Help desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 3 >

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 2

Requesting peer review confusion.

I would like to request a peer review. While looking at the the article I have created, I clicked the "talk" tab. I added the bracketed PR tag to the top and saved. The result is "This template should be substituted on the article talk page. Lazerbeans (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)"

I am stuck on the step of the "notice" I am to follow. I can't seem to figure this out and I feel inept. I must be. I don't see what to do next.

Thanks! Lazerbeans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazerbeans (talk • contribs) 04:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~You need to add {{subst:PR}} to the talk page. See WP:SUBSTITUTION.~~--ukexpat (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that you're jumping the gun a bit. Currently, it is a User talk page (it is not an article yet) - I believe the next step is to submit it. (use "Submit this page" link on the page). ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops yes, you are absolutely correct.--ukexpat (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! {Lazerbeans (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

I have tow E-mail

I have to E- mail bat all the tow not work first E- ^{[details removed]} the ather is ^{[details removed]} I don't now way not open I live in Holland bat now in athier contrary this may telefoon ^{[details removed]}I hoop to send my niew basword

greting al-majahi

I wil make now E-mail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.255.167.118 (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you saw an article in Wikipedia and thought that Wikipedia might be able to help regarding the subject of an article. You should be aware that Wikipedia itself is not connected to the topics of the articles. This page is only for asking questions about Wikipedia. If you have any other problem unrelated to Wikipedia, you could ask your question at some other site like Yahoo! Answers or Answers.com. Good luck! Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 07:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the email addresses from your post here, as this page is regularly indexed by search engines. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Lodhian Khas, Title & Place Name needs correction

Hello, the page "Lodhian Khas" should be renamed as "Lohian Khas" the real name of the place and it can be verified from the picture of Indian Railways, Railway station of this place. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apsmatharu (talk • contribs) 13:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have moved the page to the correct title. --ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations behind paywalls

Resolved

– Lineslarge (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Weaning cites a reference of http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=2011-02-07#folio=026 which requires a subscription to view. This doesn't seem very satisfactory to me as it's not easy to verify. Is there any Wikipedia policy on this situation? Lineslarge (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an official policy, but relevant information can be found here. Frigid Ninja 14:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RX may help as well but you may need email turned on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, that's useful

See WP:PAYWALL. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 21:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upload

I've tried three times today to upload a logo. I don't get an error, but it didn't work. Has anyone else had trouble uploading to Wikipedia today?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be working fine for me. Frigid Ninja 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out, the file had an extension .png but it was a .jpg. I'm disappointed it didn't give me an error message. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wiki evaluation tool

how do i get to the wiki evaluation tool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.147.73 (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "wiki evaluation tool"? Frigid Ninja 19:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Wikipedia:Article feedback process? — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A personal problem

I was joking about my friend and I didn't release how to delet what I write so pleas delete . it the first time and last time we do that.

this is the link

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Janti

"janti is also a person that Live's in Kfar Kama Isreal. He is a circassion guy, He have a red heir." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJANTI (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lova Falk talk 19:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added info and now want to remove it.

I put in the date of Doreen Kimura's death. It was accurate information. However, the whole article looked different as a result. Then I attempted to remove it. However, that didn't work, either. I would like help to simply remove it and let someone else add her death date. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treewithroots (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I reverted your edit. The links above should find any RS on her passing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I couldn't find any obituaries yet, but the reason the article looked different was because you accidentally deleted the }} from the end of the box – as long as you keep this you won't need to worry about editing infoboxes in future. --xensyria^T 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of hers reported it on a blog. We can wait for RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template parameter test categories

I was wondering if making edits to templates to allow a temporarily test to see which articles use certain parameters was allowed or discouraged. I've asked the question in more detail here, and any feedback would be appreciated! --xensyria^T 20:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss on the template talk. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 21:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I was wondering whether there was a general policy against that kind of thing. --xensyria^T

Unintended behavior of display of maintenance category

Something is messed up with the categorization mechanism of Template:File page NFCC concerns tag. For example, I tagged File:71st Airmobile Brigade Emblem Greece.jpg on 2013-02-15, but it seems the monthly maintenance category displayed on the file page was automatically updated from Category:Non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale as of February 2013 to Category:Non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale as of March 2013. All files tagged in February are still shown in Category:Non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale as of February 2013, however (which is correct). How can I achieve that the monthly category on the file page displays correctly and isn't automatically incremented to the next month? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no timestamp in the addition of the tag [3]. Many other files are also missing a timestamp. In addition, it's strange that Template:File page NFCC concerns tag is coded to use a date or day, month and year parameter to generate a dated category, but a timestamp parameter to compute when 7 days have passed. Only one way to specify the date should be required. You mention "the monthly maintenance category" but if the day of the month is given then the day is included in the category name. Is that intentional? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The day is not supposed to be included in the category name. The categorization should be by month only. I think those parameters are included because I pasted this code from somewhere else. Their inclusion is not intentional. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could try using subst: before the template name (e.g. {{subst:File page NFCC concerns tag}}) to "fix" it to one month. --xensyria^T 22:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter I could change it to use only one type of parameter. Which would be the best choice? Is it possible to use the timestamp parameter for the category generation? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@xensyria I intentionally didn't design the template to be substituted because I don't think that a maintenance template such as this one should be substituted at all. I remember (if my memory doesn't fool me) that someone objected to me substituting such templates in the past. I could change it, if this were desired, though. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see; as PrimeHunter says, it's much better to have a single parameter to specify the date. For ease and simplicity, and since day, month and year are all needed, I would prefer a timestamp, using the second parameter rather than a named field. I'll take a look at it in more detail later. --xensyria^T 14:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I've made a few alterations to the template's sandbox, and continued the discussion on Toshio's talkpage. --xensyria^T 15:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beggars Belief

I tried to create an article and unfortunately it was rejected. But what I would like answered is --> How come it says: "Declined by Nonsenseferret 0 seconds ago. Last edited by Nonsenseferret 0 seconds ago." even though it was more than 0 seconds ago. No matter how many times I refresh the page this doesnt change and that seems a bit fishy to me... I don't know what to believe now. One user told me it's a template glitch... A TEMPLATE GLITCH????

This is an absolute disgrace; how can something as simple as the time be so wrong. It just beggars belief.

This need to be sorted asap... ie NOW. How can this be done; so people dont end up thinking time is going really slow for them or something? Thanks Username talkpage (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template refreshes itself regularly. Has nothing to do with you refreshing your browser. It's not very important to keep these things up to date, and so the template may refresh in batches to save resources. Thanks Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the reply, but its an absolute disgrace. LalaLAND (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user had their username changed, and there is nothing illegitimate about that :) gwickwire^talk_editing 23:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks gwickwire, I forgot to clarify that! LalaLAND (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can "refresh" (regenerate) the page by purging it. This will update the time. Our servers run the sixth most visited website on a relatively small budget. For performance reasons we don't regenerate a page each time it's viewed. We cache it when it's edited or purged, and in certain other situations, and then display the cached version to readers. It said "0 seconds ago" because the page was cached when it was edited to decline it, so it really was 0 seconds when the page was generated. But you have a point this is confusing. Many experienced users know about things like page caching and purging, but Articles for Creation is aimed at new users. Tomorrow when I have better time, I may make a suggestion that if the calculated time is less than 1 hour or so then it should have a purge link saying "(click here to update time)", or something like that. If you really want to avoid the purge issue then you could donate a few million dollars to our servers. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "absolute disgrace" and "beggars belief" (whatever that means), you would do well to tone down the rhetoric. You're picking a fairly small nit in the scheme of things, and doing it before an audience largely made up of volunteer editors, just like you. If you don't believe or understand why what you wrote is offensive, you need to take a breath and read some of WP:5 and WP:PG before continuing here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:beggar belief, AlanM1. But I had the same reaction to the rhetoric as you did. --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notified him of the definition on his talkpage, as he was eager to criticise it without even knowing what it meant and wasn't bothered looking it up. Crazy stuff. LalaLAND (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]