Help desk
< September 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 2 >

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.

October 1

Editing difference in Firefox

When editing a page, it used to show a combo box of things that can be inserted. Now Firefox doesn't show this but IE does. Is there a way to get it back? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sections about the missing edittools here and at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I don't know about the browser difference but it has helped many users to disable "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks, that worked for me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Object Properties

How do you view SVG markup object properties, such as in the image above in order to see the province names? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might pop into Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and ask the question there, as the users of Inkscape and other svg editors hang out there.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i have forgot my email address for my yahoo account but i have also forgot my password for my primary email address and the phone numbers are old ones

i would be really grateful if any one can hel me i have forgot my yahoo password and it says it will send a resent password code to my primary account but i have forgot the password for that one as well i would be very grateful if anybodt at all can help me, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.36.53 (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is the help desk for using Wikipedia, not for general help questions. For computing questions I suggest you use the Computing Reference Desk to ask your question. Chevy monte carlo 06:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bresnick

Aaron Jay Kernis Was not my student. This information on my site is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.20.10 (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the whole "Notable Students" section as unreferenced. Rojomoke (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circular template?

Is there a template to mark a page that uses predominantly circular references? If there is, I cannot find it. The article "List of NFL on CBS commentator pairings" is referenced almost exclusively by links to a Google search that points back to the article itself. I want to mark that page. Thank you. [edit] (The same situation applies to "List of NFL on NBC commentator pairings". → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] (The same situation applies to "List of NFL on NBC commentator pairings".) → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could just use a template that marks the source as unreliable, if you don't want to remove it. {{Verify credibility}} with the failed parameter would work. - Purplewowies (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I did not use that one, but I believe I found one that is appropriate. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I missed that it was most of the article and gave you an inline template. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix it?

How am I suppose to fix what it states when I do not know how. I read the help section and provided the proper links for evidence, yet it still does not work?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wm55 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wm55. That is why I posted this here, so that someone more experienced than you or I will come and help us. It is called the "Help Desk" for just such a reason. (Also, my original question is not in reference to any page that you have edited or are editing.) Thank you for your good efforts. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I suspect that Wm55 was asking a unrelated question !!!! Mdann52 (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Michael is asking about the Phillip Nelson article. But I do not know what he is asking. Maproom (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but I wonder if Wm55 thinks the tags at the top of the article somehow get removed automatically? They don't. If you think you have remedied the problem you may remove the tags, or anybody else may. (If somebody disagrees with your evaluation, they might put the tags back). I observe that the article at present certainly contains unreferenced statements, for example the section "2010-present" reports two things that "he states" without a reference for either. Also the 34 numbered "references" that somebody has added to the References section are not satisfactory: first they are not attached to particular statements in the article (see WP:Referencing for beginners) and secondly many of them are to unreliable sources (imdb, facebook) to listings sites (amazon, iTunes: may possibly be used to demonstrate the existence of something but not its notability) or to non-independent sites (phillip-nelson.org). See WP:IRS and WP:Notability (person) for more information.

If you are talking about the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Nelson, you'll need to contribute to that discussion, and persuade the various people who have contributed to the discussion what has changed to make the article suitable to be kept. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cannot access my account

Please please help!!!! I cannot access my account. I can however access from my mobile. My email is very, very sentimental. many, many photos of my husban who passed away last year. Kind regards Faith Hattingh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.48.65 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia. We can answer questions about using and finding your way around the encyclopaedia, but Wikipedia doesn't provide email or webmail hosting services. Are you sure it's a Wikipedia account you are asking about? - Ka renjc 07:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is the help desk for using Wikipedia, not for general help questions. For computing questions I suggest you use the Computing Reference Desk to ask your question.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which RefDesk for a question from video technology history?

I have a question about history of Digital Light Processing, an imaging/displaying technology by Texas Instruments. I posted it at an article's talk page (Talk:Screen-door effect#How old is 'newer'?) and then at Computing RefDesk (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#DLP technology history, now in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2012 September 27#DLP technology history), but nobody answered yet. Maybe nobody knows such details, or maybe nobody notced it. Is there a better place to ask the question? Possibly Entertainment or Science RD? --CiaPan (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The science reference desk would be a reasonable place to ask. RJFJR (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)`[reply]

Changing main title to an article

I'm wondering how one changes the title of an article, specifically this one:

John Neville, 1st Baron Neville de Raby

The only source cited in the article states that he is Lord Neville, not Baron Neville de Raby, and the other sources I've looked at also indicate that this particular John Neville, who was slain at the Battle of Towton on 29 March 1461, was Lord Neville, not Baron Neville de Raby.

It thus appears that the title of the article is in error, but I'm not sure how to go about changing it.

Thanks for any help with this. NinaGreen (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss article content is in the talk page (in this case Talk:John Neville, 1st Baron Neville de Raby). That is where knowlegible people will see the discussion. —teb728 t c 06:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that normally that would be the route to go. However from what I can see in the edit history, only one person has ever worked (briefly) on this article, and the talk page is empty.

What I'd like to do is change the article title to conform with the historical sources, if there's a way that I can do that. NinaGreen (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are standardised names for barons, I think - see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#British_nobility or perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. The most important thing is to ensure that by redirects or disambiguation page entries he can be found by anyone looking for any of the names by which he is known. PamD 06:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that there's no such rank as "Lord" in the British peerage. It's a title used by barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses and dukes alike. As it says in Lord#Peerage, it's used most often by barons who are rarely addressed by their formal and legal title of "Baron". So even if this guy is referred to as "Lord Neville", his formal title is "~~Lord~~ Baron Neville", and according to the standards PamD refers to, that should be the name of the page.

By the way, although only the creator has edited the article's talk page, the actual article itself has about a dozen names in its history. Rojomoke (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all the helpful comments. I'm still unsure how I would go about changing the title of the page, and then the redirects and the disambiguation page entries which PamD mentioned. The person described in the article as it is currently written was Baron Neville, but never Baron Neville de Raby, and the current title of the article (and all the links to it from other articles) are therefore providing Wikipedia readers with erroneous information. Can anyone tell me how I'd go about doing that, i.e. change the name of the page's title? NinaGreen (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure of your facts, then move the page by clicking on the "Move this Page" link at the bottom. However, I would suggest you put something on the talk page first, and give interested parties a few days to notice it and respond. Rojomoke (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that Baronies normally (I think always, but I'm not certain) are associated with a place, which is part of their formal name, whether or not it is commonly used? For example Lady Thatcher is formally "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire". (She is a life peer, but I don't think that makes any difference). --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the help. I've posted a comment re the proposed change on the Project Peerage page, and will wait for a few days before moving the article. I'm fairly certain of the facts, particularly since I just finished editing the page referenced below, and the ODNB article on the 2nd Earl of Westmorland says he reclaimed the lordship of Raby as a result of a settlement in 1443 with the Beauforts, so it now seems even more unlikely that his brother, who is the subject of the article whose title I'm proposing to change, would have been Baron Neville of Raby.

[1]

NinaGreen (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‘Cybercrime Prevention Act unconstitutional’

sir can you help us or support us in our fight againts cybercrime law in the philippines., its Like SOPA internet freedom is now gone here in philippines.,, Please Support us in fight againts this law.,, Tnx QOuted below are some articles according to this law...

<<<removed text copy+pasted from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/278368/cybercrime-prevention-act-unconstitutional-senator-guingona>>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.127.3 (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for questions about using or editing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Please don't paste news items here, as that is a violation of copyright. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of references

I seem to remember reading somewhere on WP that websites listed in the reference section should only have the first letter capitalized, unless there is a hyphen or some other characteristic involved which would allow capitalization. For example, "SunlightWatch.org" should be written as "Sunlightwatch.org." I have checked Template:cite web and Template:cite news, as well as as WP:MoS, but gotten nowhere. Solicitation for assistance on the template talk pages has returned editors who don't recollect knowing about this. If this could be pointed out to me, or if I could be told that I must've misremembered, it would really help me out. Thanks in advance! Zepppep (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help, help desk. Zepppep (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall seeing such a policy. All lower case (including the initial letter) seems to be the norm anyway. I think you might have in mind Wikipedia:CamelCase and Wikipedia. I see no particular reason to regularize urls in this way. Longer urls are easier to read in CamelCase, especially if the second word starts with a vowel, or they use an "i" or "e" prefix, e.g. eToys.com.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was already under discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Capitalization of web sites in references, so it's best to comment there, in order to avoid split discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as a reader, I'd prefer MoleStation.org and WestInk.com over molestation.org and westink.com... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 15:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much arguing with an admin, just bending over backwards and saying "**** it"

An admin, probably a very respected one, is giving me a hard time about a link, which I really can't do a thing about, don't really have anything vested in and and have no choice but to give up on this particular thread. However, I have been editing one page only, for about 3 years, and check in every day to clean up, or rebuff, or whatever I can do to contribute. In this way I think Wikipedia is cool, and does what it is there for, to be a repository for intelligent people who really don't have more than a few minutes a day to help, to do that little thing for the site. I also have given donations every year, some small, some large, and while I don't think that's a measure of my contribution I think it's a measure of what I can do in my own little part to keep the impetus for a directory of this nature to continue growth.

Now I cannot claim to know something deep or brilliant about Wikipedia, and I have no idea, nor do I really care to learn about the many trials and tribulations of an admin, or any of the complex issues of having such a deeply linked library of data. And I further doubt that any testimony I provide is in any way compelling to the nature of what Wikipedia is, as it exists without me quite well. However, I cannot fathom why an admin can simply stroll in, make an obtuse judgement about a link on a page that he probably has never read in his life, and simply say thanks and bye. Not to the link mind you, but ultimately to the editor and their contribution and even their thoughts.

I could in theory find several million links that I could say "You do not meet editorial guidelines and we need to wipe these," and I will be in arguments with people who provided those links for the next 6 months, but hell if I am ever going to be able to put in so much effort into so menial a task. That is why I can generally appreciate what an admin is doing because I simply can't. But is this what an admin really wants to do with their time? All the garbage I have found on just the page I read and when I find something useful I add it, but my judgement is poor and not worthy of another's reverence?

I know others have complained probably in exactly the same way, I know the site is inundated by bots, I know it is all thankless and I accept it for what it is. But pardon me if I say as a mere user that it is currently unacceptable to me that I should simply be edited out of the one page I deal with, and it becomes clear my time, which is incredibly limited to begin with, is clearly not useful here and best if I focus on something else.

To make a comment, use your heart and head, quoting me faqs won't really address the matter at all. Eedlee (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... honestly, WP:RS is a pretty widely accepted guideline for identifying reliable sources, and if your source does not meet the criteria, you should try to find a source that does. Things on Wikipedia need to be verifiable. If you are not sure if your source is reliable or if you want more opinions, you can ask at WP:RSN. (I may have more to add, but I have somewhere to get to.) - Purplewowies (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There may be better sources but I did not find them but that's not the problem. I must have come across 100 domains over the years that haven't met guidelines but are embedded all over wikipedia and are clearly personal pages. Can I spend the 1400 hours to out them all? It's just not worth the effort. So getting into a fight over one with an admin, that doesn't seem like a fair fight. Right from the start, I lose, and well where does that put me? It's kind of demeaning to the whole user experience.Eedlee (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed source is being used to support a claim about divorce rate the United States - in the Divorce article - better sources (such as official census or other government reports) should be quite easy to find. Editing only one article over a long period can end up with WP:OWN problems arising, as one becomes emotionally invested in the article - it's really not a good idea. Try hitting the Random Article link and take a look at different topics. By the way; it's of no consequence that your "opponent" might be an admin because removing problematic sources is not an admin function - anyone can (and should) do it. Roger (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Perfectly Valid response. I couldn't possibly spend more time on other articles but I do small edits here and there on science stuff. The difference however with having an admin tell you "don't put that link back or I'll ban you," and having a conversation on the Talk page with another normal user, is quite a difference in tone and demeanor. I can't make other people agree with me that's fine, but getting berated does nothing for me, and makes it impossible to feel useful in any way whatsoever.Eedlee (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there are defects in other articles does not mean the one you are working on should emulate them.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth. As I continue reading the responses and my own I think it all just says thanks for your thoughts but we're good. Eedlee (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, you guys have just gotten too robotic to listen to humans. It is potentially true that once we become part of a really large organization there is no other option. The endless, mind-numbing questions. The personal attacks. The grievers. I am not placing blame on any component, humans are simply overwhelmed when we get to this part.

Sadly, there is no doubt if I hired some guy to edit WP for me he would never have problems with his entries, or would simply spam them with multiple accounts rendering WP senseless into oblivion. Right now in the current environment, that is more acceptable to an admin than a person having a thought and pursuing a specific action. Acting in a manner which appears to be legitimate but in fact simply mocks truth in order to create the appearance of it begins to win.

Once a user commentary is treated with less respect than those that would harm, the effort enters futility. I am there. Thanks for all the fish. Eedlee (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gorman / Editing information on my own biography and discography.

Dear Wiki , Hello, I am Tim Gorman the producer, composer, and keyboardist. I would like to edit the Wiki page about me. I have a much broader background and history than what is there . Also, I have not been involved with some of the events listed or stated there. Am I allowed to Edit my on Biography since it is about ME ? Thanks very much for the time and consideration. All the best, Tim GormanTimtone (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim. In regards to your query, from what I have read at autobiography and problems with autobiographies, it seems that fixing an article about yourself is discouraged. Maybe it would be of help to discuss the improvement on the article talk page, so that an uninvolved editor adds them on your behalf. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Due to the inherent conflict of interest we prefer that subjecs of articles do not edit the articles concerned. The best option generally is to post your concerns and suggestions on the article's talk page. Please read the following guidelines: WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. You also need to be aware that we require information given in articles to be supported by reliable independent sources. This is particularly strict in the case of biographies of living people. I see that the article in fact cites only one source. Any unsourced information can be removed without debate. Welcome to WikiPedia. Roger (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apollonius' Theorem

I am a brand new member. On the page for Apollonius" Theorem there is a proof that depends on trigonometric identities and I would like to add a strictly geometrical proof. It will need a reference drawing and math equations. How do I go about doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalSpinella (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably ask for help at the talk page of the Maths Project.--ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find it published in a reliable source, or did you find it by original research? If the latter, I am sorry to say that you have to get it published first in a reliable source, since Wikipedia does not publish original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to upload an image I own the copyright to

I am not able to upload an image to an article I've created. It is a non-free copyrighted image that I own the copyright to. I do not want to specify it as 'public domain' - how do I upload it? I've filled in the upload form and answered all the questions but the 'upload 'button is still greyed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garryrobson (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to me yesterday. If you have left any boxes empty, put a few dashes in them and see if that helps. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is in relation to the article you have just created, I'd not bother - it is almost certain to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd concentrate on improving an expanding the article before worrying about images.. adding some reliably published sources would help too (and the copyright to any images related to the game are probably owned by the publisher rather than an individual such as yourself - you will need to prove you're the copyright holder if you wished to upload them anyway). Яehevkor ✉ 21:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that you are trying to upload an image you own the copyright to without licensing it under a free license? I don't believe that is allowed. I can't a policy that says so right now, but think I recall reading that you must free license your own content. —teb728 t c 04:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's from Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images, "All user-created images must be licensed under a free license" -- John of Reading (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does say that, but I don't think it is true. I was involved, a few months ago, with a photograph of a famous painting. We tried to work out how to license it with a free license, but that wasn't their desire, they wanted to reverse all rights, and supported that it be tagged as fair use. That's a rare exception, won't apply in all cases, but unless we reached the wrong conclusion, it isn't quite right to use the strong word "must".--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help in making a navbox . . .

Where do I go to ask a techie to make a navbox for me? Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could try Wikipedia:Requested templates? Per WP:NENAN, consider whether the navbox would be redundant with another, and be sure to name at least five pages the navbox should link to. PleaseStand (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks, PleaseStand! GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Theoverviewer.com" page.

Re: "Theoverviewer.com" page. Apparently I created a page that is not acceptable to your criteria. I would like to remove it but cannot find any "delete" button or other means of extinguishing it. Please advise or simply delete it yourself. Sorry for the inconvenience. Meerkat12--Tribbles12 21:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tribbles12 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve minutes after you posted here, Wikipedia administrator Peridon deleted the page Theoverviewer.com under section G11 of our criteria for speedy deletion. If the article were still on Wikipedia, I would have advised you to request deletion by adding "{{db-author}}" to the page in question. PleaseStand (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap problems with Rio de Janeiro article

When using a large browser window, tables in the Demographics section of the Rig de Janeiro article overlap. How can it be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.118.31 (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see overlap, but there were two tables that did not fit together well, and I added {{clear right}} before one of them. Did that fix it for you? —teb728 t c 03:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]