Help desk
< March 9	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 11 >

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.

March 10

Latin translation

what is the meaning of the phrase "inter primos" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.137.28 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it in our List of Latin phrases or in the wiktionary so it may not be a common phrase. Posting this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language will bring it to the language lovers at the reference desk who may be able to help you. RJFJR (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The querent may mean primus inter pares. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a former Latin scholar, I have this one: among the first.--ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox issue

Can someone explain why designer field doesn't show in the infobox on BMW F30 page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebass (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox automobile platform currently does not support a designer field. So you can't add it. I have removed the designer field. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 07:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! . To put it another way, there is

|manufacturer =

|production =

|predecessor =

|successor =

and so on, but no

|designer =

Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BMW 3 Series (F30) article uses {{Infobox automobile platform}} since that article is about a series of vehicles and not a specific model. Since such articles usually cover a number of models designed by different designers/design teams, it's not possible to indicate a designer in the infobox. Only the infoboxes used for articles on specific models like {{Infobox automobile}} and {{Infobox electric vehicle}} support the "designer" parameter. Chamal ^T•C 08:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes

I had made many mistakes in the past when I was new to Wikipedia like leaving edit summary empty, experimental editing on articles , uploading copyrighted images that gets deleted after sometime by commons delinker. But now, I am well familiar with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Does these types of mistakes affect my account reputation. Farhajking (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your current editing activity is ok nobody will worry about past mistakes. Everyone starts out making newbie mistakes. I'm trying to understand you apparent obession with "reputation" as indicated by your recent quetions here - why are you so worried about the "reputations" of editors, articles and even (bizzarely) subjects? Roger (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer on demand

Dear Madam, dear Sir,

I am writing to you because of a recurring problem on the Wikipedia page "Lawyers on demand". I am running a lawyers on demand service in Germany and Switzerland, Xenion Legal (www.xenionlaw.com). A competing firm in the UK is repeatingly deleting the information on our company from the page (please see "history"). I am not touching or diminishing their content. As I believe Wikipedia is about free and democratic information, I find the firm's aggressive actions inappropriate.

Can you help?

If there are any questions, please contact me.

Best regards, Carsten Reimann

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.229.45 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your contact information as it appears that it is an advertisement for you firm. Now to your question. The article you are talking about, Lawyers on Demand is an article about a specific company. We do not take and make hybrid articles about two companies within one page as you have attempted. If your company meets our notability guidelines then it can have its own article. You or anyone connected to the company should not write it. You have a conflict of interest and writing about yourself or your company is highly discouraged here. GB fan 13:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers on Demand is the correct link to the article concerned. I am busy cleaning it up. Roger (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madam, dear Sir,

Referring to my message earlier today, this is to add that the person deleting correct information from the "lawyer on demand" website is calling himself "Dodger67" on a Wikipedia talk page. He is wrongfully claiming that the "Lawyers on demand" page is for a particular firm rather than decribing a general concept. I have checked this. "Lawyers on demand" is a general concept not protected by any copyright. Thus the site shoud be free to mention anyone seriously using this concept.

I have no problem with several firms mentioned on this page. This should apply for everybody else.

Can you please intervene to protect Wikipedia freedom?

Many thanks.

Best regards, Carsten Reimann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.229.45 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the correct link is Lawyers on Demand. I have requested page protection. Roger (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this completely unjusfied fallacious accusation going to be allowed to remain unanswered as a black mark against my reputation? Roger (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained on his IP talk page that this is a specific company and what his options are, but to not readd the info to Lawyers on Demand. GB fan 16:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Reimann: As written above, the article Lawyers on Demand is solely about the UK firm by that name. It doesn't mention any other firms (other than its parent, BLP), AFAICT, nor is it designed to. It seems to survive the notability requirements by being written about by multiple independent sources. If your firm is similarly notable, you could ask for someone to write about it if you really insist, but a general article on the subject would be much better.
I doubt an article for Lawyers on demand (note un-capitalization) would be allowed to remain under that title, if only because of confusion over the significance of the minor change in capitalization. On-demand legal services would probably be a better choice for a general article covering the range of such services available across this growing segment of legal practice, and I think it would be good for WP to have it. Much more than just another firm trying to advertise itself for free.
@Dodger67: This is no place to set up your argument for a libel claim. It's a simple misunderstanding.
All IMO as a volunteer contributor, of course. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to defend my reputation as an editor in good standing (with a track record of over 20 000 edits over almost seven years) when I am unjustly accused of acting in bad faith. I don't see how my post can be interpreted as a legal threat in any way. I didn't even ask for a retraction from the OP, only that someone, anyone, would support my position and acknowlege that I am not in the wrong - which User:GB fan promptly did, thanks. Roger (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And seconded. Your record is unbesmirched (despite Firefox not recognizing that as a real word!)--ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed – the claim was clearly specious and based on a misunderstanding, which is why I didn't think it needed a specific retraction. Sorry if my lawyer-dar is overly-sensitive. Maybe there's a sunspot flare.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is about lawyers so...

(Never knew lawyers and sunspots are a bad combination) Roger (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IAAL so no lawyer jokes please!--ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a using wikipedia question...

Hi, I'm a new user... What if parts of an article I'm reading make no sense : if a sentence is really not clear, or given information contradicts itself? I'm not really looking to contribute, just asking for (grammatical/contextual) clarification or point out obvious logical errors... How does that work? In order to navigate to this page I had to leave the articles that were confusing me, so i can't give you their exact titles... (I'm not good at this - one was regarding when the Empress Matilda married Geoffrey of Anjou and the other concerned the Clarendon Chronicles...) but maybe you can tell me how to ask my questions specifically when I'm in an article.' Thanks very much. This is all pretty cool. Alienor of angely (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)MM[reply]

You place a clarify tag {{clarify}} at the end of the problematic sentence or phrase, like this.^{[clarification needed]} Then you explain why in the "Summary" box below the editing window before you save the edit. Roger (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, the basic answer to your question is "You can't", that is to say you can't ask questions or point out logical errors directly in the article itself. However, let's say you were reading about Empress Matilda's second marriage, and wanted to point out some inconsistencies, then you just have to go to the talk page of the article in question (click on the tab just next to the article tab at the top left of the page) and click the new section tab, give it a heading and voice your concerns. Does this help? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you use tags as Roger explains above, whereas on the talk page you can have discussions with other editors to explain your point of view. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reviews

does this website have blind peer reviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamadad1978 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know any Wikipedia peer reviews are open to all and not anonymous. RudolfRed (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking an image to my article

I have managed to upload an image to Wikimedia (not Commons) but cannot find how to insert it into my article (Harold Mockford)Augustine3 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Help:File help? What have you tried so far, and what is the name of the file you uploaded? RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw File:Goodbye - Death of My Father by Harold Mockford (1977).jpg in Augustine3's contribution list and have corrected the syntax at the top of the Harold Mockford article. You were nearly there! -- John of Reading (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive Peace Agreement - Contains My Little Pony References

The article on the peace agreement between North and South Sudan contains the following sentence, which is obviously incorrect:

"The final, comprehensive agreement was signed on the moon by RainbowDash and Princess Luna and marked the commencement of implementation activities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.72.125 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. Thanks for reporting this vandalism. Roger (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Subject

How would I start a page about myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Coxx (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't - please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you are genuinely notable someone else, not connected to you in any way, might write an article about you. Roger (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Don't. See WP:AUTOBIO. If you are notable you can suggest an article at WP:RA. RudolfRed (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New members "characters"

Hi. I just joined and had to enter in the information about the characters that determine that you aren't a computer (you know the stuff for spam). Well, the picture didn't show up the first like 20 times I refreshed the page and really got frustrating. Just thought I'd let you know you. Sort it out. Dell table (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might have happened because your internet connection is slow and your browser timed-out. Most web browsers have a timeout period of 1 or 2 minutes. Or there might be a bug. The latter is very unlikely since I haven't come across any new user who have been complaining about this issue yet. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 08:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also can someone explain to me why you have to "sign" your posts using Dell table (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC) every time?? cant you just design the website to do it automatically like? Surely its not very hard?[reply]

Signing your posts on talk pages, both for the articles (not the article itself, but its talk page) and non-articles, is good practice, and facilitates discussion by helping identify the author of a particular comment. Other users can then navigate to a talk page and address their comments to the specific, relevant user(s). Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing, because it helps all users to understand the progress and evolution of a work. Comments posted on user talk pages, article talk pages and other discussion pages should be properly signed and you should not sign articles. Sometimes the SineBot, which is a robot automatically signs your posts if you haven't signed, but this does not happen always. And when SineBot signs it uses this : Preceding unsigned comment added by User:example (talk • contribs) which is not very nice. And it's very easy to sign. Just type in ~~~~ or just click the link at the bottom of the edit box --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 08:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and completely automating signatures would be more difficult than you think because (a) edits to some pages (e.g. articles, your user page) are never signed and (b) even on talk pages, some edits are not signed (e.g. you want to amend a previous post you made, or change a sub-heading). The simplest way for an automatic signature mechanism to distinguish between these cases would be to have some special symbol in the edit that the editor uses to say "I want this edit to be signed" - and this is what happens already. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it isn't trivial, we have bots that do much harder things. (and, I note, we have a bot that signs if you forget, so someone has figured it out). It is one of my pet peeves that we ask new users to do something so odd. I've pushed for this before, and been rebuffed, so don't expect it to change, but it is very off-putting to new editors. Not signing in solidarity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs)

Well said Spilbrick. Couldn't have put it better myself. It really can be a hindrance for new users, and seems in this day and age entirely unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dell_table (talk • contribs)

Wrapping a caption in a template

Fixed

Is it possible to modify Portal:Statistics/Selected biography/Layout so that the caption wraps without needing a <br /> as in Portal:Statistics/Selected article/7 Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten Portal:Statistics/Selected biography/Layout and at present there is no need for the <br/>. Cheers! --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 05:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool! - thank you Illia Connell (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

buffer between table and text

Resolved

Could some show me how to modify the table "Number of examinees" in AP Statistics so that there is a slight space between the right edge of the table and the text outside the table. Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it. In the table properties, you just need to add a margin to the right (eg: style="margin-right:1em;"). Chamal ^T•C 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Illia Connell (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]