Help desk
< December 21	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 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.

December 22

Signature name

When I edit some work Johnalden appears whenever I sign in with the four tildes jack appers. How do I change this to johnalden --Jack 00:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your preferences, change your signature from Jack to Johnalden. BigNate37_(T) 00:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Browser Compatability Problem?

I've looked in the help files and FAQ, and I am not finding the information I need to resolve this problem. I use Mozilla Firefox version 1.5.0.8, and ever since it updated to 1.5.0.8, I can't display any of the formulas in Wikipedia articles. The Wikipeida website has provided critical resources during my electrical engineering education. If I can't resolve this problem, I will be forced to switch to Internet Explorer rather than lose the ability to access such a wealth of information.

I understand that formulas in Wikipedia articles are displayed with MathML. I have read that Firefox has "native" support for MathML, which I assume means that it should support MathML without any additional plugins. I tried downloading and installing MathML fonts, but this did not change anything. I'm afraid that I don't know what to do next. Please give me some information so that I can get Firefox to display the formulas. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raeyin (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Controlling the table of contents

Is there any way of controlling the table of contents other than __NOTOC__'ing it and creating a new one? See User:Albinomonkey/2005-06 in Australian football (soccer) - I'd like to restrict it to having only three levels of headings in the contents (up to 2.1.1, 2.1.2, etc) but without removing the ability to individually edit the higher-level sections. Thanks – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is fine, don't think what you want is possible, and don't think it's worth the trouble to do anything. Xiner (talk, email) 02:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly. You can float the table around, but the contents are filled by MediaWiki automatically. If you want to make one, you have to create it manually. See List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season for an example. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user name

I can't log in because I forgot my user name----

Richard Cummings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.176.165 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do you remember any articles you editited. We can easily find out that way. But if you have none than you might as well just create a new account. — Seadog_MS 03:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing pages

hello.

I was not aware that one could make changes to a site without being a member. I tried to fix the problem , which was just a couple of words .

Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.28.63.135 (talk • contribs).

Don't worry! The desire to contribute in a positive manner is the first step, and unfortunately one many people never get past. The welcome page is usually a good place to start learning about contributing, and if you have any specific questions, you can ask me or leave them here. In the mean time, be bold! Cheers, Dar-Ape 04:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that you are able to edit without registering, there are additional benefits to a registered name which you may want to consider if you are planning on editing frequently. It's not necessary, but I would recommend it. —K e akealani 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Johnson needs disambiguation

I cannot figure out how to set up a disambiguation page for Susan Johnson. There are multiple existing links to the current Susan Johnson page, but the information is for the author, not the singer/actress. I read the instructions for doing this, but they were beyond my ken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fshepinc (talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. In short, you might create an article called Susan Johnson (disambiguation) and list the various possible articles referring to Susan Johnson. The decision lies as to which article should appear when "Susan Johnson" is searched - either way, a note would be added to the other articles saying something like "for other uses, see Susan Johnson (disambiguation" or something. It depends on the circumstance. —K e akealani 07:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artcile ID

Hello,

I am from ePublishing Industry. I want to know whether there is an ARTICLE ID assigned to each article in Wikipedia. If yes, how can I get to know this ARTICLE ID. Please advise.

Regards, Prakash

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but each article has a title, if that's what you mean. All articles can be accessed by their caps-sensitive title either by searching or filling it into the URL. Each version in the article's history also has a "diff number" which identifies only a specific version of the article which may have been edited since. Please clarify your question if this didn't answer it. —K e akealani 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the questioner is either inquiring as to something like an unique identifier, which is a feature of databases, or something like the Digital object identifier (DOI in our references), which is in widespread use particularly in tracking online science papers. Anchoress 14:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. Yes I am talking about any Unique Identifier or DOI as you say above. If there is something like this associated with every Article in Wikipedia, where/how can I find it. Please advise.

Page move: target already exists.

I agree with this edit summary, but am I right to think that only an admin can do this, since the target page already exists (as a redirect to this one)? If yes, can someone oblige? AndyJones 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirect that's there needed to be deleted first. I've moved and I'm now in the process of fixing links. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, thanks for your help. AndyJones 19:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who were the zorastarians

hi,

i am seeking information about zorastarians. Who were they what were their beliefs etc., any significant leaders etc.

thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.75.215.246 (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You might want to read our article on Zoroastrianism. Also, questions not directly related to the Wikipedia (such as this one) should go to the appropriate reference desk, where they should be able to help you if you have further questions. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules on illegal content

Does Wikipedia have any explicit policies on linking to websites or mentioning content in regards to talking about and linking to websites that promote copyright infringement, such as The Pirate Bay? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 11:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know they are not allowed, and removed immediately upon discovery. Anchoress 11:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by "promote" you mean "contain copyright infringing material", yes: see Wikipedia:External links. Links to (for example) copyright infringing pictures, movies, lyrics, books, and software (including "abandonware") should be removed on sight if you are sure of the copyright status. Pages which simply discuss or advocate things illegal in particular countries are not covered by this. Notinasnaid 11:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific case of The Pirate Bay, I'd agree that linking is generally discouraged (site contains copyright-infringing material). It could probably be argued, however, that linking such a site in an article about the site is appropriate (barring legal concerns... not that we should ignore those, which is why this gets complicated). Luna Santin 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a site is generally fine when that site is directly related to the topic at hand. However, if you're linking to the site to give a download link... definitely not allowed. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 11:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much of a problem if the site contains copyrighted material. But you should definitely not link to such material directly. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you don't have real librarians. They rock!

We do have real librarians. See User:Brassratgirl.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I should be more specific; would this paragraph, which talks about the illegal translation and distribution of a computer program, be acceptable to have in a Wikipedia article? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there are reliable sources. As long as you are simply giving information about it, and not actually promoting it, it's fine, and if it's important, it should definitely be included. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help (watchlist question)

I am a new user of wikipedia please giveinformation on how to include something in my watchlistR.R.Krishna 14:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the page you want to watch, and at the top of the article, there will be a tab labelled "Watch". Clicking on that link will add the page on which you click the link to your watchlist. Nihiltres 14:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change Submission Title

I want to change the title of an article I submitted. What is the easiest way to do this? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gkozak (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You should find some helpful information at WP:MOVE. If your account is too new, you can request a move. Hope that helps! Luna Santin 15:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, where would you like it moved and what reason. — Seadog_MS 15:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policies on links to files

I wrote an article entitle "Computer repair technician." In it I have laid the foundation for what one it, as well as tools and software one may need to be in that profession.

Some of the files I included are linked to a Google search using said file as a key-word, allowing the viewer to search themselves.

My ultimate question is, can I put a direct link on a wikipedia page?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben414 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The relevant policy is at WP:LINKS. The rule I live by is, if I send the link to someone during a discussion on said topic, would there be any doubt that I'm providing authoritative, free info, or might it be interpreted as a marketing ploy? Thus, any commercial links or Geocities page would most likely be frowned upon. Xiner (talk, email) 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some files have articles on wikipedia already, and can be tracked down that way. One file in particular, blocklist.reg,formerly available here is not on the parent's site anymore, but available elsewhere. --Ben414 16:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical expenses incurred abroad

How can I reclaim emergency medical expenses incurred in Fuerteventura bearing in mind that the European Health Insurance Card was not accepted by the practicioner

Lezahlom 16:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is outside the abilities of an encyclopedia to assist you, personally i would suggest that you contact to the card issuer. Gnangarra 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to your health insurance company. You did have health insurance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emeraude (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Infobox position

I don't actually want to know how to do this (though I may find it useful in the future) but here is something that puzzles and annoys me. Most inforboxes appear on the right and do not obscure the article text. However, a number of infoboxes (e.g. city, historical cricketers) appear in articles at the top left before all text, meaning that readers have to scroll down a long way to find out the detail. Why do they do this? I presume it is because the infobox was itself designed to do this. An example page is Roanoke, Virginia. Should infobox designers be instructed to ensure their infoboxes are on the right, or is it the fault of the article editor when placing the infobox? I have used Edit to examine pages and infoboxes and am no wiser. Emeraude 17:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That only happens if your window happens to be as big as the infobox, so there is no room for text. For instance, I see the infobox on the right there. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer, but I don't understand it - my windows are always full size. But I went back to Roanoke, Virginia after reading your reply and, somehow, it's now shifted to the right! Some temporary glitch perhaps?? Emeraude

Possible. I'll check the edit history of the template to see if something is wrong. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what was wrong. Maybe someone changed the specifications for the "infobox geography" table class. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate articles

I just pulled up a random article, and got Church Gone Wild/Chirpin Hard. It looked kinda sparse, and nothing linked to it. Checking the bands article, I discovered Church Gone Wild/Chirpin' Hard, which is linked to and has stuff.

What is the proper procedure in this case, mechanically and administratively? (That is, what should be done, and how is it done.) Delete? If so is this a speedy criterion, a prod, an afd, or some other procedural deletion? Redirect? How are those made and who can make them? Or something else? Gnfnrf 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the smaller article has any information the larger one doesn't, merge it into the main article, then redirect the small one into the new one. This is done by replacing the entire page with #REDIRECTChurch Gone Wild/Chirpin' Hard. I'd also add a template to the redirect describing the fact that it is a redirect from an alternate punctuation/spelling (which, from WP:R, is {{R from alternative spelling}}). BigNate37_(T) 18:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helping identify image issues

I sometimes look through the image space on Special:Recentchanges like the RC Patrol, looking for stuff that doesn't belong. I'm not always sure what the correct action should be when I find something.

Image pages that contain article content (often that are non-notable subjects)
Where someone changes the information that they had when they originally uploaded the image to something like {{PD-self}}

Those are the two that are coming to mind today. Answers to what I should do about those two cases would be nice, but pointers to good information pages that answer those and more would be better. ~ Bigr Tex 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the most common reason for article text on an image page is a new user not understanding the correct way to make an article (so I'd suggest contacting the uploader and explaining what's happened). Occasionally, they even use {{helpme}} to ask why they can't find their article... As for your second question, it could be vandalism, an illegal (as in copyright-law violation) attempt to change the attribution of an image to keep it/delete it from Wikipedia, or it could be that the uploader used the wrong tag to start with. I don't know of any good resource about image RC patrol, so I can't help there. --ais523 18:57, 22 December 2006 (U T C)

If the article content on the image page doesn't look like it's about a non-notable subject, simply move it where it should be and inform the editor. I'm with Ais523, I believe some editors believe they can upload the article text rather than typing it in. When changes of attribution are concerned it's a judgement call. If you have reason to believe the change is fraudulent either go to WP:PUI or WP:IFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent posting under the name Analog Ear

Analog Ear was recently posted. It does appear. It is text only. However, the text is strung out far beyond normal margins. How can this be corrected? John L. StewartAv-Alarm 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Av-Alarm 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. The reason was that Wikipedia treats text starting with a space as text to be non-formatted:

like this.

On Wikipedia, leave a gap of one (empty) line to start a new paragraph; do not indent. —D a niel (‽) 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Question about youtube

I have a video of Ehud Olmert saying that Israel has Nuclear weapons, I tried to link to the site on Wikipedia, but it keeps getting reverted back. Help!!!!

setfree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fruitceller (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

YouTube is disliked as a source, because there is little if any information about the video in question. There's no vetting process so it can't be considered reliable, and frequently the video is a copyright violation (which Wikipedia tries to avoid linking to). Unless there is an exceptional reason for including the link, it is likely to be reverted back. Trebor 21:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDITING A NEWLY SUBMITTED ARTICLE

Yesterday I submitted an article entitled 'Australian School of Pacific Administration (ASOPA)' and, despite roaming far and wide through the Wikipedia website, can't locate it for further editing. Is there a straightforward way of recovering this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benelong (talk • contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It got deleted, sorry there are nothing in your contribs with that article name...this is your first edit. — Seadog_MS 21:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, it did definately get deleted: see here for reason. —D a niel (‽) 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. — Seadog_MS 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The web page I am supposed to have violated is my own web page about ASOPA, which obviously includes related information. The article I submitted to Wikipedia also cited numerous other sources as a basis. This is my first post. It was made in response to Wikipedia's confessed lack of information on this subject. It was an original article. Do I persist or do I stop wasting my time?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benelong (talk • contribs) 16:32, December 22, 2006

The problem was that your article was apparently an exact copy of the one placed on your website. Posting an entire article/site verbatim is a problem. Further, Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. You cannot cite something of your own as a fact in an article you are editing. The best thing I can recommend is to either write a new article, using the same sources as your webpage, or to request someone else write the article. Be sure to make sure the subject is notable. -- Kesh 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for the feedback I'm getting - and for its speed. The article was original, very different to that on the website and it was researched from sources I had not used previously. I don't believe it was badly written. I'm rather perplexed as to what I should do now - apart from give up. Whoops! The deleted article referred to above was submitted on 26 July and was a verbatim summary of other material on my website. So its deletion was understandable. The article I'm referring to here was submitted yesterday (22 December) and was an original piece. If I cannot locate it, do I assume it was not uploaded and should I repeat the process?

Deleteing relevant RS cites without discussion

I have someone who is deleting my relevant RS cites because he objects to the way the cites are formatted. Isn't there some sort of guideline or recommendation that specifies that such things should be discussed on the Talk page first? If I were to go around deleting relevant RS cites without discussion I don't think it would be viewed very well. Thanks. Tanaats 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd view such deletions as removal of content, unless he's asked you to learn to cite correctly and you've refused. It'd be useful to know what exactly happened (diffs, etc.). Xiner (talk, email) 21:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know what article this is referring to. There may be a relevant issue with the way citations are done in the article. I agree that discussing it in the Talk page is recommended, but without knowing more, it's hard to determine what's proper procedure. -- Kesh 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff[1]. Actually I mispoke in my state of upset. It's only happened once on that page. But it is a very contentious page, with lots of little edit wars in the past, so I do appreciate your helping me to understand what is appropriate in this sort of situation. Tanaats 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he has not asked me to learn to cite correctly. (Had I done so I certainly would not have refused.) Tanaats 22:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any further advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. Tanaats 17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you provided has him saying the citation will have to be corrected, and giving you a link to where you can learn how to do it. My advice is to take a look at the links he offered (WP:CITET and this) then put the reference in according to those instructions. Chris M. 04:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images and access

I do not know where else to go. I am on old fashioned dialup, was Netscape now FireFox. Often [very often] I search an article, click, and it starts. Boxes where images are to be, of the prospective size of the images, with alternate text. The upload continues, at some point the boxes disappear or truncate to just the alternate text, no image. Over the last few days I have yet to see the top image in 'Archeopteryx' - a few days ago two of the three images in the article were there, but not the Munich specimen. Yesterday and today, the Munich one comes up but not the initial Berlin specimen. Is this my setup, or is Wiki sort of terminating image upload after some [relatively short] time?? --Dumarest 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with graphics anchoring

Hello!

I'm having problems getting a graphic to stay anchored to the left, under #2. If I place the graphic on a separate line, #2 goes to the left of the graphic. If I place it at on it's own line the numbering under it goes back to #1. What do I do?

Here is what I'm working on:

Calendar - Alarms Not Working

Have the customer:

While in the mail view, click on Tools/Preferences/Calendar & To Do/Alarms.
Uncheck Appointments/Meetings.

File:Alarms Not Working 1.jpg

Click on OK.
Close Notes and then re-open Notes.
Click on Tools/Preferences/Calendar & To Do/Alarms.
Check Appointments/Meetings.
Click on OK.
- Note: If a message appears saying you have missed some alarms, do you want to see them, select "yes" (choosing "no" will turn your alarms off, even though they are enabled in your preferences!).

Kestanley 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The <br/> html tag is the solution:

#First Item
#Second Item<br/>SecondItemImage
#Third Item

produces:

First Item
Second Item
SecondItemImage
Third Item

Hope this helps. ~ Bigr Tex 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit problem within sections on WP:RD/H

At the moment, trying to edit a particular section on the Humanities reference desk will open an edit box for the preceding section. What to do about this? (NB: I'm not even sure this is the right or best place to ask, but couldn't think of another more appropriate...) Thanks, 85.250.165.159 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes that happens to me too, I'm not sure what it is, but I just click on the next one and edit as I please, and the problem gets fixed pretty soon. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It happens if a section above the one you want to edit gets deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]