Help desk
< August 7	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 9 >

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.

August 8

Which template should I use related to Wikipedia:NOT_PAPERS

I'm browsing scientific articles, and some of them are way too complicated, but I don't have enough time to copy edit them all, which template should I use to enforce edition on complicated to read articles? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 02:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Know You Could Do That

I write about the US Department of Justice sending worms into control the WIKI pages of people they have indicted -- and what happens ? Someone totally edited the page into something else to destroy all trace of it.

Didn't know you could do that !

I.J. Grimm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" • S • C • A • R • C • E • 02:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your original posts were deleted because you didn't indicate what reliable source the information was originally published in. All information in Wikipedia must have been previously published elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blog. —teb728 t c 03:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teb728 tc -- Wikipedia guidelines allows for the publication of relevant, verifiable first hand information in addition to information published elsewhere (and which can so be cited), but that is not even the issue here.

There was no attempt made here by anyone to request me to furnish citations for my additions -- every word I added to Mr. Blagojevich’s article and to this help forum has been summarily deleted without recourse or discussion.

Had I been politely asked to cite the sources which I neglected to add, I would have cited the US Department of Justice’s own files on me which are available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act -- so yes this stuff is “published” by a respected authority and it is in the public domain by law for anyone interested in performing the steps necessary to fetch it.

[removed rant unrelated to questions of how to use and edit Wikipedia] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Wikipedia help desk. We try to answer questions about USING and EDITING Wikipedia. Your questions relate to the content of Wikipedia. To add content that will remain and not be removed, you must follow our rules. I suggest you start by reading them, and then come back and try again. Start with the "five pillars." Then read verifility and reliable sources. Now, if you do not like our rules, you can help us change them by entering into the discussions on the variuos discussion pages. This help desk is not the correct forum for that. Please do not get discouraged by all of this: Once you understand and follow our rules, your contributions are likely to be preserved. -Arch dude (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for your posts in the article, you were “politely asked to cite the sources”: This revert said, “Rollback … uncited material … Feel free to replace it after citing”. This revert said, “revert unsourced speculation”. In addition to any information that might be supported by Department of Justice files, your posts contained highly speculative interpretations of the relevance of that information. To be included in an article such interpretations would have to be backed up by analysis in a reliable source like the Star Tribune or Chicago Tribune. As for your posts on this Help desk: As Arch dude says above, the help desk is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. The Help desk is no more a blog than an article. That is why your rants were removed from the Help desk. —teb728 t c 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see a reliable source to prove just what another person believes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beta. Will it replace the old version?

Resolved

I noticed that Wikipedia has put up a link to let users try the Beta. I tried it and I think it is nice, but I do not like it as much as I like the current version. My question is: Is the Beta going to replace the old version in a way that it is going to be not only the default version but the only version, or are users going to be allowed to use both versions? --96.232.52.43 (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is "chiseled in stone" yet, but if it's decided that the beta will replace the current version then it (along with the Vector skin) will likely be the default for all users. I assume registered users would have an option to change back to the older version. Xenon54 (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beverages in Kerala

when bevrages is started in kerala ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.37.112 (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia: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. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auto title for sectiosns and auto signature

Resolved

– ≈ Chamal ^talk 09:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether or not there is a way to make a daily headline for the sections of the article as in this article (Questions). I can see this Help desk and other inquiry pages archiving each page and also adding the daily headline (e.g. August 1, August 2, ...) and would like to do the same in the Arabic Wikipedia but don't know if I've to do it manually or there is a script/code.
On the other hand; how can I add the auto-signature for those who forget to post their --~~~~? We don't have this feature in the Arabic Wikipedia too. Thanks in advance.--Email4mobile (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three of the functions you describe are performed by bots (automated processes) - archiving is done by ClueBot III, run by User:Cobi; date sections by Scsbot, run by User:Ummit; and auto-signing by SineBot, run by User:Slakr. If you want those bots to run on the Arabic Wikipedia, you'll have to ask each of the operators. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Calvin 1998.--Email4mobile (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking here

Can I use this Wikipedia help desk as the help desks for other wiki projects such as Wiktionary?--Mikespedia (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it is best to ask at the relevant wiki, for example, wikt:Wiktionary:Information desk for Wiktionary. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees election

I have received an e-mail stating that I am "eligible to vote in the 2009 elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates projects such as Wikipedia. The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection." However, I click on the link in the email and it tells me I am ineligible to vote. How do I resolve this? Where do I go? --Blue387 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't click on the link in the email, because I had already voted - I wonder if it was a bad link. Have you tried the link at the top of this page? (which doesn't work in the secure server, by the way).--SPhilbrick T 14:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or go directly to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:SecurePoll. Xenon54 (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

daewoo cars

what year did they stop making daewoo cars for australia thankyou bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.174.221 (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about 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. I hope this helps. ≈ Chamal ^talk 09:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Profunda artery

whats another name for the profunda artery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.165.112 (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for help on using Wikiepdia. However, you can ask at the science reference desk, or maybe you'll find what you're looking for in the Profunda brachii or Profunda femoris artery articles. ≈ Chamal ^talk 11:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about PStricks

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In the article about PStricks there examples and result images. Could you tell me what software is used to get from tex or dvi file with pstricks png image? Thank you. Sincerely, Andrei. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.85.28.173 (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I get this correctly it's a question about the software used to create the images, right? The original uploader was Drini (talk · contribs). You can ask him at his talk page. ≈ Chamal ^talk 10:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andrei. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.85.28.173 (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan pages with regards to redirects

Do pages which link to redirects count towards the minimum three pages linking to an article for it not to be classified as an orphan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watercleave (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd get a better answer if you specified the case you have in mind, but in general I'd say that yes, they do. If there are a lot of links to a redirect, it may be that the article is misnamed and should be at the redirect page's title; if that isn't the problem (if, for example, the redirect is at an incorrect capitalization), you might consider going to the links themselves and revising them to point to the article rather than the redirect. You might also consider adding links in related articles per WP:Orphan#Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article. Deor (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Looking at your contributions, I see that you may be referring to Baby Jesus theft. In that case the redirects don't count because no articles link to them. I count only two articles with direct or indirect links to that one. Deor (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed think of this question because of Baby Jesus theft, but I was asking the question in reference to all articles. Watercleave (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting informations between en and cs Wikipedia

What can be done when English and Czech Wikipedia contains contradicting informations and nobody listens. The English Wikipedia states that homosexuality was remeved from the lists of disorders on the ground of recognizing the scientific evidence. This fact supported by the most reliable sources available to the topic. The Czech Wikipedia states that homosexuality was removed solely because of the political reasons. This statement is supported by one unfounded opinion of the author of scripts. Yes, you read right! It is absurd, isn't it? I believe this is a serious problem, but nobody has listened for several months and the article is blocked to prevent correct that. Nothing can be done. The Wikipedia policies about reliable sources and exceptional claims have been ignored there for many months. Is there any chance to set right propaganda of ultraconservative editors and inactive admins there? I believe CS Wikipedia should present facts in similar fashion as the EN Wikipedia, since it is not Conservapedia. Moreover, the Czech Wikipedia editors violates undue weight and reliable sources policies by presenting fringe sources even if those was explicitly prohibited to use in the English Wikipedia. These issues hurt Wikipedia project. Who is responsible and who failed here? --Destinero (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing we (the English Wikipedia) can do about the issues at the Czech Wikipedia. Their issues must be solved there, and out issues must be solved here. Why don't you provide reliable sources to support this fact and discuss this problem at the relevant article's talk page in Czech Wikipedia? That's how we work here and I'd assume things are the same there as well. ≈ Chamal ^talk 13:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exactly same thing I've been doing for almost half year. Believe or not, nothing happened. I suppose there is a way how to control that unwanted behavior. Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo Wales or someone should clearly state that these issues should be handled as we both here suggested. But this is absurd situation, since it have not worked so far. :( There must be someone responsible for this. --Destinero (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here on the English WP, we have a dispute resolution process. This process clearly states that disputes will be handled as suggested above. Since your problem is on the Chech WP, you must use the equivalent Chech process if it exists. (I think the policy is at cz:Wikipedie:Řešení konfliktů, but I do not know for sure if that is the Chech WP since my language skills are horrible.) If such a process does not exist, you must start by bringing such a process into existance. In general, at least here on the English WP, those who are "responsible" are the editors, acting to via a process to form a consensus. We have about 750,000 active editors. When consensus fails or process is violated, we turn to administrators (of which there are less than 2000.) Administrators enforce process, they do not themselves resolve disputes. The (very, very few) paid employees of the Wikimedia foundation do not intervene unless a legal matter arises. Your attempt to work outside of the Chech enclycopedia is likely to cause you a lot more problems than it will solve. I strongly reccomend that you stay within the Chech WP for this, since posting anywhere on the english WP cannot help you and may hurt you. Please do come on over here to the english WP if you see something that we should fix in the english WP. -Arch dude (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmation

Hi, will I be notified when my account is autoconfirmed? --bessmorris 13:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bessmorris (talk • contribs)

No, you won't. Autoconfirmation is something that happens automatically when you have made 10 edits and your account is 4 days old. ≈ Chamal ^talk 13:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, but it already is (unless you are editing through a Tor network). See Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd... Bessmorris should be autoconfirmed by now unless he's using a Tor network, but his edit count shows up as 7! ≈ Chamal ^talk 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit odd. I think I saw someone mention... somewhere... a lag on a toolserver edit counter. Maybe that's causing the difference? It appears to be counting Bessmorris's 7 edits on 27/28 July, but not the more recent ones. --Kateshort forbob 13:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BryanBot (see {{toolserver}}) claims there's a 66 hour lag on the s1 toolserver, which should affect the toolserver but not autoconfirmation (as that is based on the data from the actual servers, on which there is usually negligible lag). Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 16:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beta discussion?

Hi, is there some place where people are actively discussing the Beta, or is this the only page for that? (Cause so far the discussion doesn't seem too profound...) Please don't tell me the only way to address your opinions about the Beta is the feedback form, because that would be somehow sad IMO. Kreachure (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, the feedback page is the way to "provide feedback" about it. There is no discussion about it here AFAIK. With the feedback page, users can report any problems to the developers directly. Having a discussion would be pretty much pointless for this; it would just be a load of comments saying "hey this feature would be good, this should be removed" and a lot of comments following that about why that's a good idea or why it's not. Not very helpful for someone developing the software to judge what are the problems with it and what should be fixed. With the feedback page, they can identify what are the problems affecting most of the users and what would be beneficial for the majority. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usability wiki, and of course the Village pumps are always appropriate venues for any type of discussion (though that will focus more no the English Wikipedia, and less on mediawiki software in general). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um maybe, but the thing is that many of the questions on the feedback form are about what users liked and disliked about the Beta, meaning that they're looking for opinions about the Beta, not just problems to be fixed. I thought that there would be a page somewhere where you could discuss these opinions with others, and in fact I was also expecting a page explaining the nature and purpose of the Beta on Wikipedia itself without so much technical babble. But okay... Kreachure (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date range style in infoboxes

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Other date ranges specifically states that "The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes.", although earlier in the same paragraph it is stated that "the form 1996– (with no date after the en-dash)... is preferred in infoboxes". In addition to this, Template:Infobox Musical artist#Years_active uses the example of "1993–2004, 2005–present", strongly suggesting that the "–present" form should be used (as indeed it is in most if not all musical artist articles I have seen). So which is correct, and should these project pages not be made clearer in order to avoid this confusion? U-Mos (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to ask this on the template talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Wasn't sure the best place to ask this in all honesty. U-Mos (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Date range style in infoboxes. U-Mos (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOST CARD

HOW DO I REPORT A LOST IDENTIFICATION CARD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.90.60 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, and so there isn't really much we can do. Try contacting the organisation that issued it to you. Xenon54 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Depends on the card. If it's a drivers license, probably your state's department of transportation or department of safety. If it's a company-issued card, obviously you would need to call your company. Can you be more specific? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can report lost or/and apply to re-issue to its issuer. IDENTIFICATION CARD is usually issued by government, yu can report lost or apply for re-issue at house registratin office in the country you reside or citizenship. I hope this can help you. Bus88MRT (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation

Dear Sirs

I would like to create a Wikipedia article providing information on a well known Italian fashion company called Scuderi.

I have an account but when I search for Scuderi, which does not currently have a page, I am not given the option to create a new article.

Scuderi is one of the oldest and largest mens tailoring companies in Italy, having been founded in 1954 and now producing more than 60000 sartorial garments per year from its factory in Rome.

Other similar companies for which there are already Wiki pages include Canali, Zegna, Corneliani, Brioni, Kiton.

I look forward to receiving your advice.

Many thanks

Tim Horsley

Timhorsley (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a page called Scuderi which is why you don't get an option to create a page by that name. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for how to handle it. An article about the company could for example be called "Scuderi (company)". But you appear to be connected to the company. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No visible images

Resolved

I'm not sure if this is the proper place for this and if not, please redirect me to it!

Using Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows XP, Somehow, all images, pictures, drawings, etc., will not show up. When I right click and select properties, it does not show the image that is supposed to be there. After looking in the editing page to make sure there really WAS an image there, I checked my Ad-Block Plus filter to see if I had blocked it accidentally - I didn't.

Wikipedia.org is the only site that is affected by this mysterious curse! Right before this happened, I was playing with the colors of links in the options of Firefox and it seems that after that, all images were lost.

I have uninstalled and reinstalled Firefox twice and have accessed Wikipedia via Internet Explorer with good results, as well as using Firefox on another computer also with good results. Is there something I'm missing? is there some parameter that needs to be reset? Is this even a Wikipedia issue?

Thank you! Timmay911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmay911 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried accessing Wikipedia on Firefox without logging on? If you can see the pictures without logging on, but they disappear when you are logged on, then perhaps there is some sort of custom CSS or JS going on. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Load Images for the originating website only is enabled (not sure whether it's called that in Firefox 3.5.2). If so then either disable it (this may cause unwanted images at some other sites) or add http://upload.wikimedia.org to a list of allowed sites. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AH-HA! I found it! Turns out that upload.wiki.com was blocked within my Firefox (Thank You PrimeHunter!!), but I still have no idea what I did :)! thanks guys!

I guess you mean upload.wikimedia.org. In Firefox it's easy to accidentally block images by right clicking an image and then clicking the wrong option. But I didn't think that setting would be kept after reinstalling Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]