Help desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 4 >

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 3

Speedy delete?

How do I speedy delete an article that has been created at least two other times and deleted for the same reasons? Rzrscm 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{Db-repost}} --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-repost}} should not be applied unless the article has had an AfD. If it did (and still does) qualify under a criterion from CSD, then delete it as that. If it was deleted by {{prod}} or a CSD that no longer applies, take it to AfD. BigNate37_(T) 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My References are not accepted

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I'm trying to add references to my article about Rick Lazaroff. The article is about his life and career which I am intimately aware of as I am his wife. Since my references are a result of directly interviewing him, I am unsure about how to reflect that on his page.

This is what I've tried:

==References==

Lazaroff, Rick, A. Interview (2006).

What would I need to do to make this correct for Wikipedia?

Thank-you, D. Watters

It really needs to be published somewhere before you can reference it. Otherwise, no one else can read it themselves to see what was said and what context it was in. Also, you can sign your comments here by putting four ~ symbols after your text. Kesh 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps surprisingly, you cannot include things that you know to be facts, only things that other people can verify. You are probably in a good position to know what has been published and quote from that, but you cannot include unpublished details. Notinasnaid 11:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COI#Close_relationships. You cannot add content to his article. --⁪froth^{T C} 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can add content to the article, but you have to reliably cite it. ~ Flame vip e r 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Question

Hi. I'm trying to upload a new image to the page about the animated version of THE LAST UNICORN. It worked fine, but then I decided to go with a different (and much better) scan. That one, for some reason, will NOT show on the page after it loads. I'm not doing anything differently. What's wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Connorfc (talk • contribs).

Might want to give us some more information. What's the name of the picture you're using here in the article? -- Kesh 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason most of the images you uploaded are corrupt. The only one that seems ok is Image:TLUnew2.jpg. I have deleted the others for you, so you can reupload them without any errors. If some of them were duplicates anyway, please only upload the ones you need. You should be able to see the images after you upload them, if not something is wrong, and you should come back here or make sure the originals are not corrupt before uploading more. - cohesion 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My article doesn't appear

2 days ago I registered with Wikipedia, then logged in and posted a new article entitled "23rd Field Artillery Regiment, RCA" & hit save etc. (after searching for it with no hit). The article hasn't appeared yet. How long does it take for an article to appear after posting? How can I check if this article was accepted or not? GREENPATCH 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantly the article should appear, if you are searching for it...stop, instead type in the article word for word and type go. If it doesn't appear it has most likely been deleted.__Seadog^♪ 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article with than name does not appear to have ever existed, since there is no deletion log for it. I think it may have been misspelt or mis-capitalised. —K e akealani 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my honest guess also.__Seadog^♪ 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Figured out what the problem was and now the article appears. Thanks for your advice.

Image licensing

I want to license an image that I made such that it can be used freely on Wikipedia, but cannot be used freely anywhere else. Does such a thing exist, or do I have to use the GFDL? Steevven1 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately, it will have to be released under GFDL or a similar license. —K e akealani 05:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how to add a listing to a category

I was just on the Contract Research organizations page where is has different organizations broken out according to A, B, C...

I would like to add Cetero Research under C, along with a link to that page, but can't seem to find how to do it.

Can you help?

I think what you do is type [[Category:(whatever)|the page you would like in that category]]. And every thing just works itself. Good luck and if you still do not know how just ask a senior member to do it for you.__Seadog^♪ 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already did it (plus some Wikifying). Some of the content may have to be removed. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 05:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking about processor

I wanna buy desktop.I mainly use Desktop for design Landscape ,graphic and design 3D form.

So , please tell me what model of processor(AMD or Intel pentium or intel duo core) is suitable to me?

From: Malaysia

I think the best place to ask a question such as this would be the Reference Desk -Vvitor 06:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images from other websites?

I found some images (coat of arms of cities) on a website that I would like to use here and I asked the webmaster about the copyright status, he said if it is for private or commercial use. I What do I say? --Escondites 08:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say that it's GFDL. Anchoress 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, tell the webmaster that it is for GFDL (or compatible). A lot of confusion between the different comments on this one, I think. BigNate37_(T) 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But its not GFDL. Wouldn't that be lying? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they say it's for private and commercial use, what other use doesn't it cover? Aha, you might want to check if derivative work is no problem with them too. By the way, he could be violating copyright himself to start with, but I have no clue about coats of arms. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question was "He asked me whether it was for private or commercial use - what should I tell him". --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither private nor commercial. It's a release into the public domain. Coats of arms are strange: the description can be rendered in various ways. (There are many ways to draw a lion, for instance.) The actual depictions are copyrightable. -THB 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using "director videos" from YouTube as sources/references...yay or nay?

Hi. A while back I had tried to get permission to use licenced footage posted on YouTube by a third party as a reference for a page, an idea that later got stricken down due to apparent copyright issues. Now, I have discovered another YouTube video that I want to use as part of a page; the difference here is that the footage is being posted by the network that originally aired the footage in the first place, or a "director video" as they call them (strange title, honestly). In this example, it's CBS posting footage from a well-known college basketball game (one featuring Christian Laettner and a famous buzzer beater) that is worthy of its own article, and obviously providing a link to it makes the article much more useful. Is it acceptable to link to this particular clip or does this also produce copyright issues? Thanks in advance. -- transaspie 13:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they posted it themselves I see no issue, but don't just link it because it's a fun vid. Try putting this one up as a source. -= Mgm|^(talk) 15:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know the information is true and correct?

If anyone can edit the information, how can anyone be assured it is correct?

How do you know anything you read is correct? You exercise critical thinking skills to decide what to believe. --Tkynerd 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know becase I check the references, and when reading for fact, I choose resources Proven to be reliable and state the basis of the research or information.

And I refrain...from "deciding what to belive"...lol...and rather look for FACTS, colaberated by research.

I see so many papers with bad information come accross my desk, and this site is cited as the ref...this is not a reference site.

An opinion, but when the general public looks up information, and it is brought to the front by a search engine due to massive advertising methods, AND is presented as information from an ENCYLOPEDIA...It should be correct. Yes I understand and am intelligent enought to know better...but the details about this information are burried so deep in reading...leaving the public to think this is reference information. But in fact, it is not reliable at all. This is a commercial site, not an educational resource, as it tries to tote itself. It is just misrepresentation. There should be a LARGE disclaimer at the onset stating it is recreational and opinion, not facts.

Notice I do not cite other Wiki links. I want this to be factual.

You, sir/madam, are incorrect. This is a reference site. You clearly haven't read Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. Doing so might enlarge your extraordinarily closed mind. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is certainly NOT a commercial site. You have proven with that comment that you have no idea what you are talking about and are simply ranting. Why don't you try to do some actual research before you write something. Reading our article on Wikipedia would be a good place to start, as you are clearly highly confused about what Wikipedia actually is. There is nothing commercial about it. You are simply wrong. Your "FACTS" are wrong. You have clearly "decided what to believe" irregardless of the truth. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) What makes you think that this is a commercial site? There are no adverts, no product placement or endorsement, it's a registered charitable organisation, and all donations go right back into hardware and bandwidth costs. As it is, your post mostly appears to be a trolling attempt. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. Wikipedia factual error rates appear to be no worse than expert-written encyclopedias, because while anyone can enter incorrect information, anyone else can overwrite it or revert it with the correct information. On high-interest topics it is unlikely introduced errors will survive long as there are too many people watching those pages, many of whom have a keen interest in the topic. Still none of this guarantees the truth. By the way, Wikipedia does not drive traffic to it's site via advertising. It performs well in search engine searches due to its high linkage rate with the rest of the web. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 17:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about Wikipedia showing up high on Google searches, that's because a lot of people visit and link to our content. The number of visits and links a site gets are used by Google and other search engines in an algorith to determine where they fall in the rankings. It has nothing to do with advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks for your questions, which are valid ones. First, the other writers are correct; this is not a commercial site; it receives all its money through donations (you'll notice that no ads are run). However, there is currently a very important movement within the encyclopedia to include verifiability and reliable sources; in fact, this are currently deemed necessary to an article, so long as it's possible to do so. The other authors are also correct about high profile subjects ((e.g., George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Chile) - these are watched by a littany (sp?) of people, and usually are quite reliable. Finally, I have seen, though I cannot cite off-hand, at least two studies which quote Wikipedia to be just as reliable, if not more reliable, than sources like Encyclopedia Brittanica (I believe one study was by an important media organization like AP or BBC). I hope this answers your questions. And BTW, you'll have to pardon the site if some of the users were a bit quick and harsh to respond, however, but your statement did seem to presuppose the inaccurracy of Wikipedia without any knowledge of the subject, and editors can react a bit harshly to that. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The journal Nature said so in this study.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely bring up a valid question. While I agree with the previous posters that Wikipedia is not commercial, and that the accuracy is surprisingly good, there may be occasions when it is not an excellent reference. For example, an obscure article that was worked on by only a few editors can have a lot of unverified information. Chances that Encyclopaedia Britannica has such articles in the first place is very small. However, I do agree that the major topics are extremely well researched and neutral (in fact more so that most other encyclopedias). So I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Citing Wikipedia might not be the smartest thing to do on academic projects or papers. Cribananda 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been feeding the troll. ~ Flame vip e r 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably meant this link--24.20.69.240 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translating pages

Is it alright to translate pages directly from English to another language? For example there are so many swedish pages which are very empty, content-wise, compared to their english equivalents. So do I need to write my own text in swedish, or is it ok for me just to translate it directly?

how could i send my articles203.148.64.19 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to do a complete translation without worries. The text on Wikipedia is licensed under |GFDL. If you need help, you can try to wade through Wikipedia:Translation (though I've found the documentation on the English site to be fairly confusing). Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you do need to give credit to the English-language authors in the Swedish Wikipedia; the GFDL requires that the authors/history of the article be available. I'm rusty on what the appropriate procedure is, but a good-faith effort might involve an appropriate note and links on the article talk page, along with an HTML comment (enclose it like this:  to create a comment) in the article body. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wiki pipe syntax in an Apache software v2 licensed project

Hello people,

I like the pipe syntax for creating tables a lot, but I'm having a hardtime finding if the syntax is restricted by a license. This wikicode page mentions something about a 'de facto' standard but most pages cover the content of the article rather then the syntax.

Can I write a parser for this syntax for an OS project that is released under the Apache Software License v.2.

Thanks for your time.

Kind regards,

ernst naezer.

You can't protect a syntax with a licence. It could be patented, but it isn't. The implementation of its interpreter in Mediawiki is copyrighted, and is licenced under the GPL (indeed, I believe there are several parsers going around, including at least one in C). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediawiki page gives a link to the mediawiki-l mailing list - perhaps the best idea is to mail there and ask for a C implementation; I'd be quite surprised if the authors of it wouldn't be willing to release it under an Apache licence, if it isn't already in an Apache-compatible one. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the best place to ask about an article (besides its talk page)

I looked at WP:PUMP, and found nothing relevant to asking about a problematic article that I don't know how to fix. Peer review is for already-fixed articles and attempts at GA/FA status. RfC is for conflicts, and this is not a conflict.

I'm looking for a place to ask about Trickjumping which I believe needs major fixing, but I don't know where to state the issue. I don't think that Talk:Trickjumping would yield significant discussion/input. BigNate37_(T) 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

everyone has their own pages that need to be worked on; if you need something done your best bet is just to do it yourself --⁪froth^{T C} 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CU or the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll open an RfC if I can't sort out what to do on my own. Most of WP:RFC is about disputes, but I think a request at RfC about this would be appropriate. Thanks for the suggestions. BigNate37_(T) 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Special:My Contributions?

I used to use it all the time. Trosk 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Special:Contributions/Trosk. BigNate37_(T) 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although you're right, for some reason, the page no longer works as it used to. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes it does. It doesn't have a space within it, though. Try Special:Mycontributions. Tito xd^(?!?) 21:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MAIL

HOW DO I CHECK ME MAIL ON WIKIPEDIA—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie15 (talk • contribs)

Your messages go to User talk:Frankie15, also accessible from a link at the very top of the window when you are logged in. I just left you a welcome message, which should have given you a big fat alert near the top of the screen.--Kchase T 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton for starting assessment department

Is there some sort of template or skeleton I can copy for creating a base for an assessment department for the WP:WPHP? I don't feel like changing every occurrence of one word in another WP's assessment, I'd rather do something like {{subst:assessment|Harry Potter}}. Thanks. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 19:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at making Template:WikiProject assessment department, but there would be so many parameters it might be easier to simply hand-write your assessment department page with other project's assessment departments as a guide. BigNate37_(T) 21:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's what we ended up doing. Thanks! --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

infobox div / Edit link alignment

Technical question regarding infoboxes. I've made one used on mushroom pages called template:mycomorphbox - it features lots of mycological traits used in identifying wild mushrooms. It naturally occurs on pages with template:taxoboxes, and sometimes, when the they stack on top of eachother, the section [Edit] links get pushed vertically down the page, and bunch up together. I've tried playing with the div and float parameters, and can't seem to clear up this bug. It may have to do with the float properties of the [Edit] links? Thanks for any help!! Debivort 21:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, edit tabs just do that. Usually, a bigger monitor or higher-resolution display setting is the only cure. It happens all the time with my user page, I have a very small monitor. I can't find a solution for the life of me. ~ Flame vip e r 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

way to tell when a category has a new member

Is there anyway to tell when new pages are added to categories? Since they don't directly receive edits, looking at their history doesn't help.

The reason I ask is I would like to make sure that all appropriate pages in the Basidiomycetes and Ascomycetes categories receive an appropriate infobox. I have been monitoring this by browser caching all the pages in the category and looking for new links, but this is a sloppy approach, and I'd love any suggestions or tricks. Debivort 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very direct, but the related changes feature can help with this. For example Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Basidiomycetes shows recent changes to articles in this category. A newly added article will show up with a change that adds the article to the category. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that will work swimmingly! Thanks. Debivort 02:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Silicon" page doesn't appear to print properly

Hi folks,

Other pages print fine, but "Silicon" seems to have some formatting problems in "print" mode.

-- Deck

It seems to be because "Diamond Lattice" in the infobox is linked to a long URL. This is a problem, but as a source is significantly more important than the layout of the printable version, I'm not sure what to do :? --⁪froth^{T C} 22:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should move the source to the references section and replace the infobox link with a word or wikilink. I'm working on it. Nihiltres 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go do other things outside WP for a bit, so I'm leaving this task. The box should say that silicon has a face-centered cubic crystal structure, as far as I can tell. Nihiltres 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Why are there two copies of the picture of the day pages? There's one at Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day/January_1,_2007, another at Wikipedia:POTD_row/January_1,_2007. Also who writes the captions for those images? The latter that I linked to is the one actually used on the main page and it's protected. So is this content just written by admins? --⁪froth^{T C} 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the "_row bit". It is different from the regular one because it is differently formatted (presumably for some other use than the main page. They're not the same. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "row" one is in fact the one used on the main page. But I'm asking why have the same content in two places? --⁪froth^{T C} 01:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

system integrity

Please highlight somewhere on your page what are the means at your disposal to verify, correct, maintain the integrity of the various pages, so that each entry is true, accurate, neutral to political bias and reflects verifiable, authenticated knowledge.

This mystery is the one big question I always had. In today's NYT Magazine they speak about how the U.S Intel Community needs to emulate Wikipedia. To share intel to protect. One of their issues is the possibility that certain elements with access to the data or those with the right to edit, change, bend the direction or the integrity of the data (I.E: a disgruntled employee who does not agree with certain policy could cleverly enter misleading data that over a period of time becomes part of the accepted version of certain entry, thus causing enormous harm to everyone) which also applies to all of your users, when controversial data is entered, re edited, manipulated, and possibly by some with malicious intentions.

It would be great if you has a link that takes the vistors directly to a page explaining how you keep vigilant of your data collection.

Sincerely,

TJBarker (email removed to prevent spam)

A question similar to this was asked above, Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_do_I_know_the_information_is_true_and_correct? Essentially, all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Therefore, cleverly inserting misleading data in a subtle way is not possible, as that data must have a source. In cases of obvious vandalism, a large amount of editors devote their time to reverting vandalism by using the Recent Changes page. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a history which maintains a list of all edits to an article. 'Cleverly' adding misleading info will get you caught faster than you can see Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think there already is one...but it should be more prominent. A stigmatized wiki is a bad thing for us all. ~ Flame vip e r 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)