Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gsandberg (talk | contribs) at 14:00, 8 December 2009 (→Watch list and languages: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    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


    December 5

    Patrolled

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So I've been using WP for several years, but I keep running across this term "marked as patrolled" both on WP and in Huggle, but I can't find any information about what that is or how it's used. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:New pages patrol May help. Essentially, as a confirmed user if you are looking at Special:NewPages you can click the "mark this page" link which means that you feel it is acceptable in the face of it, and does not fall under a criteria for speedy deletion. The yellow higlighted items in Special:NewPages have not been patrolled, the others have. Does that help? Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what I wanted to know! ^_^ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I look at unpatrolled pages, I do one of three things: if it is suitable for a speedy deletion, or a proposal for deletion, I will do that; if it is missing references, etc, I add any suitable tags; if I think I can improve it, I will - then I mark it as patrolled. Actually there is a 4th option: if I'm not sure which one of those 3 is applicable, I just leave it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia edit stats

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone know of any statistics on the number of Wikipedia edits (per day, or whatever), stretching back over the past several years? 86.134.9.78 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    There are per month statistics for the English Wikipedia at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm#3. Wikipedia:Statistics has links to various statistics. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fantastic ... thanks PH. 86.134.46.130 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How to download and use a labeled image map

    Where can I find information that will explain how to download and use a Wikipedia labeled image map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.76.88 (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    mw:Extension:ImageMap, and linked pages. Intelligentsium 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Days of the year RSS feed

    How can I get an RSS feed for the individual 'Days of the year'? I have been looking for a good online almanac. This format is ideal: 


       * 1 Events
   * 2 Births
   * 3 Deaths
   * 4 Holidays and observances
   * 5 External links


    ¡Gracias! GBH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesee.gbh (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You can find that information by typing in any day of the year (e.g. 5 December) in the search box to the left. Unfortunately, it is outside the domain of this help desk to help you find something outside of Wikipedia, as this page specifically deals with questions about Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia does not provide the type of RSS feed you are looking for, so the next step is to ask this at the Reference desk, where volunteers are reading and willing to answer just about any question you can throw at them that doesn't have to do with Wikipedia. Xenon54 / talk / 03:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    linking new account (username) to old edits done under anon. IP address

    I just created an account for myself, but have made about ten minor edits in the past anonymously under my IP address. Is there a way for my new username to show up on those past edits? Lynn Maury (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It was possible, but the page fell inactive in early 2005 and I guess the feature was eventually disabled, because it hasn't been restarted since then. Sorry. What you could do is create a userpage and write on it to the effect of "I made X edits as IP.ADD.RES.SS" just to let any interested parties know. If the edits were very minor, though, it probably isn't worth it. Xenon54 / talk / 03:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you only made around 10 edits under your IP address I wouldn't worry about it too much. Rjwilmsi 20:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Auto archiving your user talk page

    Can someone please point me to a page which explains how to set up auto archival of your user talk page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2 bots are currently in service for that purpose: MiszaBot III and ClueBot III. Directions are on the userpage of whichever one you pick. If you're having trouble deciding: MiszaBot runs once a day at a specific (but undisclosed) time. Conversely, ClueBot runs continuously, as far as I know. Xenon54 / talk / 03:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions Comments to ensure Publication

    As the owner/writer of the new submission, I have attempted to delete the Facebook link for our Windy City Blues Society (Chicago), even though I don't feel thi is a violation as it is our Facebook Page link. I am hopeful that the Page will now be published with or without the link without further "quick deletion" action from me. I am also hoping that I do not need to add links to help it become non-orphaned, but please advise. I also did not understand where to put {{hangon}}

    BlackJack7861b (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)BlackJack for Windy City Blues Society[reply]

    Author Page Publication

    Hi. I'm a new author and would like a Wikipedia page. People who have read my book have posted to try to get a Wiki page, but it's never been published. Can you please tell me why and what has to be done to get one?

    Thank you Melissa Foster —Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterFoster (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia's principal criterion for inclusion is notability, further described for people here. I suspect, and no disrespect is intended, that you are not notable as Wikipedia defines it. Please also take a look at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Further to ukexpat's answer, as you have described yourself as a new author, I also suspect that you would not meet Wikipedia's criteria. The places that I tend to look at are Google Scholar (no hits about you); Google Books (which has one hit which I believe is related to you - assuming that you are the author of 'Megan's Way') and Google News (none of which appear to be about you).
    Megan's Way was only published in July this year, so I think it is too early to be considered a 'notable' (as Wikipedia defines it) author! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A suggested article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Melissa Foster was declined for lacking reputable third-party sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them.

    Ojay123 (Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)(Respond on my talk page! 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Windy City Blues Society

    Please undelete the page. I have removed Facebook link (which I believe should be allowed) so there should be no reason it is still deleted, and please see my other messages relating to this. Thank you. BlackJack (editor/creator/writer of page and Windy City Blues Society executive committee member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.38.68 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope. That was a copyright-violating advertisement for a non-notable organization, and thus fell under three categories for instant deletion. Since you have such a blatant conflict of interest, you should never have created the article in the first place; a fourth problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The facebook link was not in particular a problem - there were two main problems with the article - firstly, it was advertising/promotion (which is not what Wikipedia is for); secondly, it was a direct copy from a copyrighted website. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with refreshing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

    Resolved
     – Great reply - thanks! — Sebastian 07:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old is refreshed by mathbot with the refresh link on that page. I just did that, and the bot removed at least one link to a discussion that has not been closed - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waka Flocka Flame. Any idea what's wrong? Is there a better place to turn to with such problems? — Sebastian 19:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    At the time of Mathbot's edit [1] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waka Flocka Flame had been relisted on December 5.[2][3]. Mathbot probably saw it was not transcluded on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 27 so it seems correct to remove it from November 27. If it seems a bot is doing something wrong then the first step should usually be to look for contact information for the bot operator on the user page or user talk page of the bot. User:Mathbot and User talk:Mathbot refer comments to User talk:Oleg Alexandrov. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unwanted bold-face in wikipedia table, bug?

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The first table in List_of_National_Treasures_of_Japan_(paintings)#Statistics has entries which appear in boldface even though they should not be in bold-face. Also the table code does not contain any markup which would make it bold face as far as i can see. Bold-face seems to appear in cells which have dark background and don't have a "rowspan" (don't cover more than one row). How do I get rid of the bold-face?bamse (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind. I found my mistake (using ! instead of |). bamse (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Annoying bug

    Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

    This may be a long shot, but I'm wondering if anyone who has any influence in such matters could press for a long-standing bug (and, for me, regular irritant) in Wikipedia's "diff" generation to be fixed. This is a typical example:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nonsuch_Palace&action=historysubmit&diff=328327302&oldid=283689391

    You can see that several paragraphs that are identical or substantially identical are flagged as completely different, due to the software getting confused for some reason that I do not fully understand. I believe this is logged as a known issue, and has been for some time, but is seen as low priority and appears unlikely to ever be fixed without a prod from someone. If there is a more appropriate place for me to post this request then please let me know. 86.146.46.190 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    Yes, it is known. One of the Village Pump sites, probably technical is the best place to discuss it further.--SPhilbrickT 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll move this thread there. 86.146.46.190 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    how do i clear my search bar?66.25.32.17 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you are referring to the search bar located in your browser. General knowledge questions relating to computer issues are the territory of the Computing reference desk; this page is for questions directly relating to Wikipedia. Xenon54 / talk / 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    December 6

    Contact

    I would like to have my email removed from a number of pages in wikipedia. The email will (probably be visible) in the history, and when the removing (the text). (So I might need an oversighter.) Is there an email I can contact, or help otherwise?174.3.102.6 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How the person in coma will recure?

    My friend had brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen for too long.Now she is in coma from last four years.Will she recure from this?How do i help her?Pls help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashank shinde (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New articles

    In project pages there are links to pages named New article announcements. I observe that these pages are not regular article pages. How are the links to new articles added to these pages ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Some WikiProjects have a bot looking for new additions to categories covered by that project. For example, the page history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity shows it is updated by User:Jitse's bot. There it says it relies on the work of User:Mathbot, who lists all the mathematics articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See User:AlexNewArtBot for a bot used by many projects. It can use other things than categories to search for relevant articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HTTPS with HTTP content mixed

    Please fix that type of mixed content, thanks. (see here) --84.44.153.128 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You would be best to post this request at the Village pump. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather eternal point. Those elements are hosted on a different server system (media servers) and the media servers currently do not yet have a secure interface. It is on the TODO list, but unfortunately, that's a rather large list. :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where to see this TODO list if it is public or how long does it take? --84.44.153.128 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been on the list for over 3 years. I think that says enough. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    bugzilla:16822 and bugzilla:18496 and slightly related bugzilla:5440 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Inserting messages in article namespace

    Is there a policy for writing non-encyclopedic messages, good faith or not, in articles? For example, in a section of an article, putting, "Someone plz fix this section, it looks like it's been written by an 11-year old" or "I removed the stub template, there's nothing more to write. ~~~~" Just curious. If there is one, please provide a link. C Teng [talk] 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no 'policy' on this explicitly, but they should always be removed, made invisible with <!-- --> or moved to the talk page. Cenarium (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    adding

    hi dear i want to add article in Wikipedia but don;t know how please advise me

    A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

    Thank you.

    You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
    Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
    If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article, but you will need to create an account to use it. if you don't wish to do so, you can submit a proposal for an article at Articles for Creation. Xenon54 / talk / 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Name conflict

    I just created a new article on an organization that is incorporated as Magic, Inc. Unfortunately this is already in use for the article on Heinlein's book. And although it is frequently called simply Magic, that would be even more confusing. So I have put the article for now at Magic (organization). I would like to propose that Magic, Inc. be moved to Magic, Inc. (novel) and Magic (organization) moved to Magic, Inc.. I think that would be clear? But I thought I should ask before being that bold.

    Once it's clear where the new article is going to be, it obviously needs to be added to the Magic DAB page. I think General Magic, Inc. should be too. Thoughts? If the moves seem wise, I'd be delighted if someone did them while I hit the hay; I am late for bed. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I think there might be some challenge tothe notability of the page you added. That aside, you'd need to show that the organisation was the intended result of searching for 'Magic, Inc.' much more frequently than the novel. The full details are at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You might raise it at the requested moves page if you thought the criterion could be satisfied. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal take on this would be that I would consider Heinlein's book to be the primary use of the phrase "Magic, Inc" (the novel was published in 1940, the organisation incorporated in 1979; I feel more people would be looking for the book than the organisation if they were to type it into the search book). There is also the fact (as AndrewHowse says) that such a suggestion may well be challenged - the organisation's article has existed for just under 2-1/2 hours, whereas the book's article has existed since August 2004! Is there any reason why the organisation's article couldn't be titled Magic, Inc (organization), and a hatnote added to the top of the Magic, Inc article referring to the organisation. In fact, I am going to be bold and do this! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Update:
    1. Magic, Inc. (organization) is the article name (with Magic (organization) as a redirect to it - and with a hatnote about the Heinlein novella)
    2. Magic, Inc. (the novella article) has a hatnote about the organization
    I trust this helps -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think it does, although obviously redundant, it separates it from the fictional organization (actually I'd never heard of the novella, and while newspapers seem to use "Magic, Inc." for the California organization, both long articles that I found use "Magic." The name conflicts (with General Magic as well) complicate searching, which may be why the notability is being challenged; I see it just got AfD'd. But on the title issue, I don't think there is an easy answer when a fictional work has exactly the same name as a legal name of an organization. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there is a big difference between a fictional work and a work of fiction. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In the past few months, some Wikipedia.org article links found while searching for a subject will not open a Wikipedia page; rather, it asks me to download a file, of unknown file type. This happens about 10% of the time I try to click on a Wikipedia article link from Google. The latest, today, was a search for "nacirema" which gave me the link "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacirema

    I have tried to save the file, but it will not open with any program. Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.171.166 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Several people have reported this problem when clicking on a Google search results page in Internet Explorer. Google attaches something to the link which can apparently cause problems in the communication between Wikipedia and your browser. It should work if you manually copy the url to the browser address bar instead of clicking the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    reviewing an article

    How do I review a new article? MJCope (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What kind of reviewing? If you refer to the article rating on the talk page of many Wikipedia articles then see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. This is the first edit of your account. Maybe it would be good to become more familiar with Wikipedia first. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    December 7

    Lansing crusaders

    Resolved

    How to process this new page? It's external link is a mirror of Wikipedia that is used as a source? I think I'm missing something or this page has been deleted before. I marked it patrolled before I figured out what was up. PirateArgh!!1! 03:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The article seems to describe a high school football team. Usually, high school football teams are not themselves notable enough for an independent article. Since the entire thing is unreferenced, you could simply remove all of the text and WP:BOLDly redirect it to the appropriate article on the high school itself. --Jayron32 03:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    Scratch that. Its not about a high school team, its about a "semipro" football team (read: amateur), and likely could be prodded or AFDed as a non-notable sports team. Having a winning record is not in itself notable. My church softball team won its league the past two years, doesn't mean it gets an article. --Jayron32 03:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, an article at the correct capitalization was deleted via prod in May 2007. That article's what the mirrors picked up, apparently. Deor (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm wishing to cite legal acts. When using the citation template, what parameter(s) would I use to insert the chapter, section, and subsection? Furthermore, would the publisher by the government that published the document, or the department of that government? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you looked at the entries at Category:United_States_law_templates? I've not looked at them (and I've not got time to at the moment), but one of those might help. If not, let me know and I'll look into it tonight (UTC) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I found some at Template:United_States_legal_citation_templates, but they seem specifically for US law. Is there Canadian or international versions? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Inserting an image

    I have loaded a new image to replace the old but the old image is still showing on the page. Why can't we delete old images and why is it so difficult to insert a new image on the page??? I don't have the time to read through pages and pages of garbled information explaining why - just a simple answer in response will do Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetha Griff (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    have you cleared your browser's cache? (if you specify what article you're talking about, preferably with links to the article and to the new image, so we know what we're supposed to be seeing, that might make it easier to help) Sssoul (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, it appears you're talking about the Ray Vanderby article, and this image: [4], which is what's showing on the page, but too small to be a very effective illustration. i hope some image-literate denizen of the help desk will now find it easier to assist you Sssoul (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ps: i've replaced the "gallery" parameter you were using with the plain old [[image]] style, and it looks better to me now. is that the effect you wanted? Sssoul (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    source problem in college

    hello, i am a college student and my professors say that wikipedia is not a real source, why is that? i do not understand why, is it something simple or because some information could be false? either way its outrageous because this encylopedia has everything and has helped me over the years in numerous ways. if theres any explanation for my professors not accepting wikipedia as a viable source please come forth, because it is very confusing.

    thank you,

    jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.35 (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there Jim,
    Your professor is right. Wikipedia is not a source. The reason for this is that anybody can edit it. Not only can the "source" change in the time between you using it and your professor reading it, but it could have been vandalized before they read it, and before someone could revert it.
    However, what wikipedia Is, is a summary of sources. In articles that are reliable, the information should be cited. The citation will more often than not be a real source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To get a little bit deeper into it; if you take information from Wikipedia, it IS a source for that information. What the professor meant of course, is that it isn't a TYPE of source that he accepts. There are many types of sources, and much like your professor, Wikipedia doesn't accept all of them either. There are reliable vs unreliable sources, transient vs. fixed sources, primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of a transient nature, and it's reliability depends on how well it sources the information it provides. Your professor is looking for sources like those we use in Wikipedia. Mostly reliable primary and secondary sources of a fixed nature. Note that a source is almost never forbidden in academics, they are only forbidden in certain usecases. (If you research Wikipedia, you are likely to have to use Wikipedia as a primary source). Knowing when to use which source of which type is a skill you should be developing in college (and this is all stuff that your professor should be teaching you, instead of a random person on Wikipedia). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia#A caution before citing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Never cite Wikipedia in a paper. Because, as explained above, it is a transient tertiary source that anyone can edit. However, what you CAN do is use Wikipedia to FIND other sources. The information on WP is only as good as its sources, anyway. Use WP to point you to the sources and then use the sources. Think of this way: I might ask a friend to recommend some books on a topic and use those books. But I don't cite my friend in my paper. Professors want to see scholarly sources such as books and journal articles. These are peer-reviewed, meaning they are reviewed by other academics. News and magazine articles are also often cited. For more information, see WP:RELIABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.216.24 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the commonly cited reasons for not allowing Wikipedia as a reference is that anyone can edit it. This actually is an amalgam of two different issues. First, the fact that anyone can edit it means that if you simply provide the straightforward link to the article, the text almost certainly has changed when the next person looks at it, possibly in a substantive way. This objection can be overcome, as knowledgeable people know how to link to a static version. The second aspect is that anyone can edit it, so you don’t know whether the person who wrote it knew what they were talking about. In some cases, they might be deliberately spreading misinformation, although it usually caught in a relatively timely fashion. This objection isn’t as easily overcome.
    However, in my opinion, the main objection to using Wikipedia as a source is exactly the same reason Encyclopedia Britannica should not be used as a source in a serious research paper – it is a tertiary sources rather than a primary or secondary source. Wikipedia is a great tool for someone writing a paper, but if they are serious, they won’t take a single word from the WP article, instead, they will read the article for a nice summary of the subject, then track down the cited sources. Those sources (generally speaking) should be acceptable as cited sources in a college paper, but now you can write the summary in your own words, and you can do a synthesis of various sources (not allowed in WP) and original research (again, forbidden in WP).SPhilbrickT 18:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Voluntary translation of a German wikipedia page to English

    Dear Wiki people,

    there is a short german Wikipedia page about a village in Hungary called "Szirák": http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szir%C3%A1k. I would like to offer to translate this page into English. For the time being, the information in the German page is sufficient, although as the village has an intersting history, I would be able to expand upon it in both English and German.

    I am an English native speaker, but I have lived and worked for over 30 years in German speaking countries and I now live in Hungary, so I am familiar with both the language of the article to be translated and the subject matter.

    Unfortunately, despite reading all the FAQs etc.l, it is still not quite clear to me as to how I should do this.

    1) As the English page does not exist, do I have to create it first? 2) Do I then use the translation template to make sure that the copyright is attributed correctly to the German page?

    I look forward to getting your response.

    I am already registered with Wikipedia as a user

    Psymmo (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you must create the page at the English Wikipedia. Create it at Szirák or Szirak and make a redirect at the other. Maybe you have already seen Wikipedia:Translation which mentions {{Translated page}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Hi Psymmo. Yes, create the page with translated text and I suggest using a similarly situated page here, such as Diósjenő, for examples to use for some matters such as what infobox to place and how to format in place of the foreign. Then create a talk page for the article and place there {{translated page|de|source page title|version=123456789|insertversion=987654321|section=name}}. See the template link for how to find the information to fill in in the parameters provided. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cherokee Studios - wtf!?

    I asked this on the talk page of the article, but I'd appreciate someone taking a quick look at it now to be sure I'm not going crazy. Is it just me, or does this article contain a massive portion of Wikipedia policy (for no apparent reason) sandwiched with an odd spam-like article? There has to be some purpose I've missed, surely, and if anyone can enlighten me as to its purpose that would be great. SMC (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    {{WP:ARTSPAM}} was stuffed in there, causing it to transclude the guideline. I would presume the editor meant to add {{cleanup-spam}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for that. If I see any such odd behaviour again, I'll be sure to check the template syntax very carefully :P SMC (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Saul Ewing Page

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The logo on the page is incorrect. Is this something that I can change or should I send you the image and you post it. I can't find where to change the logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulEwing (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Only autoconfirmed accounts can upload images to Wikipedia. One of us can do it if you give a url. Is it http://www.saul.com/images/misc/print_logo.gif? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for where to do it, clicking the logo on Saul Ewing leads to File:Saul Ewing logo.png where autoconfirmed users have a link saying "Upload a new version of this file". PrimeHunter (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SaulEwing has been blocked as a violation of the user name policy, but on the basis of the above, I have uploaded the new logo in place of the old. – ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. The logo used on their website pages is from http://www.saul.com/images/bkg_header_logo.jpg but that is of poor quality compared to the one I found at http://www.saul.com/images/misc/print_logo.gif. I guess you converted the latter to png. Maybe SaulEwing should tell the company webmaster that the p in jpg stands for Photographic and the format is poorly suited for other things. See jpg#Typical usage. And before somebody says "but jpg compresses", note that the linked jpg is 3 times larger than the gif version. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Text search in category and its sub-categories

    Does anyone know of a way to search the articles in a category and its subcategories for a text string? Using the standard Wikipedia search tool, I could search like this: "America incategory:Foo", but that won't search sub-categories of Category:Foo at the same time, which is what I'd like to do. Using the text-search function in AWB is limited to 1000 hits. I could, I suppose, search each subcategory in turn using the standard search tool, but that would be very slow. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bencherlite (talk • contribs)

    Whoops, forgot to sign this question earlier... Any ideas, people? BencherliteTalk 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there, I'm trying to get together a small group of people to try and improve the information about Oxfam on Wikipedia (both the main article and other articles connected with it). I get the impression that WikiProjects would be the best place to organise this but I'm slightly confused about all the different categorisation within that.

    Would the WikiProject on 'Organizations' be the best place to start or would Oxfam and related information be better placed under a different parent project? Should I be adding myself as a participant to that project then adding tasks related to Oxfam?

    389melanie (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oxfam seems a too narrow topic to get its own WikiProject, and it doesn't have enough similar articles to set up its own guidelines. Perhaps it would be best to simply ask for interested editors on a relevant WikiProject talk page, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International development. Some WikiProjects have task forces but Oxfam also seems narrow for that. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How to store a document for reference material

    I have a word document that I would like to use as a reference. But, it is not on a web server. Is there a way to store a document and then use it as a reference in an article? GloverEpp (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Has the word document been published before in a reliable source? Has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, or a major newspaper or magazine, or been published in a book released by a major university press or reputable publishing house? If none of these, then it cannot be used as a citable reference in a Wikipedia article. If it HAS been published before, then you would cite the original publication. It need not appear online, if you have the bibliographic information for the journal or book, you could simply cite it per standard MLA or similar formats. --Jayron32 16:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    what's the easiest way to

    go back and read an old help desk question I submitted? found diff of my edit but need to see all subsequent responses. archives seem an unnavigable mess. even for like a 2 weeks ago item... too much searching blindly! helpthx. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Use the search at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives which is linked from the top of this page, enter in the title of the question you asked (I think a wizard got offended), et voila - Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 November 23#I think a wizard got offended. Nanonic (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could also go to your user page and click 'What links here', filter it to only show results from the Wikipedia namespace and - you get this. Nanonic (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing article

    I've already butted heads with several administrators who seem to favor deleting articles rather than making information available on Wikipedia. I will continue to rant about the abusive article deletion policies on Wikipedia. It makes me cautious about spending the effort to create an article. Scattered throughout Wikipedia articles are literally hundreds of references to what I would think should be called "United States Olympic Trials (track and field)" or "United States Olympic Trials (athletics)" but all of them are dead. Comparable articles for other, lesser sports do exist on Wikipedia. About six months ago I started to create a simple generic article to initiate this subject, then after an hour found a superior article already in existence. I tried to then link that article into main articles where this information should be found. Well those links can't be found, the main article can't be found. Its all gone again. All I can imagine is someone with administrator credentials does not want this kind of article to exist and has once again destroyed information. The true scope of this article should be quite lengthy, which frankly, I don't have the time to generate and sub-reference. Before I go about creating another article to start to fill this void, I want to find out why such an article does not exist and why previous attempts at the article have apparently been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you go to Special:Log you can select the Deletion log in the drop down and then enter the title of the page you say was deleted. It'll show when and why. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't found the title of a deleted page. There are many articles with red links to articles that never existed. I'm not American but think the USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships function as Olympic trials in those years. As an administrator I can see deleted contributions but your account has no contributions to deleted pages about this. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Olympic Trials are a separate event that occur only every 4 years, and serve as the National Championships for that year, since 1988 at least. Its part of many complicated things that need to be explained about an obviously prominent event. No, I never completed the article because I found another article that did contain the information. However, either through bad labeling, that article is difficult to find; or by deliberate deletion that article no longer exists. That fact that is continues to not exist tells me there is something more deliberate than mere omission on the part of a Track and Field community that has many experts willing to write on this recurring significant subject that itself certifies notability for many athletes in the sport. I can see a need for tables of results from these events throughout history being appropriate for Wikipedia. It could take several experts some time to mechanically post the depth of this subject that should be explored. Obviously other people have made attempts to mention it. After all these years, why is it missing? Who is blocking it? And on a deeper level I ask rhetorically, why are some of these abusive administrators allowed to do things like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 December 2009 Trackinfo (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

    Uploading Photos/Logos

    Hi, I'm creating a Wikipedia page for a company, and would like to upload their logo to the page. Unfortunately when I go to upload, I get a message that says I'm an unauthorized to do so. Is there a way (besides making the required number of edits) to upload a photo? My account has been active since June. Thanks! Cb711 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb711 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You can request that your account be autoconfirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lyrics question

    I translated the Finnish Wikipedia article fi:Ebdo Mihemed into English as Ebdo Mihemed. Now Helsingin Sanomat published part of the lyrics, as a comparison of the original Kurdish lyrics, the soramimi into Finnish, and the real meaning of the original Kurdish lyrics translated into Finnish. If I can dig the issue of Helsingin Sanomat containing the lyrics up, can I publish a four-fold table of the lyrics, containing the original Kurdish lyrics, the soramimi into Finnish, an English translation of the soramimi, and an English translation of the real lyrics, or would that constitute a copyright violation? JIP | Talk 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding lyrics is considered to be copyright infringement in most cases and should be avoided. Lyrics of commercial songs are most likely copyrighted to the original writer. Very old songs in the public domain ("The Anacreontic Song"), well-known songs that probably are copyrighted but no one cares ("Happy Birthday To You") and most - if not all - national anthems, and covers or remixes of any of those songs (provided they use the exact same lyrics) are probably exempt from this rule. Xenon54 / talk / 21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The middle one is a BAD idea, and the third is also not a great recommendation. Unless something is a) old enough for all known copyrights to expire, or b) have been expressly released as copyright-free, the default position is to assume that copyright exists and the material cannot be used. Being so "well-known that nobody cares" is not a legally defensable fair use claim. Furthermore, copying lyrics wholesale, even if they are in the public domain, makes for bad encyclopedia writing. Even if there is no legal hurdle, there are clear stylistic reasons why simply repeating the whole lyrics of a song isn't great in a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron is spot on. Indeed Happy Birthday to You is very, very much under copyright and people do care - both in the EU and a number of other regions. Unless 100% sure assume copyright and do not post on Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, if there is an important and documented "difference" (for instance, a censoring for cultural reasons) in the lyrics, then some small quotations may be appropriate under fair use. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    December 8

    Toolserver Acct

    I'm having difficulty creating a toolserver acct request as per the instructions. — CpiralCpiral 01:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A possible homework question

    Two surveyors with two-way radios leave the same point at 9:00 A.M., one walking due south at 2 mi/hr and the other due west at 3 mi/hr. How long can they communicate with one another if each radio has a maximum range of 1.80 miles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpeaks (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On Wikipedia you should Do your own homework but you'll need to apply the Pythagorean theorem to this one. --Teratornis (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can give the answer: They can't communicate with each other at all with the radios, as the question makes no mention of the radios having batteries or being charged. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How to dispute fairness of an entry?

    I want to put a heading on this page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

    ...stating that it may be "inaccurate in or unbalanced toward certain viewpoints," as this article is headed:

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

    I would also like to *remove* that heading from the latter page. How is this done?


    Thanks...


    P.S. - I find Wikipedia's information on how to edit and contribute to be unnecessarily complicated, and it took way too long to find the best place to send this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.22.104 (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Responding to your postscript, what do you mean by unnecessarily complicated? Can you point to any manual on Wikipedia which contains unnecessary instructions? Note that Wikipedia has 48,207,849 registered user accounts. This is not a site designed with the needs of any particular person in mind. Wikipedia's users write all of Wikipedia's manuals, so if you find instructions in our manuals, you can be sure they were put there by users who needed them. The problem is we have millions of users with many different needs, so our manuals reflect that complexity. If you know a superior way to design a user-editable encyclopedia, by all means build it and knock Wikipedia into second place. --Teratornis (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    draftspace to mainspace

    im really confused... i have moved my document into the userspace.. how do i get it on to mainspace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina.mari.larsen (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You would move it once again dropping the "User:Tina.mari.larsen/" from User:Tina.mari.larsen/Fairbridge Western Australia and using just the name of the article when ready Fairbridge Western Australia. This will move the articles history along with it. KindlyCalmer Waters 08:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest naming the article Fairbridge Western Australia Inc. and also adding it the the disambiguation page Fairbridge Calmer Waters 08:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Optimization of Search for "AIMS"

    Checking Wikipedia for AIMS I realized that "AIMS = association of international management search" is found when you search for "AIMS". In the same search "AIMS International" is not found. Most correct would be if you searched for "AIMS" and had the search result "AIMS International" at the position of "AIMS". How can we manage this?

    88.79.129.42 (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Watch list and languages

    I have wiki pages I want to watch in more than 1 language. In my case, some in English, some in Dutch. So far I have found that I need to switch language in order to access the watch list with the articles from/in that language. Is there a way to maintain a single watch list, and not a watch list per language?

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=330456112"