Help desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 3

Picture upside down

[[Image:STS087-715-70.jpg|thumb|Satellite view of Karachi]] Karachi Harbour's satellite picture is upside down. I could not edit it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendancious (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:STS087-715-70.jpg is oriented like the NASA original at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/scanned/lowres/STS087/STS087-715-70.JPG. Do you want to rotate it 180° so north becomes up? PrimeHunter 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

performance mangement

how to define a policy that performance is linked to input output process —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.18.17 (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. You could try the reference desk. - Rjd0060 03:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an IBM thinkpad year 2000

i need help giving it an OS think its operatingsystem. kps sending me a message wen it boots up...OSmissing...press any key to activate floppy. nothing happens. ilovethe laptop, butit was loaned and misused and returned to me in poorshape can you help me. iceprincs2002@yahoo.com

thasnk you....my name is lori —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.88.162 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this Help Desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. - Rjd0060 03:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter 04:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Search

How can I use Wikipedia's search to search for information inside an article currently being viewed?

Specifically, I am viewing DSM-IV Codes and I want to use the search box to find a specific code.

I understand the <Ctrl>F will let me search text, but I want to be able to use Wikipedia's search box, by using a browser's built-in search engine feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.178.22 (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's search engine doesn't really work that well, and certainly doesn't allow you to search for information within a single article. If you plan to use an external search function to do this, I'm afraid we won't be of much help, as we can only provide assistance with Wikipedia-related functions. Sorry. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Oct., 10, 1.10 Redirect term is not hit by google.([[1]]) This response is not directly for your problem. Wikipedia search is poor. Even using Google, redirected term is not hit. As far as particular wrod(s) is appears in a article, Google might hit that article. Google may be much useful than serach of Wikipedia, I believe. --Namazu-tron 08:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to search a specific article with Google, such as DSM-IV Codes, you can, by using my brand-spanking-new {{Google custom}} template. Check this out:

This wikitext: {{Google custom|en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-IV_Codes||Search Wikipedia's DSM-IV Codes article}}
- produces the link: Search Wikipedia's DSM-IV Codes article

which you can click on to get a custom Google search form that searches just that page. However, the search results only show the first instance of your search term(s). When you use a Ctrl-F search in a Web browser, you can repeat the search to find additional instances of your search string. Another disadvantage of Google search is that it only links to the top of the DSM-IV Codes page; clicking on the page link that Google displays does not scroll forward in the page to the location of the text that Google found, so you still have to do a Ctrl-F search to get there. However, {{Google custom}} does indeed make it possible to search a single Wikipedia article with Google, and the template call syntax is somewhat less ugly than editing the Google custom search URL yourself. Actually, I wrote {{Google custom}} as a variant of {{Google}} (written by other editors) not to search single pages, but to search sets of pages, such as the Help desk archives (see the examples I included in the template documentation). But it does work for searching a single article, so there you go. --Teratornis 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The..."

I was intending to start an article which would be called The American Company, which I would have done by moving William and Lewis Hallam there, then expanding. I would then have made American Company (which now redirects to List of United States companies) a dab. However, is it right that there's some sort of rule that my article shouldn't start with "The"? If so, presumably, my article should go at American Company (with a link at the top, to the list) and The American Company should redirect to it. Is that right? (And where do I find the rule, if so?) AndyJones 09:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight amendment to my question: it's American company not American Company which now redirects to the list. AndyJones 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity what is the connection between William and Lewis Hallam and American Company? WP:MOS#Article title says don't use "The" unless it is part of the proper name, e.g. The Beatles, The New York Times. Sbowers3 13:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the name of their theatre company. Actually they performed as the Hallam Company in their first incarnation, and I'm intending to have that redirect to my new page, too. Researching this further, it looks like the Cambridge Companion doesn't capitalise the "the", so I'll work on American Company. Thank you for your help. AndyJones 16:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that titles are case-sensitive. Yours should be American Company (but if they called themselves The American Company, include the "The" in the title). Then you could leave American company (lower case company) alone or have it be a dab. Sbowers3 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV vs T.V.

What should be used in articles TV or T.V.? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 09:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither; television (i.e. spelling it out) seems to be prevalent. I suppose that you could choose if you are editing an article where you have to use it, much like British or American English. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 11:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television to see if they have any relevant guidelines. --Teratornis 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) mentions "TV" several times (all in passing), but not "T.V." --Teratornis 22:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help

help you deleted my edits on salisbury witshre econemy and bishopstone salisbury wiltshire please im not a fucking vandal

Stop sorry Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackslee (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who specifically? You could contact the person who reverted your edits on their talkpage, but there's not much else you can do. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 11:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your edits are unconstructive and indiscriminate, and quite a few are indeed vandalism and nothing but. What was your intent with creating a page with the text: "hellllpppppppppppppp mmmmmmeeeeeeeeee salisbbbury"? How about when you defamed a student at your high school and in the next edit attacked the school and its teachers? Don't add negative content to any articles without backing that up with sources, including proclaiming that particular towns are full of drug use. Further attacks on named individuals are more serious and will quickly result in a block.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preview and sandboxes

Why exactly do sandboxes exist if there's the 'show preview' function that could easily let you see the results of tests? --Mentifisto 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxes (in userspace, anyway) are usually used to write articles before actually posting them in article namespace. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor wants to work on an article or list in more than one go then they might create a sandbox. It is also helpful when developing or updating complicated templates. Woodym555 14:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thanks for clarifying it. --Mentifisto 17:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having sandboxes for testing also reduces the chance that a brand-new user would save a test edit in an actual article instead of merely previewing it there. We would rather not have brand-new users experimenting on actual articles, when they just want to try their first wikitext edits. That would be an invitation to disaster. (Of course, having "edit" links everywhere does invite disaster, but we have thousands of experienced users cleaning up the occasional messes.) --Teratornis 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxes also reduce the chance that a not-so-new user would hit the "save page" button by accident (for example, by hitting "enter" with the focus outside the main text area). Also, sandboxes are the only way (I know of) to experiment with templates. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how boldly one wants to go with templates where no one has gone before, a possibly even safer way to experiment would be in one's own personal wiki (see for example mw:Manual:Wiki on a stick). Then when a coding error reduces everything to a smoking crater, nobody else has to know. --Teratornis 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I prefer it when everyone can see my misguided attempts at manipulating parser functions. ;) Woodym555 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Custom skin and CSS files

Hi, I'm in the process of creating my own skin, for which the UI elements are quite a bit different from Monobook, so I am basing it on the (empty) "MySkin" files. Now, while I want the UI elements to be different, I'd like the way articles look to be identical to the monobook skin. I'd have expected the rules for "UI elements" and "article elements" to be in separate css files, but it seems (from WP:CSS) that they are lumped together in monobook/main.css, MediaWiki:Monobook.css etc. So do I have to copy the specific rules for article text that I want individually to my skin file, or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. -- DatRoot 15:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be better off asking at the Tech Village Pump - the volunteers there will probably have a better idea of what you're talking about, and will certainly have a better idea about how to do what you're proposing. Good luck! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Will do. -- DatRoot 17:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you fix the bug, worm, or virus that wikipedia has in the mobile google search engine ONLY effecting wikipedia?

I am furious! This is the second time, while using my mobile phone, when clicking on a wikipedia search that YOUR site has caused me to lose my site, and accessability to google. More ever, when TRYING to send a request for a fix for this problem, Wikipedia is 100% unavailable for help of a response of any kind. Your "contact wikipedia leaves a lot to be desired, and is an insult to anyoe of even preschool intelligence. Get this fixed or I will contact the FCC and let them know you are sendig bug, worms, or viruses via search engines outside YOUR search engine. I garruntee your claims of no liability will not stand a snowball's chance in hell for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.243.146 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs should be brought to notice at Bugzilla and I have done so on you part at bugzilla:11862. Feel free to post a comment if you have anything else to say. Chris DHDR 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also do not make legal threats against Wikipedia. Legal threats are taken very seriously and can result in a block from editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been blocked six months for that very reason. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you expect anybody here to do, when you don't even give any details of what sort of mobile device you're using, what sort of search you were making, were you actually on the Wikipedia site or Google (you mention both), and so on? The problem could be with your mobile provider (maybe it just happened to drop connection while you were doing the search), with your device's hardware manufacturer, with Google, with a third-party site you reached through a search or external link, with yourself for failing to use the controls of your device and the features of the sites and service you're using correctly, or maybe even with Wikipedia, but there is insufficient information for anybody to tell, or for the FCC to know whether it might fall under their jurisdiction. *Dan T.* 18:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the FCC will require that we give this user a full refund of his Wikipedia subscription fee. -Arch dude 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In his choice of dollars, euros, pounds sterling, or Iraqi dinars. *Dan T.* 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we have a Help desk, which doesn't always help, but we try. I haven't seen anything on Google yet that resembles a way to get help. Just in case Google is causing this problem, whatever it may be (I'm with *Dan T.* - I can't make any sense of the help request, but then I don't use Wikipedia on any mobile computing device yet). If the mobile phone could take a video of itself, the questioner could upload it, so we could see what is going on. But that would probably require two devices: a camera phone or video camera, with which to video-record the misbehaving device. --Teratornis 22:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editing an article

Hello, I just have a quick question, as I have never used Wiki except for reading the info provided. I did search a bit in the faq. Sorry, as I know this is probably an easy one. My question is, if people are allowed to edit these articles, who makes sure that someone doesn't post improper or inacurate content? It is a vast knowledge database, so I was just curious about that.

~fewjr~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewjr (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a group of editors who help with the Counter-Vandalism Unit to patrol the new pages log and recent changes to help stop the spread of vandalism on the site. Also, any information added must be reliably referenced, to ensure that it is in fact correct. Any unreferenced, controversial information can be removed at any time by any editor. It's a huge system of checks and balances, but the correct information generally comes out on top. You might also be interested in looking at the essays on Why Wikipedia is so great and its counterpart, Why Wikipedia is not so great. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) A number of people regularly monitor the Recent Changes and they revert any vandalism. - Rjd0060 17:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We even have robot programs running there that are programmed to revert vandalism and warn administrators. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another page you might be interested to read, if you haven't already, is Replies to common objections -- DatRoot 17:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, despite the never-ending battle against vandalism, enough goes undetected long enough to be noticeable by average readers. If you read much on Wikipedia, especially articles that don't get a lot of attention, you are bound to run across some vandalism sooner or later, but probably not as much as you would initially assume for a site that lets anybody edit almost anything. One study found that 97% of vandalism comes from unregistered users. This fuels a perennial debate about whether to require accounts for all editing (currently, accounts are necessary for creating new articles, and for editing semi-protected articles - over the years, Wikipedia has gradually reduced the editing privileges of unregistered users). You may be interested in my take on this issue at: User:Teratornis/Should editors be logged-in users? While I don't necessarily disagree with the current policy (after all, Wikipedia clearly works), I'm not impressed by some of the arguments advanced to justify it, which suffer from some logical fallacies and a weak evidentiary basis. --Teratornis 22:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

business environment

achievements of economic planning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.242.165 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please post your question at the reference desk and make use of full sentences so we can understand what you want. Remember, the help and reference desks are not search engines. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

davidlettermanwhydoeshewearwhitesocks?

whydoes he wear <website name removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.5.140 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. - Rjd0060 00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]