Help desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

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.

March 22

File:NCZooelephants.jpg

Resolved

– Fixed it --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone uploaded a "new" version of this image, but it's a totally different shot (polar bear ≠ elephant). I can't save the current image and re-upload it myself, since it's not my work. Instead of reverting the last edit (and losing the current image, I guess?), how do I correct this situation? APK How you durrin? 00:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And its now elephants again. Haven't seen you around APK. How ya been? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I buy a cd with all of your articles on it.

121.200.7.42 (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a way, sorry. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 03:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Snapshots. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you may want to check this out. However, you must be running Windows in order to download it. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a download that can be put on DVD.. the name's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't seem to get it to the keyboard. Be back in a bit if I can find it. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah .. found it. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Torrent Project. but also ran across: Wikipedia:Database download, Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download, and this while I was looking. any of that what you were looking for? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 03:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:EIW#Redistribution. --Teratornis (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images in articles about living people

I notice the LeAnn Rimes and Mandy Moore articles have covers of their various albums scattered all over their pages. Doesn't that go against WP:NONFREE? --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the article of said album is merged into their biography or if said cover is discussed in detail (for example because of some controversy over what it depicts). If it is just there to illustrate the album in a piece of text about the performer, it indeed fails the policies/guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article formatting

================================Duanetucker (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited this article. I am Carlton Hayes' grandson. I added dates and medals and publications, along with some details about his career. My question is this:

What is the re-formatted article such a jumble at the top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duanetucker (talk • contribs) 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like instead of adding content to the edit box, you copy pasted the article over what was in the edit box. When you copy the content in the article proper, you've lost all the markup that was on the page (see Help:Editing for more information). If you want to maintain the proper formatting, you have to copy-paste what's in the edit box. You may also consider simply adding content to the article instead of copy pasting the article and then adding. You should also note that editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles whose subjects they are closely related to, and especially in such a situation, you should provide explicit citations for your additions. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding External Links to Article on Naked Short Selling

It is clear that Naked Short Selling is controversial.

My question is this: Why is there no external link to 2 very provocative web sites:

www.deepcapture.com www.investigatethesec.com

When I seach the Wikipedia web site, I find no reference to these sites. I do not understand why they cannot be referenced from Wikipedia - in particular from the article on Naked Short Selling.

BTW, it would appear from evidence being brought forth (see the Kotz's report - the OIG of the SEC - regarding Naked Short Selling).

While I'm thinking about it, is the report by Kotz even referenced in the Naked Short Selling Page ? This would clearly be a major oversight if in fact it was "banned" from any reference.

Thanks for any comments . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwg9399369 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that should be discussed on the talk page for the article Naked short selling. Try there, and you can discuss with the editors who are interested in that article and obtain their views. See if this hasn't been discussed before, though. Chamal ^talk 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uniting two userpages

Hi!
In Wiki-hebrew I opened a sockpuppet called he:user:Julio Cesar. after a while i used meta:Unified login to make the sockpuppet work universally in all wikimedia sites. Soon after that I discovered that the name Julio Cesar is taken in some wikipedias. And so, i went back to hebrew wikipedia and asked for a New Name in the form of he:user:Jjulio Milagros Ccesar only to discover that it didn't apply to the english wikipedia. In the English Wikipedia i tried at first to move the user:Julio Cesar to user:Jjulio Milagros Ccesar, but unfortunately I did a typo and moved it to user:Jjulio Milagros Cesar.
And my request is please help me unite both user:Jjulio Milagros Ccesar and user:Jjulio Milagros Cesar. --Oren neu dag (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to create a page for an artist of Pakistan based in UAE

can you please tell me how can i create a new page which can be searchable world wide for an artist. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating an article, 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 Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making picture gallery larger than 4 across

I would like to make the picture gallery in Michigan logging wheels#Gallery either 7 or 8 pictures across. It looks like there is room for that many pictures across, then with two rows it would come out as 14 or 16 pictures in the Gallery. I don't know how to do this technically. Also then as an alternate, IF that can not be done, can text be either directly on the right or on the left IF the Gallery of pictures can be moved to the right? In other words no white space, however some text in the white space to the right (or left).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How big is your display? I have a 22" LCD at 1024x768 and the gallery is about 3/4 of the article section width (not including the sidebar). See Wikipedia:Gallery tag for gallery syntax. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. I believe I see what you mean. My laptop is a 17 inch display, set at 1440 X 900. The gallery is about 1/2 of the article section width (not including the sidebar). However with a public computer with a 15 inch display the gallery is also about 3/4 of the article section width (not including the sidebar). So, bottomline it looks like the most that could be added (width wise) is two more. I believe then it would be almost the full width for many computers and their display settings. Are you saying then, "leave well enough alone." --Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We have to consider the average reader; many are probably using lower resolutions than we are. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but doesn't the Template:Gallery (rather than built in tags) automatically size the gallery to the number of pictures that fit on a user's screen? TastyCakes (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Take a look now and it gives me what I was looking for. The previous edit shows the two Galleries for comparison. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page to encyclopedia

How does one convert a user page to an encyclopedia entry? Must one be notable? how does one become notable?

Thanks <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinturella (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You move the page to the mainspace. Are you referring to User:Vinturella/Start editing tutorial? If so it appears to be original research or commentary and not suitable as an encyclopedia article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you must be notable, and that means being the subject or real world recognition by third parties publishing about you in reliable sources; newspapers, magazines, books, television shows, etc., all unrelated to you and taking an interest. The treatment of you in these sources should be not just passing mention, but substantive details so that an article can be written with its information verified by the sources. You then write the article citing to this information, just as you must if you were writing a research paper on the college/university level on some subject. Note that we strongly discourage people from writing articles about themselves or subjects that are too closely tied to, as it is almost impossible to write in an unbiased manner and with proper weight when engaging in such self-interested writing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your entry on "EPSN Top 5 Reasons you can't blame..."

To Whom it May Concern at Wikipedia,

You have an entry discussing the ESPN tv show "Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame..." The entry goes on to list the titles and topics of each show. However, the actual reasons are not listed. For example, you list as a title of the first show "Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame Steve Bartman for the Cubs losing in 2003" but you don't list the actual reasons. Is there some sort of copyright issue involved? If possible, I would like to hear the actual reasons provided in each episode. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.91.82 (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah- The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame.... It would be best to discuss this on the article talk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing the lists would be a copyvio. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

How do you put a link of the same site, but in another language, on a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebasgv (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom, type the code [[language code:article name]]. Language code is the letters that appear before "wikipedia.org" (e.g. "fr" for French, and "en" for English). Typing [[de:Hauskatze]], for example, would add a link on the left side of the page (under "In other languages") to the German article on house cats. Article name is the name of the article in the other Wikipedia. The link appears as the language's native name, so my link to a German article would appear as "Deutsch". Xenon54 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on templates in article?

If an article has the template {{Advert|date=March 2009}} and the template {{Peacock|date=March 2009}} is there automatically an administrator who looks at the article to see if there is a problem? Fanoftheworld (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no administrator that looks at the problem. Rather, the templates are there to serve as notices to anyone (readers or editors) that someone else thinks there are issues with the article. Of course, if you can correct the issue, you remove the templates at that time. See our info on advertising and peacock terms for more information. TN X Man 11:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the questioner is asking whether admins continually monitor lists of all articles that have those templates to see what the problem actually is. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get an administrator to look at an article wich has templates? Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask one, but it's not necessary. If you can tell us which article it is, it's likely that someone here is able to fix it. Xenon54 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's regarding the article Steinway & Sons.

User:THD3 has for not long ago asked for a mediator. On the whole, he didn't participate in the discussion/mediation on the article's discussion page, although it was him who asked for the mediator. His only comment was "Sorry for the late reply, Theseeker4 (the mediator). Your suggestions sound fine to me.THD3". Therefore I'm a little confused that he now shortly after have opposite views. The problem got solved by the mediator User:Theseeker4 and me, but now User:THD3 has placed the template (and one template more) once again. Of course he has to accept the solution just like I have to accept the solution. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikipedia

Where do I find the information to put on my reference page when I use Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.171.81 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You use the sources you used to get that information. You may also obtain reliable sources from governmental pages. See Wikipedia:references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZooFari (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many screen shot JPGs is fair use on a “List of Characters” page?

Hi. I’ve done a bunch of work on the List of Mission: Impossible characters page. As part if it, I’d captured a JPG of each major character to go along with their bio. It had been out there for a month or two and got flagged for excessive use of copyrighted material by another (non-admin) Wikipedia user.
I checked out the guidelines, specifically “Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images.” I tried getting a screen shot of three characters together, thus eliminating two pictures…and I got flagged again by the same non-admin user.
I’m struggling with what to do here. I don’t have hours to spend watching the show trying to find one good shot of more than three characters. On the other hand, while I understand the Wikipedia guidelines, I think that the individual pictures really illustrate the characters better, as they are able to show what the characters are known for. The irony here is that these used to be individual pages and, at the suggestion of some of the admins, I was “bold” and combined them into one. Now it seems that because they’ve been combined into one, the pictures need to be culled.
Any suggestions here? Is the copyright notice valid in the context of this article or should I just leave the pictures there? If the copyright notice is valid, should I just remove a bunch of the pictures? Thanks. --BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of characters should not have Fair use images, as that violates the Fair User requirements, which is not to use the images as decoration. They should only be used if there is a discussion of the character's appearance in the article about the character, and not in an article about the show. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copying a talk page

is it not permissible to copy a talk page? i just tried to copybut it could not be done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.245.93 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean selecting the text and clicking Edit-Copy in your browser and then Edit-Paste in a program like Notepad? As far as I know, you should be able to do that fine. Xenon54 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But where do you want to copy it to? Doing so might be a GFDL violation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

missing category

I have tried searching to no avail. I think there ought to be a Category:White, for articles such as White knight, Nuit blanche, and White feather. Indeed, I seem to recall that there did use to be such a category. Am I dreaming? If it did exist and was deleted, where is that decision discussed? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The log doesn’t show a deletion. You put White feather in the category with this edit but apparently didn’t create the category. —teb728 t c 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categorization#What categories should be created says "Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features." Whatever that may mean. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization, perhaps Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic. Since the number of white objects is enormous, a Category:White could become crowded with many articles about things that only have their color in common. Categorizing otherwise unrelated objects by color might seem natural to a bowerbird, but is probably not as useful to human readers. That's the impression I get from the guidelines. --Teratornis (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. This would not be a good category and I would expect it to be quickly deleted. dougweller (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift responses. I think the whiteness of objects significant enough to have their own articles could in many instances be a non-trivial characteristic, because the colour holds such powerful symbolism. Indeed, according to Hidden_category#What_categories_should_be_created, categories "should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects" -- what could be more essential and defining to the examples I listed above than their whiteness? BrainyBabe (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of terms associated with the color... resulted in deletion. Categories based on the color of otherwise unrelated objects would probably also be deleted. Category:White people was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 26#Category:White people (but it's not a good comparison). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but as I read it those terms were associated with the colour, sometimes rather loosely. What I am proposing is a category for phenomena defined by their whiteness. (Leaving aside white people, which I agree is a whole other kettle of fish.) BrainyBabe (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of white powders was also a delete. Two comments mentioned listcruft. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to mention in my first post that I too think the category would be inappropriate. Of the five editors posting in this section, four think such a category would be deleted. —teb728 t c 05:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that such a category would be rejected; the assertion that this is a definitive feature of the subjects is itself original research. I'd even say that if you were proposing Category:Orange objects. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, what's not to like about orange?

Even though I posted the guideline which I think is relevant, I don't necessarily disagree with BrainyBabe's contention that a grouping of some white objects by their whiteness would be useful, and not just to bowerbirds. However, when we consider how far along Wikipedia is by now, the absence of a category as obvious as Category:White suggests a low probability that it would survive. As we see from the various deleted examples, the idea of grouping things by color has occurred to people before. However, categories are not the only way to group things on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Semantic wiki. A semantic wiki effectively allows a user to choose from an enormous number of possible relations between articles. However, MediaWiki is not a semantic wiki yet (although some people are working on that). We are stuck with the more restrictive options of categories, lists, and navigation templates. Since categories and lists tend to attract more criticism, that leaves navigation templates as perhaps the most flexible option for grouping articles. Maybe a navigation template for articles about objects for which whiteness is closer to a defining feature would slip past the deletionists. But I don't know, given that the corresponding category might not stand a chance. BrainyBabe, the real question is what deletionists will do. It's one thing to have valid ideas, and quite another to make them seem valid to trigger-happy deletionists. --Teratornis (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic wiki#Example explicitly mentions the possibility of querying for articles about objects by color (the example mentions fruit). --Teratornis (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that if your real goal is to do arbitrarily complex queries on Wikipedia's data, categories are likely to become frustrating pretty quickly. People occasionally ask the Help desk how to do queries that nobody here knows how to do yet. You might find something useful under WP:EIW#Query. I suppose you might want to clarify, to us and possibly to yourself, whether you want to group articles about various white objects for your own convenience, or because you think it is important enough to call the attention of other users to this grouping. If it's only for your own convenience, then one easy option is make your own user subpage with whatever article links you want. I have all sorts of article links in my userspace that I might not get away with putting out in the public namespaces. Probably most users who take lots of notes have something like this. --Teratornis (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link rerouting to an article on wikipedia in a malicious way

Hello,

Im contacting you on behalf of Chadd Bernier. Chadd has had many disagreements with a neighor in his condo. These neighbors have no gone and created a URL chaddbernier.com which then directly transfers you to the antisocial personality disorder article on your site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder). This has upset Chadd and I thought I would contact you in an effort to get this resolved.

As you can see in the whois the owner of chaddbernier.com is Dan Tobin who currently resides in <blanked> Chadd lives in Unit 2 of this building. Dan Tobin also has deratory links for the owners of Unit 1 and linked his name Fred Palascak to a website fredpalascak.com which leads to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

Dan Tobin is trying to use intimidation and slendarous claims against 2 fine people. Is there anything you can do to aleast get these two small worries removed from Chadd and Fred's everyly more stressful lives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.52.109 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do much in this situation, as we are only the target of the page and did not create it. The domains are registered with Go Daddy, so you can try contacting them through their website, http://www.godaddy.com. Xenon54 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This desk is patrolled by normal Wikipedia users, and normal Wikipedia users can't do anything about this. I believe someone with direct server access might be able to do something about it but I doubt they would be willing to do so, especially since the people involved could easily switch to defaming Messrs Bernier and Palascak in some other way. I think your options are either to ignore the matter (it's not showing up on Google, so it's not very visible), to contact the ISP as Xenon suggests, or to consult a lawyer. Algebraist 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to set up your own hagiographic site about Chadd Bernier, and add links from that site to our articles such as Messiah, Humanitarian, Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. Universe, Franchise player, Ladies' man, and so on. If Dan Tobin can set up an attack site, you can just as easily set up a vanity site. Anyone who takes either type of site too seriously could probably use some psychological help, I think. --Teratornis (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion/Voting

I'm sick of running around and trying to find which discussion to ask this question in, and I'm also tired of not knowing the answer to this one.

What is the requirement, if any, for contributing to debates like AFD or bureaucrat/admin nominations? —LedgendGamer 22:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any. Everyone is welcome to contribute, apart from the obvious banned users/sockpuppets/etc. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements are not very stringent:
- AfD Discussions- anyone can comment on an AfD discussion, but to nominate an article you need to be a registered user.
- Admin/Bureaucrat discussions- To comment in one of these you need to be a registered user.
Reyk _YO! 22:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a section of a new page

I want to have a link go to the section of a new page rather than the top of the page... I know it's really simple to do, but I seem to have a hard time navigating the help sections on here... Thanks for any help you can give me... Jabberwockgee (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want Help:Link#Section linking (anchors). May I ask where in the help sections you were looking? Knowing where people look can help us improve organization. Algebraist 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm never really sure how to get to a help page at all, relying on googling things rather than finding them on here... Whenever I do that, I end up in a 'tab' at the top called 'project page,' but I don't know how to get to that from the main page. Jabberwockgee (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tab 'project page' means that the page you are on (like this one, for example) is in the Project namespace, and is a page designed to provide information about Wikipedia, rather than being an encyclopedia article. Help pages will be in either the project namespace (indicated by the tab 'project page' and the prefix 'Wikipedia:' in the title) or in the help namespace (indicated by the tab 'help page' and the prefix 'Help:'). To look for help pages by browsing rather than Googling, start by clicking 'Help' in the left sidebar. Algebraist 22:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Searching#Namespaces for how to search the 'Wikipedia:' and 'Help:' namespaces. A search on link section gives the answer in the first result. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]