Help desk
< November 20	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 22 >

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 21

WP:CSD

When an article is up for speedy delete, isn't it supposed to be in a category for such articles? I'm thinking specifically of Ridge Landing Airpark. Dismas|^(talk) 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. This is a hidden category - I think you can make it visible from your preferences (linked at the top of any page you visit while logged in). DuncanHill (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make hidden categories visible, go to "my preferences", click on "misc" and check the relevant box. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Pages

Resolved

– ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just installed Twinkle and Friendly (as gadgets), and I was wondering if there was a list of newly created accounts, so that I could welcome them with Friendly. Thanks for the help I'm sure will be forthcoming! Genius101 Wizard 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius101 Wizard (talk • contribs)

Never mind, I found it myself! Thanks anyway! Genius 101^Guestbook 01:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am ashamed that I even have to ask this question.

(Yes, I iz admin. Yes, I haz Teh Stoopid.) I see users adding these links (example--[1]) , and they seem to be of limited to no utility--they don't seem to create what they look as though they OUGHT to create, which is a category of episodes and a reference to a subcategory for a particular show. What, exactly, is this supposed to do? Is there a reason for it? Does it work? Should I be reverting them? Thanks... GJC 01:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be reverting these. They look like they MAY be in good faith, but it looks clear (and I found maybe 2 dozen of these. See: [2]) that someone needs to be stopped from doing this. Drop a note at the talk page of the IP doing this and tell them that they are actually doing this the wrong way, and that they are creating more work for others. If they don't stop, warn a second time, and be stern (the 2nd warning should include the word "block" in bold type). If they don't stop then block with a short block to get their attention. But yeah, these are all going to have to be undone. To be fair, they should not be "rollbacked" (for the life of me, I don't know why, but it is against policy to rollback edits that aren't vandalism... seems like silly bureaucrating bs, but whatever), but reverted using the undo link. Good luck with that! If you need help, drop me a note on my talk page, and I will try to help out... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflicted answer. Jayron answered the "revert or not question", but here's what I wrote. Now I'm wondering if I misread your question but I went to all the trouble to write it, so here's what I said.

You may haz Teh Stoopid, but I haz teh chutzpah, because instead of waiting for someone smart to answer, I'm going to try to answer in an area I'm barely competent: Categories. So, grain of salt and all that.

The example you give was the text:

[[Category:lists of animated television series episodes|angelica ballerina episodes lists of]] added to Angelina Ballerina.

It added the page Angelina Ballerina to the category Category:lists of animated television series episodes. The "angelica ballerina episodes lists of" part doesn't add a subcategory, it shows where in the list of pages in the category this article should appear. Since that second part starts with a lower case "a", go to the second page of the category, and there's Angelina Ballerina, listed under the "a". Since the article is not, in fact, a list of animated television series episodes, it should be reverted, and you can impress the IP you revert with your newfound knowledge on their talk page.

So, let's see if I'm right.... --barneca (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of Article wishes the page to be removed

Hi

I work on behalf of a Subject of one of your articles, he wishes his age to be deleted how can this be done quickly, as the page being online is causing him problems.

Thanks Editorgeneral999 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTRS#Contacting_OTRS should help. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, if this person's age is verifiable by reliable sources, should we be censoring it from WP just because the subject wants it removed? – ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to cite what article it is...(It is also useful to verify you are actually working on behalf on that person.--Archeopteryx (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

How do I add upload an image when editing an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir-Restriction (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends. If you would like to upload an image, your account must autoconfirmed (active for four days with a minimum of ten edits). After your account is autoconfirmed, follow the instructions at WP:UPLOAD. You can also create a table – see WP:TABLE. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 03:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where to report a copyright violation

Where can you report copyright violations of sites using Wikipedia content? I want to report the following website... somewhere... (I can't link to it directly because of the "awesome" Wikipedia spam filter...) htt p://www.gov-certificates.co.uk/birth/certificate/Massachusetts_Agricultural_College ... Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is a place to report such things (with all of the mirror sites out there, who knows . . .), but there are some relevant tips at WP:REUSE and WP:Verbatim copying (if it is indeed a blatant copy/paste). Cheers! TN‑X-Man 03:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the site in question, but you can report it here by following the directions at WP:MF and/or send the site's owner one of the messages available at Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. Deor (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you got all the facts straight. Sometimes the article creator copied from the site, rather than the other way around. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out the website http : //www.gov-certificates.co.uk/birth/certificate/Massachusetts_Agricultural_College, and it does appear to have copied our content on University of Massachusetts Amherst. The site has a location with contact-info at http : //shop.gov-certificates.co.uk/contact-us/, has anyone contacted them yet? If not, I will try to send a letter asking them to please attribute Wikipedia. I know that the GFDL 1.2 has a section on "VERBATIM COPYING" which requires a license to be included, has this clause been recently amended in the new GDFL (1.3) ? -- GateKeeper^(X) @ 10:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks; this site is already listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

How do I change it, because it won't save when I put it in the signature section in the my preferences all it says is "invalid html tags". P.S. I want it too look like this Iamawesome800--Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did you put in the box when you got that error? - Mgm|^(talk) 05:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is those unclosed <span>s. Algebraist 09:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's middle-age creeping up on me, but that red on blue is very hard on the eyes. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was barely legible on my LCD screen at home, but is awful on the calibrated CRT at work.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines recommend a contrast ratio of at least 5:1 for text — this signature should be checked with the Contrast ratio calculator. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a cool tool! – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got this from the footnotes at Wikipedia:Signatures. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then what do I type to change the red to a better color like white?--Iamawesome800 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your original example, change "red" to "white". --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iamawesome800 Here's what it would look like.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly easier on the eye. – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Try this:

Iamawesome800

— neuro^(talk) 09:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Iamawesome800 14:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account creations

Is there a way to view accounts by when they were created? Grsz ¹¹ ^→Review! 05:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's Special:Log/newusers. --Fullobeans (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The going on template?

How schould i write in a article when its an event thats is Right Now going on~? I know w have a {{Going on}} tooo that. The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{current}} automatically adds the article to Category:Current events. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that a Wikipedia article on a current event still needs to establish notability and cite reliable secondary sources, just like any other Wikipedia article. Wikinews may be a more appropriate place for a current event article. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle/Friendly and Watchlist

As per my above question, I recently installed Twinkle and Friendly (as gadgets). Now, whenever I do something with them, the page is added to my watchlist. Is there some way around this? It's getting annoying... Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 13:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Configuration for instructions on how to configure Twinkle according to your preferences. Not sure about Friendly though. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To customize them, you have to add them through your monobook.js file. You can't customize them if you've added them as gadgets, they'll run with the default configuration. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 13:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkling for deletion

I use Twinkle in order to nominate pages for deletion. However, several of the discussions I have started have had comments such as this added. Does anyone know what I might be doing wrong? the skomorokh 14:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of times, Twinkle goofs AfD's. I suspect it may be due to edit conflicts when posting AfD info. What I do is check every part of the AfD to ensure it posted correctly - the article, today's AfD log, and the author's talk page. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the quick response, the skomorokh 14:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I ran into the same thing, causing no end of frustration. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look to me like it was you who nominated the article. The missing step was [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not nominate that particular article, but have had the same comment from DumbBOT in discussions I have initiated. Thanks for your interest, the skomorokh 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for making an extraordinary claim as part of a Wikipedia entry.

Hi, I have made a change to an entry which has been removed. It was felt that my claim was not credible. I am in the process of documenting that claim and would like to add it but it is likely to be viewed as an extraordinary claim.

Is there a procedure for making an extraordinary claim or is there an administrator or volunteer that can assist me with this procedure? Thanks Jbottoms76 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do in this situation is to open a discussion on the article's talk page. You will need to provide reliable sources for your "claim", and the obverse side of that is that it must not be original research. – ukexpat (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the links under WP:EIW#Contro, especially Wikipedia:Controversial articles. Note the difference between stating a claim as a fact, versus claiming that some notable person or group holds an opinion. Example:

The Earth is flat. (An extraordinary claim.)
Some members of the Flat Earth Society assert that the Earth is flat. (A verifiable assertion about what some people claim to believe.)

The first type of assertion doesn't fly on Wikipedia, because it can never achieve consensus. The second type of assertion is common all over Wikipedia, for example in most articles about religion, politics, and other areas with ongoing irresolvable differences of opinion. Even people who disagree strongly on a topic can usually agree that a description of what the opposing sides believe is a fair description of what they believe. This distinction is, by the way, fundamental to the success of Wikipedia, because it allows people with wildly differing opinions to work constructively together. This is a big part of why Wikipedia is so much larger and more popular than point-of-view-specific wikis such as Conservapedia. Once a wiki takes a side, it loses the constructive input from everyone who disagrees with that side, so it has a smaller user community, and thus there won't be as much creative reuse and extension of all the internal project stuff that makes Wikipedia so powerful. --Teratornis (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On rereading my reply, I should point out that this statement violates WP:WEASEL, because of the vague quantifier "some":

Some members of the Flat Earth Society assert that the Earth is flat. (A verifiable assertion about what some people claim to believe.)

It would be better to make the claim more specific, such as by naming some actual people of note who believe the Earth is flat, or to quantify the fraction of members of the Flat Earth Society who claim to be serious. So don't take my example as a precise guide. I'm merely illustrating the principle that if you want to say something controversial on Wikipedia, you have to say it in a way that makes it acceptable to people who disagree with it. Most people who disagree with something can accept the fact that there are some people they disagree with. --Teratornis (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While belaboring the point, I might as well give it one more kick, and say that if you don't merely want to assert that somebody believes something, but you want to shape Wikipedia's claim about what is truth, then you might need an alternative outlet to get your POV on. Wikipedia is sort of a demilitarized zone when it comes to theological disputes, but just because we can grit our teeth and write neutrally doesn't mean we stop having opinions. In addition to your Wikipedia editing, you may need another wiki where you can just write what you believe, get it out of your system, and then come back to Wikipedia for another strenuous bout of neutrality. You know you need your POV fix when you find yourself saying, "Oh come on, this is complete bollocks" as you read a Wikipedia article. Unless, of course, the article really is complete bollocks. --Teratornis (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are on the subject of complete bollocks, see complete bollocks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for refining my link. --Teratornis (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are John Bottoms and want to add a claim that you made the first browser [4] or something else involving yourself then see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a page undeleted

It seems that the WP:NOT has changed regarding catalogue. It now says not a sales catalogue. So can Nokia 1200 be un-deleted are re-established as it does not break any WP guidelines now, as far as I am aware. Snowman (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT has changed? Please provide a diff to show what you mean. In any event, Nokia 1200 is a redirect, it has not been deleted so probably the best thing to do is open a discussion on Talk:List of Nokia products about removing the redirect and having Nokia 1200 as a standalone article again. – ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there was an issue about this. The article was listed for at Articles for Deletion and the consensus was a redirect, which was confirmed at Deletion Review. TN‑X-Man 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citation appearing as string of characters

See the article on Plymouth. If you read down the infobox to the bit on Ethnicity, I have inserted an inline citation after the word "White", but there are numbers and letters, which I can't seem to match to the ref's URL, appearing instead. Tis the season to be jolly (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems to be wrong with the big hairy URL in that entry as it passes through the {{Cite web}} template and then through the {{Infobox Settlement}}. The {{Cite web}} works OK when it appears on its own (not inside an infobox):

"Ethnic Group". Office for National Statistics. 2004-10-09. Retrieved 2008-08-30.

I can think of two possible workarounds to try, no guarantees that either will work:

Use a named ref tag, and define the ref tag outside the infobox, to put the hairy URL in that way. (No idea whether this will make a difference, but at least the MediaWiki parser won't see the giant URL actually inside the infobox code.) See WP:FOOT. (Edit: specifically, see: WP:REFNAME.)
See Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. Maybe you can archive the page and generate a simpler URL to use in the {{Cite web}}, one without all those scary punctuation characters.

--Teratornis (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative to The Wayback Machine is WebCite - WebCite, worth a look if interested. – ukexpat (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It worked in the infobox fine, but it was when I moved it inside the collapsabe table the the problem occured. I think it would be much easier to put after "Ethnicity (2001)". Thanks! Tis the season to be jolly (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no page for a common search item

BURN INJURIES! this page needs to be created and i have no information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.76.94 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Burn exists at Burn injury, which may be what you're looking for. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 21:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've gone ahead and created a similar redirect at Burn injuries. Redirects are cheep. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheep? Or Cheep? TN‑X-Man 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly Cheep? – ukexpat (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slur on Canadians

Resolved

– ukexpat (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the page on vandalism and there are some criteria that I have no idea if I meet. I just noticed that on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Canada.28fags.29 it says "Canada(fags)" and thought you might want to remove that.

I'm not a Canadian, but I know some, and though they might not consider "fags" to be a slur, and they may have solidarity with fags for human rights, they are not universally fags, and so it's inaccurate.

Reverted and IP warned. – ukexpat (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing vandalism

I'm trying to fix vandalism on the article La Argentina; it wouldn't let me undo it so I had to fix it by hand. One problem: the article is available in Japanese, a link that got wiped out by the vandalism, but I don't have access to the characters I need to restore that link. I thought they'd be accessible from the edit page, but they're not.SPNic (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - I just copied it from the earlier diff and pasted it back. The article needs work though, particularly in-text references. – ukexpat (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making tables

I'm working on writing articles for all the Swedish general elections we don't yet have articles for, and I'm having trouble making tables for the election results. Right now I'm looking at Swedish general election, 1911. I've tried to make a table, I've saved the changes, but the table doesn't appear even though my changes are right there when I click on edit this page. Why won't my tables show up? — VikingViolinist | Talk 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't close your <ref> with a </ref>. —Noah 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

psh. typical. thanks. — VikingViolinist | Talk 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]