Help desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 12

Article renders incorrectly with Firefox

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made some changes to the references of Magdalena Neuner, including using the {{ref}} and {{note}} templates in the Notes section. The page seems to no longer render correctly for me, and I'm not sure what the problem might be. If I load the article with Firefox, the first time, the page is almost displayed correctly, except the last two references (77 & 78) are each spread over two columns. When I reload, the entire page is cut off after ref 76. Purging the cache does not help. The page loads correctly with IE. If I zoom in and out with Firefox, the page returns to normal. Also, the error only occurs at a resolution of 1680 x 1050, at 1280 Firefox displays the page correctly. I don't know if the problem is entirely on my end, maybe someone can take a look at it. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the page with Firefox, Chrome and IE at both 1680x1050 and 1280*768 and in every case the page renders correctly for me, including the last two references. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 04:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess the wikicode is correct and the problem is with my browser apparently. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 05:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table Problem

Done I'm working on improving the Poker Hall of Fame article right now. I've added a table to the Membership section. If you click on the edit button there, you will see the syntax for membership. BUT the table does not appear until the end of the table. Any ideas on why this happens? I don't see anything wrong with the table syntax.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solved it on my own.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you did it before me. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was driving me crazy and I couldn't see anything wrong... so I finally broke down to ask for help here... and immediately my question was answered... I saw the light... and voila... fixed it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Permission

I was granted permission to use photographs by the owners. I added them to an article. Later, the owner asked me to remove the images. I asked the owners to do the deletion. Am I required to do the deletion personally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAlawMedMBA (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What images, and what were the licenses? For example, Creative Commons licenses are not revocable. --Teratornis (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The permission was granted rather informally via an email from the University of Washington's Assistant Director of Athletic Communication for the use of three photographs of Danielle Lawrie which appear in an article that I created at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danielle_Lawrie . The images are named Image:Lawrie2.jpg, Image:Lawrie3.JPG, and Image:Danielle_Lawrie.jpg. After I added the images to the article, I asked the director to send a formal permission notice to Wikipedia Commons, using a standard form. In response to my possibly onerous request, the director emailed that "her boss" (the Athletic Director) told her it was against school policy to release images. I asked her to contact Wikipedia, or delete the images. She replied that I must personally delete the images post haste. Is that my obligation, and what will Wikipedia do if I take no action? I am an attorney, so I might take a more complicated view than a typical contributor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LAlawMedMBA (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are an attorney, that is actually great. Copyright law can get incredibly complicated as you know, and the vast majority of Wikipedia contributors are not well-versed in it. I am by no means professionally qualified but here are collections of internal documents which seem to be written by people who are, or fake it well enough to fool me:

Commons:COM:EIC#Copyright
WP:EIW#Copy
- I don't know how much time you want to put into this particular problem, but Wikipedia needs more attorneys to read our documents about copyright law and how it affects Wikipedia - lots of people depend on these documents to be reliable so we keep our project out of trouble. So if you take a larger interest in this issue, you could help the project. It would be kind of silly to read 50 documents to resolve one question, but if you plan to stick around and continue contributing, the more of our documents you can read (and improve), the more productively you will contribute. And the better you will be at avoiding situations like the current one which can lead to aggravation.
Also, you might try repeating your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you aren't confident in whatever interpretation you come up with by reading our friendly manuals.

As for my opinion, which you will take with caution (the documents are definitive; my opinion is not), it sounds as if you started off by following the procedure in Commons:COM:OTRS but you did not complete the final vital step, which is to have the e-mailed permission of the copyright holder duly filed in OTRS. From what I understand of the process (which isn't much, because I haven't actually slogged through it myself), failure to complete the final critical step throws the whole thing in doubt. On Wikipedia (and similarly, on Commons), we assume by default that everything is copyrighted and we do not have permission to redistribute it freely, unless proven otherwise. Thus the burden of proof is on the uploader to demonstrate that we have permission. It sounds to me as if the Athletic Director you mention is making that burden of proof very difficult to meet. Wikipedia has deleted a lot of images because of copyright questions like this.

As a general observation, which doesn't help with your current issue, I find it is easier on Wikipedia to take the path of least resistance. For example, on Flickr there are some two million (and growing) images available under free content licenses (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) and we have several worked-out procedures for uploading them to Commons (see Commons:COM:EIC#Flickr). In general, it is easier to browse through collections of free images, and pick some to upload to Commons, than to start with an arbitrary article, and then search around for free photos to illustrate it. The latter approach is harder because the vast majority of images one might find on the Web are not free. In the time it may take to beg and plead to get permission for some initially non-free image, you could have uploaded dozens of already-free images about other topics. We can search for free images with {{Flickr free}}:

Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Danielle Lawrie under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa - admittedly this search is a longshot, and not surprisingly it finds nothing
Search Flickr for images with the keywords: university softball under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa - this considerably broader search finds many free photos in this general topic area

Even if you don't know what to do with a particular photo, it is still helpful to upload free photos to Commons and categorize them there, so other users may find them and use them to illustrate articles in the various language Wikipedias. --Teratornis (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

runtime error

I keep getting a sign "runtime error" and I lose whatever I am doing, because my computer closes down. I was told to go into run and type in msconfig, and shut down programs that are running. I dont know which ones I am suppose to shut down, because I dont know what they are. Can someone help me please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.145.53 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the 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, select the relevant section, 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.

And in specific: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebat, and other unsourced speculative articles

Should I delete 99 percent of article, or propose it for deletion, or propose it for merging with Hurrian or what? I sense there is the nub of a good article here and wonder if the main author, possibly a guy named Christopher Siren, just needs a fire lit under him to get him to provide sources, and then Hebat could be a fine article.--But I also have been getting a horrible feeling that ancient mythology and ancient civilizations on wikipedia are getting screwed so badly we will soon be a worse laughingstock in libraries everywhere, with no credibility--I sense that a number of contributors with a knack for storytelling have been writing fairy tales in ancient Sumer, mythology, and no one is calling them on it. Well it's pretty late and im rambling but I hope someone will take my intuition seriously.Rich (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it, perhaps find a stub template to add to it so people know. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try that.Rich (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found multiple mentions on non reliable sites, but i also got a hit in the Encyclopedia Brittanica , and in this document which is located on an .edu domain. At the very least i can conclude it is not a hoax article. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual article always deleted, but others exist

I have tried on a few occasions to make an entry for a provider of ERP software and it is automatically deleted...even when only the facts of the company and its products are used...yet there are other such entries that are full of promotional material about their products within the same industry? How can I get this other company to be included in the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llandian (talk • contribs) 09:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is due to the other entries having a seperate page establishing their Notability. The editor that removed your entry used the edit summary "rm redlink" which denoted that he or she removed it due to the lack of a wikipedia article to link to. Basing myself on the user page i noticed that Exel Computer Systems plc and Exel Computer Systems have been removed several times, most recently for failing to establish compliance to notability policies for businesses Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note the process is not automatic, it is run by volunteers, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see What about article x?. In short, you should give little weight to the sheer fact that something else exists, because the way Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, and the way articles are and article content is assessed and removed in a non-centralized fashion, there are always tons of examples of pages and content which do/does exist but should not. So there is no precedential value that should be assigned to the existence.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Adult' picture on the Help Desk?

Resolved

When you go to WP:RFA, there's text at the top that says "WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk. If you have that article preview thing enabled (where you hover your mouse over a link and it previews the article) and you hover the cursor over Wikipedia:Help Desk, it shows this: File:Skintagonrightfemalebreastac.JPG picture. (Warning, not fit for work/school) Any idea why? Aditya ^α _ß 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked on this page (someone was trying to add it to a page, IIRC), so, lacking any other pictures, popups has associated it with this page and used it for the thumbnail. Nothing to worry about really. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it was me who added the link (and yes, an editor was trying to add it to a page - she didn't link to it here, that was solely me. I believe the issue is now resolved, so I'll un-link the image here. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)(Image un-linked and striked-through. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It's still coming in the preview. Even after clearing my browser's cache. Anyway, never mind now. It's not of much consequence. Aditya ^α _ß 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm still seeing it too - not sure why? It's possible that the Wikimedia software creates its own cache of the first image on the page, and we need to wait for that cache to clear. For what its worth, the lesson I've learnt from this is - be very careful before adding an image to the Help desk ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the API to purge the helpdesk, and i believe the picture does not show anymore. Can anyone conform it actually worked? Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Still shows. This is weird. =/ Aditya ^α _ß 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popups apparently detects image "links" in nowiki tags. I added an earlier in [1] and that is now the displayed image. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's gone! Woohoo! Aditya ^α _ß 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Another lesson learned: don't just <nowiki /> an image, remove it altogether, or add another image before it. Thanks, PrimeHunter! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link directly to a person rather than to the disambiguation page

Resolved

Hello,

I would like to create a link to "Tom Adams (musician)" within a Wikipedia article, rather than have the code Tom Adams take the user to the default page for Tom Adams. How do I create such a direct link? Thanks very much.E19S24cr (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like this [[Tom Adams (musician)|Tom Adams]] which produces Tom Adams. That's a vertical bar in the middle (or "pipe") which is, for me at least, reachable via Shift + Backslash. Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry1250 is right on spot here. To Broaden his answer: This form of linking works for more then just disambiguation pages. While linking in this manner anything left of the pipe is seen as the article to link to, while everything on the right is displayed as text. [[WP:HD|Tom Adams]] for example shows as Tom Adams, while actually linking to the help desk. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For more information, see WP:PIPE. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help. E19S24cr (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Help:Pipe trick for a faster way. If you type [[Tom Adams (musician)|]] and save then it's saved as [[Tom Adams (musician)|Tom Adams]] which produces Tom Adams. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to Edit Series Box

Hello. I would like to edit the Seriesbox Aircraft Categories. (There are mistakes in how some entries are categorized.) Could you please tell me how I can fix this? Thank you.74.74.169.198 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Template:Seriesbox Aircraft Categories but can be complicated to edit. What do you think is wrong? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The item "ornithopter" is not categorized correctly, because it derives lift by the same mechanism as airplanes (forward motion through the air). Only the propulsion is different. But more broadly, I think the way this has been organized is not very logical. For example, a hang glider is functionally the same as a more rigid-winged glider -- the flexible wing is a minor distinction but is given too much importance in this scheme of categorization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.169.198 (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can suggest changes on Template talk:Seriesbox Aircraft Categories and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. See Help:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You should read the other aviation articles on Wikipedia to learn where Wikipedia came up with its classification scheme. We might have articles, categories, etc., which follow a consistent scheme, so a change to one part would require consensus and corresponding changes to other parts. If you want to learn to edit templates, see Help:Template and WP:EIW#Template. Editing templates can be very difficult, and "breaking" a template will "break" many articles that transclude it. Therefore we have various methods to test templates in what we call "sandboxes". This is too complicated to explain on the Help desk. Some Wikipedia editors specialize in editing templates; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates. --Teratornis (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Page

Resolved

– at least for now, User:CenterFest blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new article and it gave me a copyright error and directed me to the other page. If I am the author of both articles, am I still unable to post on this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenterFest (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section of the copyright warning notice headed 'Or, if you hold the copyright to this text…'. Algebraist 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moving a page

Resolved

– User has now successfully moved a page. Chzz ► 19:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my account for the required four days, and I've successfully completed the ten edits. I want to rename a page I created, but the "move" button is not to the right of the "edit this page" button, like the moving a page article states.

Why can't I see the "move" button? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NWCPAO (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this question was the 10th edit you made. Do you register as an "Autoconfirmed User" under "My preferences"? And since this is the 10th edit, perhaps it works now? Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I requested and received by email a photograph of an old newspaper page (year 1905) from a public library in the U.S. I don't believe the image is online anywhere, including that library's website. Would it be permissable or Original Research if I upload the image to Wikipedia and use it in an article? DonFB 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFB (talk • contribs)

I would reference the original newspaper article itself. There is not, nor has there ever been, a requirement that a citation must be checkable online. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I've had information removed from multiple articles due to citing a newspaper that was not verifiable online. hmwith τ 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I use the information, I'd like to actually show the image of the newspaper page with the headline, for historical interest. So I'm still interesting in uploading the image and using it. (p.s.-- I'm typing four tildes, but my user name is not being wikified). DonFB 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using the image of the clip for local color, since it's public domain, if it's sufficiently relevant tot the article (I'm a bit of a skeptic). But the actual citation itself should still reference the newspaper, not a picture of the newspaper. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the PS, see Wikipedia:How to fix your signature [[User:| Chzz ]] ► 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOR policy does not apply here. Origional research mainly covers research that is either not mainline science yet, or based of unverifiable claims. For example if i started a page about greenhouse gas reduction trough eating strawberries we can be pretty sure it is origional research (If not pure nonsense). I see no objection to actually using the image as long as it does not violate Copyright requirements. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DonFB, try unclicking the "Raw signature" box in your preferences (in the "User profile" section). hmwith τ 18:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have actually raised about four different points with your perfectly reasonable "simple" question, which explains why you have received several apparently different answers. Please permit me to clarify.

Your research is not "original research" within the meaning of WP:OR. You have simply asked for and received a copy of a reliable secondary source (WP:RS,) and we thank you for taking the effort to do so. This is not different than if you had travelled to the library and read the page yourself.
You are free to re-publish this work (the image) because it is in the public domain, being a work published in the US prior to 1923. By convention, we generally accept images as being reliable, but I think you should carefully document exactly how you acquired the image and state that you have not modified it. This is overkill, but it permits anyone to reproduce your effort if there is ever a doubt.
You should cite the original newspaper article. Your copy on the web is a "courtesy copy" and you should link to it, but we consider the reference to remain valid even if the web copy disappears. This would be true even if you chose to place the web copy somewhere other than on a Wikimedia site.
You may choose to put a copy on Wikisource.
Apparently, the image itself is a worthwhile addition to the article. Good. Treat this aspect of its usage as we would treat any other image.
Finally, thanks for your effort. -Arch dude (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, I am not aware that the image of this particular newspaper page exists anywhere on the internet right now. It does exist on my computer. Arch, you mentioned "Your copy on the web...." but the first copy on the web (so far as I know) will be the one I upload to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying "you should link to it," since the image I would place in the article would automatically link to the Wikipedia image page. Thanks, Chzz and hmwith, for the tips on fixing my signature. DonFB (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me...

...we may get many questions about DTV later today. Perhaps 1) protect the DTV articles? And maybe a template like:
User:ESanchez013/dtvanswer
to supplement? —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article's are not pre-emptively protected. To protect an article it must have received vandalism or must be subject of an edit conflict. Protection is also a bit of a last resort as it is going straith against the "Encyclopedia everyone can edit" idea. As for the template, we actually have one already! Personally i use {{HD/rd}} for questions that should be at the reference desk. And if you won't mind me asking: what DTV? And why would it receive sudden attention? I cannot remember seeing any news article that could be related. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting in: Well, when the 2-million-odd people still not ready get blank screens, I just thought... Never mind. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it proves to be an issue we can always protect it then. If we suddenly have even 1 procent of those 2 million people editing the DTV article i am pretty sure it will be speedy protected within a matter of minutes :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital television, I think. The BBC were reporting that the US is switching off analogue broadcasting today. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that CNN would put it somewhere near the important stories, and not around the bottom of their website in a small font. Thanks! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in the news for at least a year, not to mention all over the broadcast television channels in the U.S. It would be odd for a television viewer in the U.S. to need a trumpeting headline on switchover day. Maybe if someone here had just come out of a coma. Of course it's no surprise that this would be the day for millions of people to test out their converter boxes for the first time. --Teratornis (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget editors come from everywhere in the world! As a non US resident there has been little to no coverage in the news over here. Also since it would not directly affect anyone here i doubt i would even remember the exact date if i had actually seen the article some time ago :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not forget. I'm just pointing out why U.S. media which target U.S. readers aren't necessarily calling more attention to the switch now than they have been for the past two years. Also, the original poster was talking about putting up a message for the two million people who are now looking at white noise on their television sets; presumably most of those people will be residents of the U.S. or close enough to the border to receive U.S. television broadcasts. If they have questions about why their reception stopped, that can only mean they ignored the U.S. media coverage of the switch during the two-year run-up. --Teratornis (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear on photo usage for reprinting- Please tell me if I can do the following with the photos

Good afternoon,

I have read your policies but I am still not 100% certain on the photo useage or whether a particular photo is copyrighted or not.

There is a photo that introduces the past presidents of their main page: Bill Clintion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) Dick Cheney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney Mitch Daniels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels there are several others for: Both Bushes, Obama, and Biden.

My question: I want to reprint these to place on a cookie for display. I do not plan to reprint the photos for resale, as I do want to reprint it to put on a cake and photograph it for my cake portfolio. Again, unless I am able to, I do not plan to reprint for resale. So, my question- May I use these photos for that purpose?

I am double checking because your guidelines for useage are confusing and I am unable to determine what is and isn't copyrighted.

PLease let me know if I may use these photos in this way. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouse41 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images in question seem to be liscenced as Public Domain. This means that the images are public property and may therefor be altered, reprinted, sold and displayed for any reason. Public Domain can effectively be translated to "Nobody Own the image" which means man can utilize them for whatever purpose. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All four of the photographs that you mentioned are in the public domain - so you are free to use them for anything - including commercial use.

If you click on the photographs, you will see a 'permissions' section which details the copyright status. In this way, you can check any further images that you wish to use. Chzz ► 20:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I PUBLISH a page?

I've got a page saved but it's not yet published. I don't see an icon that says PUBLISH! Rchaudh (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to move the page to the mainspace. However, please do not do this yet. The article appears to be very promotional, which is something we try to avoid. Please read our info on writing neutrally and supporting your material with reliable sources. Otherwise, your article may be deleted. TN X Man 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is User:Rchaudh/The South Asian Monologues, for the record if others wish to input. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to move a page you need to be WP:autoconfirmed, for which your account must be four days old. —teb728 t c 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be appropriate to have an article on Wikipedia about "The South Asian Monologues", because it seems to fail the notability guidelines - I am unable to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - which is the general notability guideline.

If there were sufficient sources, then the article would need to be improved; instead of having external links within the body of the article, it should have inline references. See user:chzz/help/ref for my own guide to this. Chzz ► 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it a little later when I get home. – ukexpat (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My User Box

This is my first Userbox and I need to know what section to put it under. (Religion Maybe?) Programmer13^Talk_{What I do} 21:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user believes that 42 is the meaning of life

I would probably opt for Wikipedia:Userboxes/Science Fiction. I'd think the religion area would be more for those boxes which support a particular religious belief such as Christianity, Jewish, or even Atheists views; but that's just my own personal preference. — Ched : ? 22:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

very nice by the way. ;) — Ched : ? 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will get a different answer if you ask Jimbo. --Teratornis (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the different between WP:HELPDESK and WP:NCHP?

Resolved

I have been pondering a while now about the difference between the help desk and the new contributers help page. I find that the question asked at NCPH are faitly identical to the questions asked and answered at the HelpDesk. In fact, i am truely wondering why there are two different pages for almost the same purpose. Is there any reason for this division? My idea is that they could just as well be merged. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In theory NCHP is for more basic questions from new users, and I think in practice that's mainly true. I think there has been prior discussion about merging them but I cannot find the link at the moment. – ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vast difference in the psychological effect between the two pages. A new user may be embarrassed or intimidated to ask a very basic question here—especially after reading some of the arcane questions we get, full of linked shortcuts and obvious inner working knowledge displayed by the questioners. When that person see a dedicated forum for new users, evident from the title, such concerns aren't raised.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do people actually read the Help desk before posting questions here? Such as "How do I create a new entry?" or "How do I publish my article?" --Teratornis (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oki, thanks for the answer you two. No need to merge then. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion at Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Archive 4#Merge new Contributor's Help Page? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangit PrimeHunter, you're good... – ukexpat (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canyons' Info Box

Resolved

– —C45207: Talk 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something is up with The Canyons' info box. I don't know enough to figure out what the issue is. Are there troubleshooting techniques somewhere?—C45207 | Talk 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue seems to be related to the GEO template information you filled in. Filling in the |lat_seconds and |long_seconds solves the issue. Any chance you have these numbers as well? You could find them with this tool Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the original location changes, I just noticed the odd error message at the top. I've added seconds, and all appears well. Thanks.—C45207: Talk 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]