Help desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 21

Please help with filling in file info

Hello,

I'm hoping someone can help me. I uploaded a photo to a page a few days ago, and when I did I was having some trouble doing so. Initially there was a request for different kinds of copyright information, but after trying upload that request disappeared. So that information was never filled out.

Now I'm having a horrible time trying to get the information attached to the photo file so that the photo isn't deleted. An editor told me to go to the copyright tags page to select the right category. I went to that page, but there didn't seem to be anyplace to "select" the category (no check boxes or anything like that), just information on what each tags means.

Can someone please tell me how to amend the file info so that the photo is not deleted. Should I just delete it myself and try again? Do you think a fresh start will give me access to the methods of selecting the right tag?

I'm so confused ... I keep trying to respond to the editors' requests, but I honestly don't see how it gets done. And I know Wikipedia has millions of photos on it, so obviously everyone else is figuring it out.

Please help!

Thank you, Tundra14 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can just go to the edit tab on the file page and fill in the missing information in the template and add the appropriate tag from WP:TAGS. I've never been through this myself, but it seems like that's the right direction. RudolfRed (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no evidence that the copyright owner has released their copyright in a way that is acceptable to Wikipedia. Please ask the copyright owner to follow the process set out at WP:CONSENT to communicate appropriate permission. – ukexpat (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing stack in User:Tompw/bookshelf, Wikipedia:Size in volumes etc.

The display of "how big is Wiki in terms of printed books", which is included in several places (notably Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia), appears to have a problem in the way it calculates the size of the display. For example, the current display computes the size as equivalent to 1634 volumes, but then displays that as approximately 7 1/6 full stacks (shelves of books), rather than the correct (approximately) 8 1/6th stacks. It appears to be a relatively simple miscalculation (rounding the result to nearest rather than rounding up, see description below).

The problem is that this is hosted at User:Tompw/bookshelf. I have left a message regarding this at User_talk:Tompw#Missing stack in User:Tompw/bookshelf, Wikipedia:Size in volumes etc. (reproduced below).

Unfortunately Tompw appears to be inactive. They've made one edit since last July (in October), and they've not responded to my message in several days.

So I have two questions.

First, as a matter of etiquette, should I go ahead and fix the code under User:Tompw/bookshelf?

Second, given the general use of these pages/images, should this be moved out of user space, and perhaps set up as a template?

(the following was posted to User_talk:Tompw on Feb 16):

-- Missing stack in User:Tompw/bookshelf, Wikipedia:Size in volumes etc. --
I believe the number of stacks in the various "how big is Wiki in printed books" graphics is missing a stack.
It's currently 1634 volumes, which should be eight full stacks, plus a partial ninth stack.  It's displaying
seven full stacks plus a partial eighth.  I believe the problem is with the calculation in
User:Tompw/bookshelf/stacks.  It's currently:
 {{ #expr:  {{User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes}}/200 round 0}}
It should probably be something like
{{ #expr:  ceil({{User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes}}/200)}}
(I think I did the conversion of braces correctly, but if the above has ended up with a missing or extra brace,
I apologize in advance.)
The round function is not what you'd really want.  Round would convert 300-499 books (1.500 to 2.495 stacks) to
2, and 500-699 books (2.500 to 3.495 stacks) to 3.  Ceil will get the next highest integer.  Thus 1.005 through
2.000 (201-400 books) would get 2, but 2.005 through 3.000 (401-600 books) would get 3.
Likewise, the calculation in User:Tompw/bookshelf/volumes, should probably be changed from:
 {{#expr:({{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}/(500*2*2*80*50/(6*562)) round 0) + 1}}
 {{#expr:ceil({{NUMBEROFARTICLES:R}}/(500*2*2*80*50/(6*562)))}}
Although that's only going to be off a book at worst.
I haven't quite traced through how the partial stack gets drawn, so I'm not sure if there's an impact there or not.
Rwessel (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rwessel (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Tompw is inactive, I would not act until there was consensus within a relevant WikiProject to make the change. I suggest you try to discuss it there first. - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard references

I have some books I'd like to use to improve botany. From looking at the link I was given on my talk page, I think harvard refs would be good as they don't repeat every bit of info each time you reference a page(s). From reading Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Harvard_reference_and_shortened_footnote_examples I can't quite see how this works on wikipedia, though I've seen similar things used in papers and journals. Can someone show me an article that uses harvard references so I can see how it actually works on wikipedia? Thank you. 512bits (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Irish phonology.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but that's not what I'm looking for. Those have the refs appearing so that they're part of of the body. I'm looking for numbers in the body that link to a ref section and there it lists "Smith, 1991, pp. 6-10", and the full info for Smith appears below the footnote section, something along that line. Anyone?512bits (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the references in Wolstenholme prime are more like what you are looking for? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Shortened footnotes; check the examples section. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AHA! The harvnb ones in Wolstenholme prime are what I'm looking for. The shortened footnotes look like another way to accomplish what harvnb accomplishes. Thanks Toshio and Gadget850! 512bits (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolstenholme prime uses a mix of Footnotes and Shortened footnotes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia allows any consistent citation style, and the established style should be maintained unless consensus for a change is reached on the talk page. Botany seems to use a mix of full citations in footnotes, and full citations in a bibliography. Changing to shortened citations for the footnotes, and placing full citations for all sources in the bibliography, seems like a reasonable change which you could suggest on the talk page. Instead of using "cite whatever" in between the <ref> and </ref> tags, you would use the short footnote template: {{sfn}}. You would also add to each entry in the bibliography the parameter "ref=harv" to allow linkage between the short and full citations. See Coordinated Universal Time as an example. By the way, sources that lack an author or date will require special tricks. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two manual methods and nine templates that can be used to create Shortened footnotes. And the tricks are documented. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Botany is heavy on book refs, I love these suggestions. I really like how it was done in Coordinated Universal Time and will go with that. Have mentioned this on the talk page too. Thank you again. 512bits (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My New Submission Keeps Getting Rejected

My New Submission Keeps Getting Rejected on the grounds that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable, independent sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified, and reliable independent sources are needed to establish the notability of the subject."

Exactly what is the magic number of "reliable, independent sources" it takes to have an article accepted?

I understand the need for reliable sources, but this is a totally arbitrary block on my article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Grafstrom (talk • contribs) 04:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context plays a part; if long enough with enough detail, a single obituary in The New York Times 100 years ago might suffice, the presumption being that other sources of such a notable figure likely exist, even if offline in public records; for most material, 2 in-depth sources independent of the subject that are not parroting each other are normally required. Dru of Id (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)AFC isn't really my area but in general, other language's Wikipedias (or even the same language) aren't considered reliable sources. It's kind of like saying "This is true because we say it's true". Dismas|^(talk) 04:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I see two print books, which should be initially sufficient. The material from ja.wikipedia would need to be directly sourced to references, which are hopefully in the article; if not, scale the material back to the sources available. Dru of Id (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have consolidated one of your references for you; for further help, see Help:Footnotes#Multiple references to the same footnote. Dru of Id (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The members of WP:WikiProject Dance and WP:WikiProject Japan would probably be able to help you. Roger (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the length of the article in question too. For a short article one source could be sufficient if the reliability of said source has already been established before. If it is a massive article with about 5 pages of text, you're most likely going to need several sources. How many? As many as you need to back up your contestable claims. - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kōwakamai ‎you reference Japanese Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. You might, however, find references to reliable sources in a Wikipedia article. —teb728 t c 01:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine fails

The search engine is unstable. When I use the search engine to find articles that references someone, it will in in most cases tell me that there were 'no result matching your query'.Even though I know that there are 100's of pages that would match. Once in a while it will work. This has been a problem for the last few days. I have tried this on several computers and different browsers, so it must be a problem with the search engine.

I just tried and didn't have any issues. What did you try to search for and where did you try to access the search engine? - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a problem with multi-word searches. This search should have found Liu Weishan but returned no results. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me but another user has reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia search (2012-02-21). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I copy a name and paste it in the search box, it will usually come up with nothing. This has suddenly started to be a problem a few days ago.

Multiword searches work fine for me. Perhaps it's a browser specific issue? Wish I could say the same about my work email... - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried both multiword and single word searches. And used both Interne Explorer and Firefox. Same thing happens. It seemed to work yesterday, but today I can't get any results for my searches. It's very wierd that it behaves so unstable.

Font size changed?

I was browsing the wikipedia pages and suddenly the font size changed. Now the letters are very small. I have a big computer screen so now when I read an article here I have to hold my face way too close to the monitor. And it is tiring to read letters this small. My question is, is this an edit on your part? If not I know that it might be a browser update or something along those lines. Other sites don't seem to be affected though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiegfriedStaufen (talk • contribs) 09:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you have pressed CTRL and scrolled down the mouse below. Press CTRL agin and then move the mouse scroller upwards and you've fixed it! Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 09:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I feel stupid now. I didn't know about this functionality yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiegfriedStaufen (talk • contribs) 09:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. A lot of users have come here with the same problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Help please. I have lost/it has disappear a very important email (My email has been messed up for some time off and on). To: Jefff my boss, Saturday, feb 11, 2012, from Stephanie Anne76.254.42.86 (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf and hard of hearing

I am deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in the other, but on videos Wiki makes it impossible for me to know what is being said. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.36.108 (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your computer has an adequate sound system for you to hear videos on other websites and it is only videos on Wikipedia that you can't understand; maybe WikiProject Accessibility can help you. Post your request on WT:WikiProject Accessibility but include as much specific detail as possible - much more than your post above. Roger (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, include a link to a video and say whether the sound is too low or poor or you cannot tell whether it has sound at all. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the user doesn't have the right software to play back the audio on Wikipedia videos. See Wikipedia:Media help (Ogg) and Commons:Media help for some information. If you are still having problems please specify the operating system you are using, which browser you are using and the version of the browser (from Help|About), and give as much detail as possible about the specific problems. Also if you are using Windows Media Player or another piece of software to watch the video, give details on that as well. Getting an up-to-date browser, as described on Commons:Media help, may be the simplest solution. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be that the user just can't understand the videos and is asking for something like closed captioning/subtitles or a louder video. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Channel 4 documentary controversy

Please refer to your profile on the ccfon and andrea minichiello williams. Under the heading '2008 channel 4 documentary controversy', you have made several false statements and perversions of actual facts by falsely claiming the following - that the journalist David Modell regarded andrea or even referred to her as an enigmatic character and born leader (your actual words were "a colourful and powerful campaigner for the implementation of radical Christian views."). He never claimed this. In fact as the documentary progressed, he quickly realised that andrea was a racist bigot and hate preacher. He subsequently challenged her on her racist/criminal predilictions (to which she had no defense). I am sure David Modell will be interested in this issue once I have contacted him. I believe this will give him grounds to sue wikipedia for libel.

You also falsely claimed that andrea referred to abortion law as 'the work of the devil'. This is again a complete pack of lies. In the documentary 'in god's name', andrea made no such comment with regards to abortion. In fact, andrea categorically stated her criminal hate preaching predilictions by saying (on camera!) that Islam 'is a false religion and the work of the devil'. This is further substantiated by her many racist/hate preaching blogs (which I have painstakingly documented). It is upon her comment, that David Modell was disgusted by her unlawful conduct and challenged her.

Furthermore, wikipedia editors have willfully neglected to disclose the actual name of the documentary (which was 'In God's name. Christian fundamentalism in the UK). Your actions are clearly unlawful.

Finally, wikipedia alleges that it welcomes contributions from members of the public. However, when I amended the details under the heading '2008 channel 4 documentary controversy', You willfully deleted my corrections (I presume with malicious intent). Wikipedia editors have once again behaved in a clearly unlawful manner, which provides adequate grounds for me to seek legal remedy if reparations are not made.

The corrections I added were based on fact, since I actually recorded that particular documentary when it was aired on television and I subsequently transferred it to dvd as evidence. Kindly provide a mailing address and I will forward this documentary to you as proof of the actual facts/statements contained therein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indydude (talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are referring to the article Christian Concern? Firstly you need to read Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, assuming good faith, and on legal threats. You need to retract the legal threats above, or you will not be permitted to edit. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And do not falsify direct sourced quotes in articles by replacing parts of them with something you prefer. You did so in both articles you have edited even though the quotes were clearly marked with quotations marks and inline references. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist template

What the appropriate amount of sources required to have the reflist template upgraded to reflist2, reflist3, and so on? Sarujo (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any consensus in that direction. Furthermore note that for some users of older browsers, columns in reflists are not visible at all (see WP:REFCOLS for more information). It mainly depends on editor preference or on a consensus decision for each specific case. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you always want to view references in columns, then the template page shows you how to do that. Otherwise discuss this at Template talk:Reflist. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help Re-write deleted Merrick Systems article

My page on Merrick Systems was deleted for unambiguous advertising. I re-wrote the article in a more neutral tone that was purely informational. It was deleted again for unambiguous advertising. Are there any specific tips someone can give me so that the article does not get deleted again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreetex (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted three times, for two reasons: copyright infringement (see WP:COPYVIO) and for being too promotional in tone (See WP:SPAM). I would suggest looking at any of the articles on major companies to get an idea of the appropriate tone and content. Note that even if the copyright owner of the text you used released it appropriately, it would almost certainly be too promotional in tone for an encyclopedia article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for Merrick Systems, you should also read WP:COI. —teb728 t c 01:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to get an article publised

Hello

I have written an article in Wikipedia about Cultural sustainability. The text is ready for publication, I think, but how should I do it???? Currently I can view it in my contributions on the top of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtuuttajan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already published, it exists in Wikipedia mainspace at Cultural sustainability. Needs a bit of cleanup, but it looks pretty good; I'll give it a bit of a copyedit now. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been indexed yet by external search engines like Google but this will happen automatically outside Wikipedia's control. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reordering account links at the top of all pages

Resolved

– at VPT. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:VPT § Reordering account links at the top of all pages

Is there a script that allows me to reorder the links for my account? In particular, I would like to change the ordering from

Toshio Yamaguchi My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out My sandbox

to

Toshio Yamaguchi My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions My sandbox Log out

Is that possible for my own account only? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What skin are you using? My sandbox link is after my talk, not at the end of the list. And yes, it is possible. — Bility (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the default (vector skin). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, because the gadget adds it to the list before the "my preferences" link. What browser are you using? It could be that the method isn't known and it's putting it at the end of the list by default. — Bility (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am using Safari under Windows. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm unsure of the method the addPortletLink utility uses, so if it's the same as the following code, then this won't work either, but it's worth a try I guess. Go to a test page like User:Toshio Yamaguchi/test.js and copy/paste the following and use the show preview button:

$(document).ready(function() { var mysandboxlistitem = $('#pt-mysandbox').detach(); $('#pt-mycontris').after(mysandboxlistitem); });

See if it moves the sandbox link around for you. If it does, you can add it to your vector.js. Let me know if it works! :D — Bility (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm, that removes the sandbox link entirely. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't test it on Safari for you. That code works for me on Firefox, but then again so does the gadget.

Maybe a Mac user can help you out. You might get more technical help at WP:VPT. — Bility (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will try VPT instead.

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist me in deleting the Midwest College of Oriental Medicine page

Hello. My name is Tammy Leverich. I am the Marketing Director for Midwest College of Oriental Medicine, representing both location in Racine, WI and in Chicago, IL. This article is incorrect. I tried to make changes to reflect the proper founding date and also add and update the content to reflect the current standings of the college. This has all been changed back to the incorrect content once again.

Instead of constantly battling with someone who has the incorrect information, can this page be removed completely? While it would be nice to have an accurate article on Wikipedia, we simply do not have the manpower to check it everyday to make sure someone has not changed it again. Please help us!!!

Tammy Leverich Marketing Director Midwest College of Oriental Medicine 6232 Bankers Rd Racine, WI 53402 <blanked> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwctcm (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the material you've tried to add is too promotional for Wikipedia. We do not accept advertisements. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, supported by independent reliable sources. TN X Man 16:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also WP:COI. You and other employees of the college should not edit the article directly. But you should feel free to use the talk page, Talk:Midwest College of Oriental Medicine, to suggest changes for other editors to implememt. —teb728 t c 04:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wapiti

The article "Elk" about Cervus canadensis must be renamed as "Wapiti". Elk is misleading because of the European sense of "elk" i.e. Alces alces (= "moose"). This is confirmed by the World List of Mammalian Species and British dictionaries. In Siberia both species coexist, so "Siberian elk" is normally Alces alces!!Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss this is on the article's talk page at Talk:Elk as you have already started. I would suggest you follow the directions at Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_a_single_page_move on how to request a move. GB fan 16:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really have tried

to figure this out, but keep on failing. Fortunately, I have not posted my failures. I am editing New Orleans rhythm and blues, and am trying to get two columns happening in the Top artists section. Anyone want to give it a try? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you wanted? Dru of Id (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life is once again worth living. Thanks Dru.Carptrash (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :D Dru of Id (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]