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.
I sometimes go through disambiguation pages to check the pages that link there and improve (or remove) the links and I've stumbled on something odd. Mal is a DAB page. The "What links here" page is here and you can see several entries, including Amta and Haripal. However, neither of those pages seem to have a link to Mal anywhere that I can see. Even when I edit the entire page and do a word find using Firefox, the letters m-a-l apparently don't occur in that order anywhere on either page. What am I missing here? Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mal" is in the template {{Municipalities of West Bengal}}, which is transcluded in both articles. Often, when checking "What links here" entries, one has to look at the templates transcluded in the article, entries in which won't show up in the editable text of the article. But they will show up in "What links here" for all articles in which the template is used. In this case, the template should probobly be altered so that Mal is a redlink (perhaps by adding a disambiguation parenthesis), since we don't seem to have an article about the place. Deor (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Thanks for that. I can't believe I didn't think to expand the templates when searching; I thought for sure they'd operate as distinct entities. That template seems to be deprecated; most of the listings there actually use a more specific template on their article page, which is why there aren't dozens of hits showing up at the what-links-to-mal page. Matt Deres (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Mal seems to be the same place as Malbazar, but I don't know enough about the region to be sure. If the template is going to be used, perhaps a change to that name would be in order. Deor (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Al Williamson is an article that I roughly threw together that's been through a peer review. There's a 'To do' list on the talk page. Eventually I want to take it to a GA review. But not right now. I don't have time to work on it, so if anyone wants to pimp it up, you are cordially invited to do so. It's a fairly sizeable article, with extensive references, so I think it's got good GA potential. --Scott Free (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
Please quote error messages when you report them. What people see on a page can be different for several reasons. I could only see one error message when I examined the page: "This template must be substituted. Replace {{GASweepsHold}} with {{subst:GASweepsHold}}."
It's caused by this code at Talk:Chicago Theatre/GA1#Checking against GA criteria: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk||{{error:not substituted|GASweepsHold}}<div style="display:none;">}}. The code produces the quoted error message when the code is not in the Talk namespace, so it happened when it was transcluded on the non-talk page Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review. The code originates from a substitution of {{GASweepsHold}}. You can remove the code if you want. The message is only intended to be displayed when {{GASweepsHold}} is transcluded instead of substituted, but the way the code checks for that causes the message to also display when a substitution of {{GASweepsHold}} is transcluded in another namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You came to the wrong place. This page is for help on using Wikipedia. Pokerdance has started a discussion on this here. Please continue your discussion there. ≈ Chamaltalk¤04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a uploaded file is such that when you zoom into it you can see someone else's private information, in this case a license plate, is it allowed on Wikipedia? Divod (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it showing something other that the license plate? The plate would hardly be private information, for it is visible to everyone on the road. —teb728tc08:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the picture doesn't it? If it's something offensive or embarassing, it's unlikely the owner would want that here. I guess the person involved can use WP:OTRS and ask it to be removed if they want. ≈ Chamaltalk¤08:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an page on an Organization called SoftDEL Systems on my User page. I want to have a review. The article can be found at User:Peswriter/Softdel. Please review and give feedback.
Just a quick glance, the business lines bits needs some work as it reads like an advert - "With technology advancement the desire for higher precision/resolutions and performance has increased many folds", "With its alliance with BACnet [10]and hands on experience in Building Automation product development and sustenance SoftDEL enables firm to introduce new products rapidly." - just the fact, no puff. I'll take a look at the sources later (if someone does not beat me to it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any wikipedia page on my iphone - I keep getting "bad gateway 502" errors.
This happens as it try to go to the mobile version (en.m.wikipedia).
Now, that's way too annoying. I don't care about the mobile version, I just
want to be able to read the site. Paolo - 17-AUG-2009 09:15 EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.15.132 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
enwp.org just redirects to en.m... I'm also suffering 502 errors so I need a way to get to the standard site without it redirecting to the mobile site.219.89.160.193 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a case of child support and the father has not been paying for quit sometime. Income tax season is coming up, I need to know how about making it so when he files,because he is behind, that He will pay what is owed from his tax return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnPh (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.--SPhilbrickT14:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the lead section, I'd say it's not enough for any reader, let alone a transformers gamer :) It's just one sentence. WP:LEAD says it should summarise the article adequately, so yes, a little more info there would be good. ≈ Chamaltalk¤14:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It affects some but not most IE users. It happens on normal article pages and not uploaded files. Users have especially reported it happening when clicking on a link to Wikipedia from a Google search results page. In that case I think it can be avoided by manually copying the url to the browser address bar. Otherwise I don't know a solution without changing browser. When does it happen for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created an article, entitled Astro & Glyde, which was speedily deleted on the grounds that it was biased. I have since altered the article to make it objective. Am I allowed to resubmit the article, albeit changed, or will I be sanctioned for reinstating an article that was previously deleted from wikipedia? I am unclear as to what the policy is on this - can deleted articles be resubmitted if there is substantial change in them? Thanks. Higginson21 (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article has been improved, there is no policy against recreating the material. The only times you would be prevented from recreating the material is if the article has been protected from creation or previously deleted via a deletion discussion (in which case, you would have to show an improved article in your userspace before recreating). TNXMan16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do resubmit the article, be sure that it demonstrates the notability of the company according to the criteria at WP:ORG. All facts, particularly those that demonstrate notability, must be backed up by references reliable sources independent of the company. —teb728tc20:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who Then Was A Gentleman, I see your point. I just thought that the fact that the article was biased may have led to its appearance as an advertisement. Since I offered many partial and praiseful views of the artist, my article ostensibly promoted Astro & Glyde and would attempt to induce a listener to it. This is the part of the article that I tried to fix. Thanks. Higginson21 (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's fine. My question was in fact really about the technical difficulty that I am encountering. I will see what they say at thechnical village pump. olivier (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a rather specific question. A long long time ago I was editing the page of the Harvard Glee Club, a choir that is notable for the number of composers who have written pieces for it. I added a list of all such pieces that I could identify. Each of these pieces has a note smack at the top, or on the inside front page, that says it was written for the harvard glee club, and I clumsily tried to explain that in the introduction to the list. However, in a subsequent attempt to get the article "good" status, an editor specifically complained that this list was "entirely unsourced." I would like to give another go at getting the article "good" status but I think this is the only issue from last time that will be hard to fix. Is it really necessary to manually cite each item on the list? What is the difference between doing that and simply stating at the top that each piece carries the dedication note? It's all good faith anyway, since no matter how it's cited, people will have to go look up the pieces to "prove" the citation is correct. The only difference I can identify is that the former will take hours and hours of work. Any feedback on this question would be appreciated! --Dmz5*Edits**Talk*18:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One sneaky, underhanded, dirty way around this is to create your own website using a pseudonym, throw all this information onto it, and then cite your own web page as a source in the article. Of course, this probably violates a couple of guidelines and is probably unethical; and as the encyclopedia ages and its references become better and better, your own website will become less and less acceptable as a reference. But, hey, it's not as much work. Of course, now that I've given that advice, some individuals are going to be on the lookout for such underhandedness. Tempshill (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I could contact someone affiliated with them and ask them if they wouldn't mind creating a subpage on their website that lists the info. They have all the music more or less in front of them there anyway. But yeah, moderately unethical :)Dmz5*Edits**Talk*01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unethical. You have done a bunch of research to create your list, but Wikipedia does not publish original research, because we explicitly do not validate the identity of our editors or vouch for them. Therefore, you must publish your research elsewhere, under your own name or at least at a place that we can trust and that will take responsibility for the accuracy of your research. After you have done that, you can then cite that source. Because this particular research is completely objective, we can cite the result without worrying about the stricture against self-publication. Remember: we are here to build an encyclodedia, and the rules are in place to guide us. In this particular instance, an unthinking adherence to the rules is getting in the way, so we must look at our goals and adapt the rules: WP:IAR is the correct rule, here. If you are truly paranoid, publish your research under your own name soemwhere on the web, and then come back here and ask another editor to actually create the list. As long as you do not attempt to hide what you are doing, it is not unethical. -Arch dude (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point because I wonder about original research. This seems to me to be a complicated question on the cusp of original research. If I read some primary sources and come up with a novel interpretation of something, is that original research? Yes. If I spent an hour reading books in the library and got some factual information and citations to beef up an article, is that original research? I don't know. I haven't synthesized anything new here, beyond whatever synthesis any list involves. So, although I am the one who looked at all the music and then created the list, I haven't created anything really. Am I pretending this is a bigger philosophical question than it really is? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk*08:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to get philosophical (and who wouldn't?), let's remember what ultimately determines reality on Wikipedia: what other editors will accept. One can view all of Wikipedia's rules as an attempt to define what you can write that other editors will not want to change. Without the rules, one could take the purely empirical approach and just type something to see what happens to it. If other editors rejected it by consensus, then we might try to rationalize what happened by expressing whatever their real motivations might have been, in some sort of a usefully compact rule. Viewed in that way, rules become theories to explain the otherwise mysterious behavior of other editors (who are generally distant and unseen). Of course it's not quite that simple because once the rules are in place, they also influence the motivations of other editors. In any case, the most fundamental rule on Wikipedia is "whatever the other editors will let stand". Since every article on Wikipedia attracts a different set of editors, each having a slightly different understanding of the rules, the de facto rules are not the same everywhere. An article such as Barack Obama is going to receive a lot more editing scrutiny than an article such as Harvard Glee Club - whether or not that "should" be true, it is. So you might have more, or less, editing leeway on certain aspects of certain articles. Ultimately, Wikipedia has to trust its users to want to improve the encyclopedia, so if you can think of a way to improve the encyclopedia, and if other editors will accept your improvement, then by all means make it. As other respondents mentioned above, in some cases the type of information that would improve the encyclopedia exists somewhere, but not in a form which is suitable for a citation here. If you are in a position to get that information published in a form we could cite, then you would have contributed something useful to the project. In the meantime you might review the WP:LISTS guideline. --Teratornis (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hi, i want to change my password as secure action I do regually for all my ID on web, I cant find the option in my profile, can someone helps me, thanks you--Sarah.gkhia (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the term Iran was used in Persian literature by prominent historians and there are valid, reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia Iranica, than would it be relevant. I don't know if this is the right place to ask this. If it isn't, could you please direct me to another talk page that would discuss and answer my question. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me?19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can I use talk pages without my discussions being archived or deleted? I post things about improving the article but admins keep archiving it and deleting it. And they just say WP:POINT or trolling. Why is this?--Cddoughty (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't move a file. What you do is reupload it with the new name. Reference the original file name from the new file page. —teb728tc20:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Wikipedia doesnt have an article on that person. This is likely because she may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would suggest you use Google instead. --Pgecaj (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. You can find her here or here Please note that Wp does not allow such querys please try google or chat forums instead--Notedgrant (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i wnat to add a new picutre on a aricle about a city. the image has a copyright image on it. so step by step how can i add the image to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torres27 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not supposed to use images you find on the Web at all on Wikipedia except for a handful of fair use exceptions and images that specifically say they are licensed under the GFDL or one of the compatible CC licenses. So, please don't bother — you're supposed to locate a freely usable photo. Tempshill (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, use of an image under copyright should be avoided, see WP:IUP. In some circumstances, when a fair use argument can be documented (and it must be documented) an image under copyright can be used, subject to restrictions. See WP:FAIR for details, and step by step instructions.--SPhilbrickT23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could a free replacement of the picture be made. If so, you would have to convince the copyright owner to release it under a free license or find a free replacement or make your own free replacement. There is no way to use a replaceable non-free picture here. —teb728tc23:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a site that called it a bulletin board for pedophiles - interestingly, I couldn't post the site name as I got blocked.--SPhilbrickT23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are spambots; automated processes that spam Wikipedia articles by using a variety of open proxies to avoid blocking and cause us no end of troubles. I will cross-post this to WP:ANI for more attention. --Jayron3201:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please do your own homework.
