you would like to be assessed (which leads people like me to end up posting to the main talk page of the Project instead). I'd assess the article I asked about myself, except I feel I'd be a bit biased in favor of my own writing (the article was practically rewritten from its former state by me). I know it's likely not start class anymore, but I can't say whether it's C or B. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the outburst, not directed at you at all, as I linked above, I have been hoping for some input on a music related article that is (almost) pure OR, well, I could look at the article and copyedit for grammar, syntax, readability, but as to rating the quality, wouldn't know where to start. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

True Blue

When I zoom out so that the page is less than 100% of its actual size, most of it turns a neat shade of blue. This is not actually a problem, but I find it rather curious. Does anyone know why this might happen? I am using Google Chrome on Windows 7. Interchangeable 19:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a bug in the latest version of Google Chrome that shows a blue background if the browser zoom level is set below 100%. Reset the zoom to 100% with Ctrl+0 or adjust it with Ctrl++ and Ctrl+-.--ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the 1 pixel blue border which becomes background due to a Chrome bug. See http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=113711. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My sandbox

I have a link to it (through Gadgets) on my "personal toolbar area" (who knew it was called that?). Is there a way to change the link so when I click on it, it goes to the sandbox without opening an edit window?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Help:My sandbox, or try adding the line in User:Equazcion/NoEditSandbox.js to Special:Mypage/skin.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the script (not sure if I did it right), reloaded the page, but it still doesn't work. I even tried exiting the browser completely, no success - when I click on the link, it still opens an edit window. So, what did I do wrong?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Try this instead:

importScript('User:Equazcion/NoEditSandbox.js');

PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That worked (although the reload didn't do it, only the purge did it). Thanks for the help and resisting any comments about my lameness in this area.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Equazcion's method is simpler, so I updated Help:My sandbox to use it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

April 29

Book vs Wikipedia

I just noticed the the main article book has approx. 60kB while the main article Wikipedia has approx. 160kB. Could someone edit the book article and add another 100kB so we don't appear so biased? Thanks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has thousands of articles about books. I don't think the size of the specific article Book means anything. Many of the sections have a "Main article" link. Book could quickly be made far bigger by copying content from these articles but it would be against Wikipedia:Summary style. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention there are likely way more articles that aren't about Wikipedia than there are articles that are about WP. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. It was just a joke. I doubt anyone could add another 100kB to book because it has been split into many other articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Page view counter

Were there any reported issues with the page view counter today? This is the first time I have had an article on the main page (via WP:DYK) that got fewer hits than the day before when it was not on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's only a few hours into Sunday Wikipedia time (UTC). Which page and day are you referring to? Weekends have fewer visitors in general. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Your page, presumably Philip Humber, is currently on the main page the page view statistics won't be updated for 21.5 hours. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant yesterday's Kony 2012. It seems like there was a spoof main page or some sort of data error.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, two of the three links in the hook had lower page views on April 28 than April 27. See

1. 10636->10598 http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Kony%202012
2. 1459->1391 http://stats.grok.se/en/201204/viral%20video
3. 96->223 http://stats.grok.se/en/201204/page%20view

What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow page view stats for DYK entries but I don't see signs of data error. I guess most newly created articles get few views. If there was a lot of interest in the subject then an article would have been created earlier. An exception is a news-related item like Kony 2012. 10000 page views is a lot. Page views generally fall from Friday to Saturday. Suppose it would have fallen 30% without a DYK entry. Then the DYK may have caused around 3000 views. Compare to page view with 96 views Friday. That's so little that a common 30% drop to Saturday is much easier to make up for and exceed by being linked in DYK, even if it isn't the bolded link. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there also a pattern for times of the year, times of the day and times of the month when viewership is high.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pencil icon

What is the little square with a picture of a pencil stub that is to the right of "log out" on my page? When I mouse-over, I get a cryptic message about disabling [disabling what?] and a date from January of this year. Kdammers (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's WP:WikEd. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

How long does one wait for another editor to reply on a proposal of an article

How long does one wait for another editor to comment on the article that you intend including. Actually there was a long discussion on the inclusion of the article and all the criteria of inclusion has been met and is also agreed by one of the editors that he does not object but the other editor is not replying after repeated requests. What does one do in such a case. (AlphaOmega19 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

On a mobile device, how do you switch the default back from desktop view to mobile view?

On my iphone, I switched from mobile view to desktop view to see a page more clearly. It has now switched the default to desktop *permanently*, so that if I want to see the mobile view, I have to scroll down to the bottom, zoom in, and find the 'mobile view' link for every page.

This is very irritating, and I can't find a way of reverting to mobile view by default. Is there one, or is desktop view permanently associated with my account?

I have spent nearly an hour looking for this in FAQs and other help sections. I think it needs to be easier to find. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grannybuttons (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

With my Android tablet I sometimes make the switch by inserting .m. into the URL as in

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

but more often by using the "Favorites" menu to go to the .m. Main Page and thence to other pages in mobile mode. I also made it the browser's Home Page, so it opens in mobile mode and only goes to "desktop" mode when I want. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries in sandboxes?

We are told always to put edit summaries (Help:Edit summary), but is it really necessary to do this on the many edits that I make in my sandboxes? There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in making edit summaries until an article goes live, but I couldn't find any guidance on this.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, edit summaries are not mandatory in most cases, only strongly encouraged. I doubt many will fault you if you decide not to use them in your own sandbox, though as a matter of best practice, it is a good idea to use them anyway to reinforce the good habit of always using them. Also, if you intend to move content out of your sandbox in a way that preserves the edit history, edit summaries would be helpful to anyone looking back and trying to understand your thought process, including yourself if you ever leave a sandbox for awhile and then return to editing it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There is an option in preferences that will let you know if you try to save an edit without a summary. It doesn't seem to send me the warning in my own user space though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Differences

I have noticed that when I look at a difference report that the format is different and harder to read. I.e. all the writing is on a white background with very pale borders. Have I done something wrong? Op47 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Diffs. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a general question

I wanted to know the following:

I was researching a historical politician's name and Wikipedia has a page about him which includes a large table of names that is a bit confusing.

How can I ask a question of the table's author for clarification ?

Thank you in advance for any assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.165.74 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be of great help to us if you tell at least the article's name where you found that table..--GoP_T^C_{N 17:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)}

Here is probably a good place to ask, if you tell us which article. You can look at the article's history to see all the users who have contributed to it, but it may not be clear which user inserted the information you are interested in. (The Wikiblame tool can tell you who last edited that bit of the page, but they might just have been tweaking the format). And if you do identify the editor responsible and place a query on their talk page, it might be that they are not currently active. --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

counting number of readers of an article

Kindly inform me how can I get a counter for number of readers for an article I upload in the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.129.220 (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Maryam Musabeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.129.220 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Go to the article's history (tab at the top), then click on "Page view statistics". Regards.--GoP_T^C_{N 17:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)}

the little start on featured articles

how do u add the little star to the top of featured articles. i'm not going to add it to any articles that aren't featured articles (cuz that would be vandalism, lol). i was just wondering how u do it, because i like it and it looks real nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.191.43 (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You would add {{featuredarticle}} to the top of the article. I hope this helps. Jamietw (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU. btw i am NOT going to do that, because it would be vandalism. thanks.--24.228.83.134 (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Merging articles.

I have a question on merging process of an article. It has been proposed that 2008 South Korean candlelight vigil to be merged with 2008 US beef protest in South Korea in February 2011, and no action has taken so far. The article has no citation at all, and this could be WP:OR. Could anyone help to merging the article? Or should I wait for other users joining the discussion? But for more than a year, no one showed any interest... PBJT (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Article section deletions

Hi there,

There have been many good edits on an article and one user regularly deletes out an entire section of the article. They claim it is to 'advertisement' like. It has been re-written several times to be as neutral as possible, out of a courtesy to this user.

Upon re writing and leaving messages on the user's talk page, the user just keeps coming back and deleting the section, not editing or imporving it according to their knowledge.

What is the way around this? How should one proceed?

Many thanks,

Black Stripe (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow the guidance for dispute resolution RudolfRed (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

C5, CV

See C5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C5&oldid=487828501 someone has been putting "foo V"s in the "foo 5" pages, as redirects eg so C V and C.V redirect to C5 and not CV. I fixed A and B but it looks like this has spread throught the disambiguation pages.

Can I double check that this needs fixing and is wrong, and get some help to fix it.Oranjblud (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to disambiguate roman numeral V along with arabic 5. What makes you think it is wrong? —teb728 t c 00:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone looking for Curriculum vitae by typing in C V isn't going to be helped much by a page that lists all the pages that C 5 might refer to. RudolfRed (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter much to me where A V, B V, C V, etc redirect, but things moving Bavarian B V from B5 to BV (as Oranjblud did) makes no sense at all. —teb728 t c 01:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

April 30

Cite journal, pmc parameter

Suddenly the pmc param in cite journal does not display and link. This is new, I believe since the pmid shows a lock symbol. Did you now overengineer it? no pmc limits the utility of the pmid, pmc system very much. pls. take a look. 70.137.146.3 (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange password problem

Hi there - I have a rather odd password problem in that I am logged in through my home PC but I don't know my password. I had my passwords stored in KeePass, but either I have forgotten my Keepass master password or my Keepass key file is corrupt. In other words, I am having to go through all of my online accounts and manually recover the passwords. I don't have my email account associated with my Wiki account. Is there anything that I can do? If I don't either recover the password here or somehow get my email address added to my wiki ID, I won't be able to use the account again after the next time I clear my browser history. Help? ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)