Help desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24

Incumbent overload in template

Resolved

At Steve Driehaus the incumbent is showing in a district he has not held since 2003

I see my error.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown timer on userpage?

I was just curious if there was a template that could count down to a specific date that I could add to my userpage, or if there was some code available to make my own. Thanks. ShadowUltra (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Template:Days from now? ie. Christmas is -5785 days days away. Nanonic (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that works perfectly! ShadowUltra (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italacized text.

Hello. On my article, Bryan Boyd, there is a majority of italicized wording. I did not mean for this to happen, nor can I find the cause. I would greatly appreciate it if someone went in and fixed it. (Also, your date clock is off by about 5 hours!)And I do have a picture of Dr. Boyd, but it was taken by LifeTouch photography studios, so how would i upload such an image? Thankyou.--Archeopteryx (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the italic text for you, But as for the clock I really do not know much about it sorry.--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). At Special:Preferences you can set your time zone which affects the display of some times for you but not the time in signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

propsed Deletion

I am an established user, though not an admin. There is an article I wnat to flag for speedy deletion becuase there are no references at all! Am I allowed to do so?--Archeopteryx (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references is not by itself a Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, but many unreferenced articles can be nominated for other reasons. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is a different process. See also Wikipedia:Deletion policy which mentions more processes. There are different ways to suggest deletion depending on the article. What is it? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Citing no sources doesn't make an article speedy-deletable. You can add the {{norefs}} tag, {{prod}} if needed, or nominate for speedy deletion as vandalism if it is. Which article is it? WODUP 02:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of trying to delete the article, perhaps you could attempt to add references, inform the creator or tell a relevant wikiproject. Also, are there any external links? Sometimes what is listed as external link is actually used as a source. And finally, have you checked the history, references that are badly labeled sometimes disappear when someone removes them, have you checked the article history? - Mgm|^(talk) 04:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to provide references in an article is a lot like asking about an article on a Help desk without telling us the name of the article. If we knew the name of the article, we might for example try some Google searches to shake the reference tree for its low-hanging fruit. Maybe we should speedily-delete Help desk questions that allude to an article while refusing to identify it. At least the article with no references has the plausible excuse that looking up references and formatting them takes a little work. Telling us the name of the article you have in mind requires virtually no work, and would resolve a vast number of conditional branches. The degree to which a lack of references constitutes a problem depends very<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> much on the topic. In particular, if the article is a biography of a living person then the lack of references could be a greater problem than if the article contains common knowledge about a non-controversial topic. In other words, failing to tell us the article might mislead people into answering very differently than they might if they could see the darned article. --Teratornis (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly admire and appreciate the work of the Help desk volunteers and have said so in the past. However, I think this particular comment is unfairly critical of the OP. When someone asks a question, they may be seeking factual information or advice (or both) to allow them to personally make edits to fix the issue that concerns them.

If that is what they want, then a reply from the Help desk to the effect "I fixed the problem" might not meet their needs. I think in general they will learn less by being told that someone else corrected the problem than by being allowed to correct it themselves.

In this case, the OP (IMO) was looking for a general "rule". Citing a specific case would have made it much more likely that they would be answered WRT that case. Perhaps they deliberately did not mention a specific example for that reason. Wanderer57 (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Google Earth

I have noticed that when viewing Google Earth certain geographical locations have a pop-up that shows a general picture of the area taken from panoramio.com and a brief written description of the area. There is also a link to the full wikipedia article. I know that pictures can be posted onto google earth from panoramio, but these links are visible when the earth is viewed from higher up, unlike the photos without the wikipedia link. How can one make this link? Please explain. Thank You

--Mbberry (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Confusing Manifestation's reply to your previous post. —teb728 t c 06:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What link are you trying to make? From Wikipedia to Google Earth we can help you with; from Google Earth is a different issue. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can u get banned from WP for being a cr*p editor?

I know a guy on here, everytime he tries to edit he seems to make a complete mess of the formatting etc, countless people have tried to coach him but he will never improve i dont think so can u just kick him off for being rubbish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.159.190 (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope not, There are various tools/programs available to help new or inexperienced editors such as the sandbox which is used for testing edit's, There is also the adopt a user program that's is aimed at this type of editor who wants to contribute but just needs a little guidance with formats ect. I would highly recommend s/he makes full use of these.--intraining ^{Jack In} 05:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share your hope, but unfortunately my awareness of the Dunning-Kruger effect tempers my hope. Anyone who has dealt much with other people has surely noticed this effect - often the people who are most inept are the last to realize their ineptitude. According to the Dunning-Kruger hypothesis, the ability to do a task closely relates to the ability to tell the difference between doing it well vs. screwing it up. (You will see this routinely if you ride a bicycle with groups; the bicyclists who can't ride in a straight line are usually the last people to notice they can't ride in a straight line, and furthermore to understand why riding in a straight line is better than squirreling around the road.) And when you try to break the bad news to them, they get upset and don't believe you. Gordon Bell wrote about "negatively productive people", people whose every unit of work generates more than one unit of work for other people to clean up the mess. Bell suggested the strategy to corporate managers that they should try to place such employees with competitors, for example by sending them off with glowing recommendations. This is, by the way, one reason why Wikipedia should probably not get serious about developing a WYSIWYG editing interface. Anyone who started with computers before the Internet got big saw what happened to e-mail after Microsoft made it accessible to the masses. Because wikitext is somewhat difficult to grasp, Wikipedia automatically filters out potentially vast hordes of incompetent people, who might otherwise overwhelm the tiny minority of competent users who try to maintain order. --Teratornis (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last point in the above reasoning flies in the face of the slogan: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." IMO the slogan should be dropped as it creates unrealistic expectations. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The slogan is technically correct, just as we could say "A violin is an instrument that anyone can play," but most people cannot play the violin well, and nobody plays it well without lots of tedious practice. Some people lack the innate ability to play the violin well no matter how much they practice (see Dysmusia). A more accurate slogan would be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can try to edit." The slogan in its present form is an example of overselling, since most people would probably approach Wikipedia with a naive expectation that their edits would stick. Most other things that people edit do tend to stick, for example when we type an e-mail message or a blog comment. The slogan seems to reflect the world view of Jimmy Wales, which tends to sound a bit optimistic about average humans and their capabilities and motivations. (Jimmy Wales is a very smart guy, so I'm pretty sure he knows he is overselling, and thus his choice of words is probably deliberate. I would choose words differently, but as it turns out Jimmy started Wikipedia and I did not, which might imply that Jimmy's world view is more conducive to creating a top-ten Web site than mine is. Politicians sell hope. Nobody votes for the realist. Although occasionally the dark humorist can find his niche.) In practice, the slogan is irrelevant, because anyone who tries to edit on Wikipedia quickly discovers how welcoming Wikipedia is to them. Wikipedia is differently welcoming to everybody, just as the violin is differently welcoming to everybody. --Teratornis (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

I have a personal photo of Josh T Pearson which I thought you would like to use on his page - it seems silly not to have an image of what can be considered quite an iconic look - Beats ZZ Top hands down.

Anyway photo was taken in Hull in September '07 while on tour with him - he is infront of Pearson Park in Hull which is why it was taken. This was pure coincidence as we walked around after a heavy night after a show.

I dont know how to place a photo within this message

Ross —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingermule (talk • contribs)

After 4 days' editing and at least 10 edits, you will be an autoconfirmed user and you can upload files to Wikipedia. Use this page to upload. Alternatively, you can create an account at Commons:Main Page and upload it there straight away. Read Wikipedia:Uploading images and WP:Images for more information and instructions. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 11:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to Display article in main area

Hi, I have article in in user page and would like to move or display in main area. Could you please help me out.

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red eye2008 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the "How to get rid of red eye" quasi-article that is on User:Red eye2008 ? There is already an article on about the same subject: Red eye (medicine). I suggest you compare what you have written to the existing article, and make improvements to the existing article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to find where a template is used

I'm trying to find out where the {{Date}} template is used. When I go to the template page and click "What links here" in the toolbox, I get a list of items such as :

Andrei Tarkovsky (transclusion) (links)

I take this to mean that some template within the "Andrei Tarkovsky" article uses the time template. How can I figure out which of the templates within that article is the one that uses the time template? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where the template is used in the article you mentioned. Nowhere in the article or he talk page does it mention the current time. ~~However, I'm going to take a shot in the dark. Could it be used for the info at the very bottom of (almost) every Wikipedia page, where it says "The current date is…"?~~ TN‑X-Man 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, it would help if I read things all the way through. The bottom of the page says "Last modified on…". I apologize, but I'm really not sure. :( TN‑X-Man 15:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit window, press Ctrl-F, and type {{time}}. It will then highlight the occurence of the template in the edit window. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 15:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that won't work, because the Date template is not used directly in the "Andrei Tarkovsky" article, rather, the "Andrei Tarkovsky" article uses some unknown template, which in turn uses Date. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's {{Citation}} but I don't know an automatic way to detect that. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add my article to other articles?

I would like to add my article on "PA. Groundhog Day Litigation Post-settlement Lawsuit-Terrorist Extortion Scam” under the following two titles since it would be useful to others facing this situation. 1.) "Chronic Court Abusers" 2.) "vexatious Litigants"

Also, at the end of my article, I would like it to say, see "Chronic Court Abusers" "vexatious Litigants" since these terms are used by other authors including lawyers, judges and other officials, to describe a similar phenomenom.

Thanks, Helen Lerner, M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.194.3 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't sound like it's particularly notable in any way. I'm also concerned (due to the title and the links you propose) that it will grossly violate our policy which requires a neutral point-of-view on topics. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particlular comment to make about this question, but think the article referred to must be this one: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/373/RipOff0373064.htm AndyJones (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And since you're the author of the article, it's a bit of a conflict of interest, too..._Gb^T/c 16:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some trouble understanding the original request. Wikipedia currently has no articles with the titles "Chronic court abusers" or "Vexatious litigants", so it's not immediately clear where the questioner would like to cite the external article from within Wikipedia. (We do have a Frivolous litigation article, which might be a place to start looking.) I looked at the article itself, and it uses some informal metaphors without explaining them up-front. For example, the article title contains the word "terrorist", but upon reading into the article I gathered that the author is using the term figuratively. This style of writing may be colorful and entertaining for its intended narrow audience, but it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia there is no common sense, so one cannot assume everybody will understand words such as "terrorist" to refer to figurative meanings depending on the context. --Teratornis (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is how to add the content in the external article directly to Wikipedia as a completely new article here, in general this is the most difficult way for a new Wikipedia user to start. Just as in medicine, where brain surgery is not something to try on one's first day in medical school, on Wikipedia it's much better to start out by doing simple edits such as correcting typos, and read the friendly manuals and try progressively harder tasks. Unfortunately, something about the nature of Wikipedia seems to encourage lots of new users to attempt new article creation before they are ready. That was pretty much what I did. My original motivation to edit was when I searched Wikipedia for some information and could not find an article about it. Through sheer dumb luck I happened to pick a topic that was sufficiently notable and so on, but many new users are less lucky and then discover to their horror that Wikipedia deletes thousands of articles. --Teratornis (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps, but actually we do have an article on Vexatious litigation. AndyJones (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Question

I need to post an image to a musical artist's site. This artist has granted permission to me in order to fulfill this task. How would I go about filling the copyright requirements to have the photo remain on the article? Another editor, who happens to have permission as well, posted the photo once before in the past and the photo was removed. Please help, because this is important. Thank you for your time in advance and have a good weekend. --Candy156sweet (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually better to post images to Wikimedia Commons (that is, http://commons.wikimedia.org). There is a template there, Commons:Template:OTRS pending, which can be placed on the image while the artist sends an email granting permission to use the image, as instructed in the template documentation and at Commons:OTRS. As explained at Commons:OTRS, it needs to be the right kind of permission. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be sure you understand that Wikipedia does not accept permission to use an image only on Wikipedia. The permission has to allow reuse by anyone for anything. See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 01:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Templates...

When you want to show the vandal the recent edit and it says {{#if:, what do I put in for the edit? Hairy Perry 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to fill that part in, simply place the name of the article that was vandalized after a pipe. For example, using {{uw-vandalism1}} place "|Example Article" after the 1, but before the closing }}. This will place a level 1 warning about vandalism on Example Article. I hope this helps! TN‑X-Man 18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the same for the substitute vandal template and what a pipe, sorry but I have no idea what that is. Hairy Perry 18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a substitute vandal template. A pipe is simply this: |. It does a variety of things, but for our purposes with this template, the pipe tells the template which article to reference. In my earlier example, the full mark-up would look like this: {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Example Article}} (the level 1 warning about vandalism to Example Article). You can find out more about pipes at WP:PIPE. TN‑X-Man 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vandal's image

Resolved

So a vandal uploaded an image hereMedia:FLAG OF TIBET.png, which was used for vandalising the article Tibetan sovereignty debate recently. I presume that the image serves no other purpose and should be deleted, however I am uncertain in how to proceed, any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Clown (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been deleted as vandalism. AngelOfSadness talk 00:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response.Mr.Clown (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]