Help desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 22

interlanguage links problem

Help_talk:Wiki_markup#Link to the same article in another language (interlanguage links)

contrary to the example, the language code displays on the link as follows (and also see source)

aa nl:Morgen gebeurt het bb

Hpvpp (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I am not clear exactly what you are asking, but I can tell you that if you place a colon before the language code (as you did here), the link will simply display, rather than placing an interlanguage link in the list of languages. The same is true of categories and images—prefixing a colon allows you to display them as a link. So if you go to a page and add [[:nl:Morgen gebeurt het]] you will display a link, but of you add [[nl:Morgen gebeurt het]] (no colon) it will link the page to the Dutch article. Does that help?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Omit the colon in front of the page name. See more at Help:Interlanguage links. Where did you see an example with a colon in front? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the example is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup#Link_to_the_same_article_in_another_language_.28interlanguage_links.29

but this what actually happens

[[:nl:Morgen gebeurt het]] → nl:Morgen gebeurt het

[[nl:Morgen gebeurt het]] → (this is the correct way and would have added the link to the languages box of this help desk page)

[[:Morgen gebeurt het]] → Morgen gebeurt het

[[Morgen gebeurt het]] → Morgen gebeurt het

my point is that the top line should not display ":nl:" in front of the link as per the doco

Hpvpp (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't get it from your

Help_talk:Wiki_markup#Link to the same article in another language (interlanguage links)

because Help_talk:Wiki_markup has no such section or mention of the problem which was at Help:Wiki_markup#Link to the same article in another language (interlanguage links). I have fixed it.[1] That documentation error was copied from another page where it was introduced in July 2009 by a new editor.[2] I removed the correct interlanguage link from your above examples in order to avoid making a real interlanguage link in the languages box of this help desk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah! Now I get it. Which goes to show that documentation is only as good as the degree of understanding of the user. I have added a note to prevent misunderstanding of the kind that I suffered from.

Hpvpp (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I publish an article without being deleted?

Ok I've tried to publish an article repeatedly and it keeps getting pushed back to my user space with explanatinos that amount to gobbledy gook. How am I supposed to understand what the issue is? Any codes, etc., don't tell me anything. One guy told me how to "move it" to be live and I followed his direction only to have some other guy shove it right back. This is ridiculous.

Any intelligible help that results in this thing going live for good would be greatly appreciated.

Firegemini (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Firegemini[reply]

You are referring to User:Firegemini/Randy Ellefson, I presume? You might want to read "Reliable sources" and "Independent sources". Sources of information need to be found which show that he meets the Wikipedia Notability Criteria, the Notability criteria for biographies and the Notability criteria for musicians. Without these, he would not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Serrano-Gil

This is Manuel Serrano-Gil. I did write a self-biography article in wikipedia. I want to verify my identity and which kind of reference to include to avoid deletion. Could you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mserrano34 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dr. Manuel Serrano Gil has been proposed for deletion as a biography with no references. It is recommended that you do not edit an article about yourself, as you have a clear conflict of interest - it is hard to write using a neutral point of view about yourself! With regard to the references required, you might want to read "Reliable sources" and "Independent sources". The editor who tagged the page for deletion was unable to find sources of information which showed that you meet the Wikipedia Notability Criteria or the Notability criteria for biographies or the Notability criteria for academics. Without these, the information cannot be verified, and the article is likely to be deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Researcher Right

Would it be possible for me to be granted the Researcher Right as I need to do some research like User:DarTar. Paul 2387 10:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The researcher group is an WMF-approved group. The research which DarTar is doing requires being able to view deleted revision metadata for research. If you need to do research for the Foundation, they will add you to the group - otherwise you are not able to become a member. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DarTar is the only researcher here.[3] I didn't even know about this user right and I'm an administrator. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, note that the group name is singlular (researcher) as opposed to all the other groups (rollbackers, account creators, admins, bureaucrats, etc). I didn't know about this right either, but as it can't be given by admins (or, I'm guessing, 'crats) I wouldn't expect to, especially as the group name seems to imply that DarTar will always be the only one! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I need to go to find out more about the WMF-approved Researcher group. As I would like to find out more on what the role requires. Paul 2387 10:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work for the WMF? Have the Foundation asked you to do research for them? If not, you won't be made a member of the group. If you do/have, then the WMF will make you a member of the group. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you meant this to sound this way, but this reads like only those doing research on behalf of the Foundation are allowed to do research. I would be surprised if that is the rule. I can imagine that one is required to get permission to do research (in a way that requires rights beyond those of regular users), but I can imagine that legitimate requests might be honored.--SPhilbrick T 11:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer - thanks, Sphilbrick! Anyone of course can do research, but since the "researcher" group was only created a few days ago, and specifically for this one editor, I am assuming that it isn't a group to which outside researchers would be added at their own request. My understanding from what I can see of the creation of this group is that it is intended specifically for researchers who are doing research directly for the Foundation, upon the Foundation's request. I might be wrong, of course! However, there have been lots of researchers on Wikipedia in the past, and there hasn't been a "researcher" group before - and as the summary for the group change says "Needs to view deleted revision metadata for research; approved by WMF staff" - which seems to further suggest that the "researcher" group is by direct approval! Also, DarTar has mentioned on several users' talk pages "As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group and Wikipedia:Research for further information. -- œ ^™ 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TATA DAEWOO F4CEF model truck

Dear

I need to need that 'Tata Daewoo NOVUS F4CEF' truck is 4X2 or 4X4 .

Regds

M MAHBUB ALAM PHQ BANGPLADESH <phone number redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amahbub3 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find what you are looking for in the article about Tata Novus. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it means but http://www.daewoo.ru/filez/truck/DAEWOO_HEAVY_DUTY_TRUCKS.pdf says 4×2. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I reverted this edit because it appeared to add nonsense characters to the article, however, when I looked more closely at the edit, I saw that, in addition to nonsense, it also added some readable text to the article. What should one do in this situation. Immunize (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all nonsense characters, sure, but the readable text was hardly useful to the article (diff) - I think you did just right in reverting. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking how you should warn the user who did it, I think a simple uw-vandalism tag at an appropriate level would be fine. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already know how to warn users-I use twinkle. Immunize (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confused why the linked edit only contained nonsense but your rollback removed readable text then it is because rollback reverts all consecutive edits by that editor and the IP made 3 edits. I agree they should all be reverted. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XAku

Inormation Technology

i want to konw the security, graphical user interface and reliability of MySql. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.240.98 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2010 (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. TN X Man 13:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also read the MySQL and phpMyAdmin articles. The MediaWiki software that powers Wikipedia uses a database running in MySQL, so it's reliable enough for a top-five Web site. --Teratornis (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia icon interfering with articles

The Wikipedia icon in the top left corner of the screen has migrated to the right so that it interferes with the first few words of the entry. I've tolerated this for awhile but I'm wondering what is going on and if this problem will be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.61.147 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This can apparently happen in Internet Explorer 8. If you use that then see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 April 14#Misplaced Wikipedia Logo. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding contibs to signature.

I dont know if I am just really blind, but I cant figure out how to put my contributions in my signature...I have read (i think) everything on signatures. Help would be great at this point. Homework2 talkpage 15:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add a piped link to Special:Contributions/Hereforhomework2 in the Signature field at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Hows this look? Homework2 ^{pass a note}contribs 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a winner to me. TN X Man 15:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiring problem

I needed electric put in for a fan and had a person come in to run the electric for it. PROBLEM started when he noticed that 8 wires was going throught the 1/2 conduit, but he still tried to run 2 more wires through, but they got stuck and we had to repull wires down and back through the conduit.We spent 12 hours with just getting 1 wire through the (black), and found out that we could not use groung wires because they were used for the GFCI, and the bracker kept on popping when ever he connnected the groung so he had to reattach all the wiring to the correct wires he had cut so that each room would work properly.(4) BEDROOMS I still did not have the wiring for the fan, or the conduit. I put in the box and th conduit for the fan, but I still have to get the ground from the bathroom which does not have a GFCI connected in the box in the basement, I hope this will work?? But now that person who was here wants to charge $4oo SHOULD I say Yes and pay HIM or Not — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.246.106 (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Science 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 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent fact check for article

Can anyone fact check the last three seconds of WDRL-TV#History? I can't personally find anything to cite, so I think it should be taken out. The article subject themselves has tried to remove the unverified content, but their edits have always been reverted. Those reverting the removal of content never try to verify the facts. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New page

I have created a new page (article) in Wikipedia. My user name is Mopuru and it displays as User:Mopuru on the top of the page. I do not want to display USER:. I want my page to read something like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mopuru instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mopuru

How do I do that?

Unless you are notable (WP:NOTABLE), and thus you get an actual encyclopedia article, your userpage is just that, a userpage. The "user:" part makes sure readers know you contribute to Wikipedia, but you are not an encyclopedia article yourself. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the article about the Mopuru Temple to be accepted for inclusion, there needs to be an indication that it meets the Notability Criteria and the notability criteria for organisations. This means having reliable and independent sources of information. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with socking case

I have started an SPI discussion for Unendingfear, a new user who I am almost positive is a sockpuppet of Vandalismterminator. However, when I go to the discussion page on SPI, it says that Vandalismterminator has made no contributions. Why is that occuring? Immunize (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; you had used a "User:" prefix in the checkuser template, which made the links point to User:User:Vandalismterminator. I've deleted the edits you made at that non-existent user's talk and user pages, and you'll have to alert User:Vandalismterminator at the correct address this time! Bencherlite ^Talk 18:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Air Station Memphis

Resolved

– Mysdaao ^talk 19:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When one looks for information on Naval Air Station Memphis, the link currently re-directs people to the article on the Millington Jetport. This link should really be pointing to the article on Naval Support Activity Mid-South (after the re-alignment effort, the Millington Jetport did acquire properties previously belonging to NAS Memphis, including the old runways, but the base continued on in the form of NSA Mid-South). How does one change the redirect to point to the correct location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolefan32 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this question, you changed the redirect yourself, so I assume you no longer need help with this. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone GSM 900 &1800 MHz

Dear Sirs,

I own a two band Mobile with GSM 900 & 1800. It is good for European countries & India. How will it work for USA? I need to send only SMS to India a condition to keep it's prepaid "Idea Network" in India active.Please help. Thanks.

Sincerly,

Kulkarni45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulkarni45 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Computing reference desk. They specialize in answering computer questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Xenon54 / talk / 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am (opinion) a fairly longtime wikipedian

but have not done too much "behind the curtain" stuff and recently ran into a couple of articles that were labeled ( I paraphrase) as needing to be reviewed. Because they fell within my strike zone (American baseball reference) I decided to do that but am not sure how or where to mark it as "Reviewed" and did not want to remove the "Needs to be Reviewed" tag before following the proper process. Anyone wan to help me out? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of "Needs to be reviewed" tag was it? Or, if you prefer, what articles? In general, you're free to remove any your see fit. (If it's the "New, unreviewed article" tag, then sure, go right ahead.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in the hypothetical by necessity, the tasks I'd typically think of doing before removing such a generic review tag are: Seeing that the article has a few appropriate categories, a DEFAULTSORT if needed, a stub tag if applicable, where applicable either marking for cleanup or doing the cleanup, such as tagging for lack of or placing references, wikifying, identifying whether it's written like an advertisement, whether it's a copyvio, special tagging for unreferenced BLPS and so on. It's also good to be aware of deletion issues (should I propose this for deletion? how do I propose this for deletion?) The ins and outs of these tasks takes some experience, much of it gained by writing articles yourself, and patrolling newpages. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. The articles that I ran into, Escanjaque Indians, Jusepe Gutierrez, Antonio Gutierrez de Umana and Francisco Leyba de Bonilla and another one are all more or less related. I plan on keeping your suggestions on my desktop for a while and applying them to these, and probably other articles. Carptrash (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to keep handy:

Wikipedia:Layout - the basic layout all Wikipedia articles should have. Many articles written by inexperienced editors violate something in the layout guidelines. Probably because many inexperienced editors have not read this manual page yet.
Wikipedia:Featured articles - one of the best ways to recognize what is wrong with weak articles is to study our best articles. Featured articles embed a remarkable amount of Wikipedia editing know-how. Get used to seeing what the goal looks like. Then you will know what the weak articles need.
WP:RS, WP:V, WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, and WP:CITET - Wikipedia is really just a large aggregation and superior organization of content already published in reliable sources. This might be the most important thing for new contributors to learn - it is something almost no new contributor starts off knowing. When you see an article that has problems, one of the problems will usually be insufficient sources.
Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia - the answer to almost every question about editing on Wikipedia is in there.

--Teratornis (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reading list. I'll forget reviewing other editors' articles for a bit and see how mine measure up. Carptrash (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copy write tag for own work

The work I have added is my own - how do I add a copy write tag to advise that —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaukapakapaLendrum (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of uploading an unpublished "book" to Wikipedia? If it isn't going to be used for an article, it will likely be deleted rather quickly. There will be no need to mark it as being copyrighted. -- kainaw ™ 02:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try WikiBooks. -- œ ^™ 04:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced article

I am told that wiki no longer accepts unsourced articles about ppl and i would like to report an unsourced article about a person at here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Gibilisco btw when will the new version of wiki be implemented? THX ~John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.136.92 (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. We never "accepted" unsourced articles, but you're right that there is a new process that is targeted at proposed deletion of articles on living persons on the basis of being unsourced. You can read about the process at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. There are many thousands of articles in this boat so identifying just one here may not be the best use of your time. I'm not sure what you mean about the new version, but I'm guessing maybe you are asking when the vector skin will be implemented. Sorry, I'm not sure. By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]