Help desk
< November 23	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

November 24

Infobox Float Right

I'm using this sample infobox to guide me in creating my own. All I want it to do is align to the right like most infoboxes found on the Wiki. -- MF14 00:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One way to do it is to use the infobox class in MediaWiki:Common.css by starting with class="wikitable infobox". Another way is manually adding CSS like class="wikitable" style="float: right;". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helped! -- MF14 05:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information source

There is a person with an article in Wikipedia that I am related to. I have some information that I would like to add to the article to clarify part of the article. How can I do this since I am the source?LouGarfinkle (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on published sources for article content. Personal knowledge isn't acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Style Manual

Sir/Ms

The style manual deprecates the use of "issue" when "problem" is intended, yet the template "issues" inserts a statement that a page "has multiple issues". How can this be remedied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.246.9 (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been asked and answered at the appropriate talk page, which is Template talk:Multiple issues. There are many issues (such as style) that aren't necessarily problems.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The style manual is discussing actual article content. The phrasing of clean up banners does not fall under the Manual of Style for article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Website including

how can i put my website in Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.231.63 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU cannot. ( see out conflict of interest policy.)

In order for a subject to have an article, the topic must meet some standard criteria. If your company meets those, you can propose that an article be created by following the steps outlined Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-use and alternating comments, attack's on autism with false information.

Originally I changed the Autism article to be classed as a 'condition', I have been told to talk about it in the Talk:Autism page I have done, I did. I added my topic to the talk page, I didn't add/remove any comments, yet user Favonian (talk) has used this to remove the topic, accused me of Vandalism. Currently I have noticed the person is one of your admins, is mis-used the privileges given to that person to exploit the page to provoke responses, the fact is I have Autism myself, I find that what he's doing is no better than Racism since he's removing my appeals, accusing me of removing it. I have requested a cease, desist. I'm asking for something to be done about the member, by restricting the person's systems since they clearly are being exploited. --Ronnie42 (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronnie42: Hello Ronnie42. This is a very straightforward matter. Maybe, though, you are not aware of the result of your edits. Please examine this "diff" showing the changes you made when you edited the talk page. As you can see, you removed massive amounts of text already present on the page by other users. Yes, you really did, despite what you say above. That can occasionally be done by newish users by mistake. That was the reason User:Favonian reverted your edits. And he stated that this was his reason in the edit summary that accompanied his edit. To wit: "Reverted 1 edit by Ronnie42 (talk): Massive deletion of other editors' postings."

You then undid his reversion with the edit summary "Vandalism/Offensive removal by Favonian". It is unclear to me whether you meant by that, that you found the reversion of your edits offensive, or you were reinstating your edits because you had intentionally removed the content because you thought its content was offensive. You were reverted with a link to WP:NOTCENSORED to cover the second possibility. Again, you were reverted not because of what you said, but because of the removal of other people's posts.

So, what is straightforward is that you may not remove lots of talk page discussion by others and if you persist in doing this, you may very well and rightly be blocked from editing. But the issue all resolves on whether you were aware or not that that is what you were actually doing. If you were not aware as your post implies, then it's all a bit of a misunderstanding, but you must understand that the diff link I posted above does not lie. You are welcome to post to the talk page in a civil manner. You just must be careful not to remove other user's posts. If you post there again, you might try doing so using the "New section" link at the top of the page, which should ensure you don't remove content again by accident. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that sounds about right, I have recently messaged the user about this, about the confusion and it did seem from my POV that it felt like discrimination but wasn't aware that it was actually deleting mass amount of data, I wasn't even aware there was a huge amount of data being removed at the time. Anyway thanks for getting back to me about this. --Ronnie42 (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this 16 September 2013 edit,[1] you changed "{{Infobox disease" to read "{{Infobox condition". The two "{{" to the left are part of a Wikipedia:Transclusion feature. Since there is a template:Infobox disease but not a template:infobox condition, the change you made cause the template Infobox disease to no longer work. The template no longer worked due to your edit and Haploidavey reverted the edit, noting "I'm sorry, but we don't have an infoboc for "Conditions" - please discuss this on the talk-page."[2] The talk page discussions on Autism being a disease can be found here. The Autism page has one disease mention "whether these abnormalities are relevant to or secondary to autism's disease processes" which I'm thinking we need to revise. Also, we probably need to use a different Infobox - not named Infobox disease. Even if the text "Infobox disease" is hidden from view, editors to the page may have more sensitivity to the topic and there's reason to change any material that might give offense. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "disease" word from "autism's disease processes".[3] -- Jreferee (talk)

Unable to revert edits on Yahoo! Mail (followup)

I am just following up on an ancient question I posted here on November 20th. I am still hoping it will get some answers on Talk:Yahoo! Mail#! in Name, but if not then what should I do next? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech:WP:CFD is where changes to category names should be proposed. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a person

Hi,

How do I add a person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenKingKiddy (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add what kind of person to where? If you mean "how do I create an article about a person?", then the answer is that once you have checked that the person is notable in Wikipedia's special sense, you can use the Article wizard to start creating it; or if you do not feel you are up to this, or if you are closely connected with the subject, you can request an article at Requested articles. If you mean "how do I add a person to a list article", you can just edit the article, but you should not do so unless the person is notable, and has or could have an article. If you mean something else, please clarify. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilligan's Island

As usual you need to check your facts a lot better before you let these articles go public. The page on Gilligan's island is wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx7A4sxJi7c That was the first version of the theme song. It was only used in the pilot episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.3.223 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilligan's Island is a long article with several theme song mentions, including differences in the pilot episode. Please be more specific about which statement you think should be changed. I have never seen the show. A post at Talk:Gilligan's Island may reach people who have. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with equals sign in template

Have a look at this version of the article Amiga software. The section Multimedia appears as just "3". What was happening there was that the section made use of the Columns-list template, but the text given to that template included an equals sign "=" in the URL http://www.qdev.de/?printversion=1&location=amiga/amicamedia, pointing to the AmiCaMedia homepage. However, the site seems to actually need the equals sign in the URL. Escaping it with %3D wouldn't work. So I had to change the link to point to the www.qdev.de main page instead. Is there anything that can be done here? JIP | Talk 18:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a known problem when passing complicated text as un-named ~~templates~~ parameters to templates such as {{columns-list}}. The workaround is to fill in the missing parameter names, "1" and "2". Compare these markup examples:

{{columns-list|3|Lots of text including something with an = sign}}
{{columns-list|1=3|2=Lots of text including something with an = sign}}

...giving these results:

3

There's a fuller description at the first bullet-point at Help:Template#Usage hints and workarounds. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

identity theft

my name is Jennifer Campbell. Some other woman has her picture posted on my page. I have never done any editing On it, but a year back she tried to change birth dates etc; I am a blonde, not brunette. My pictures can be found from bay watch or Seinfeld. She obviously is not me. Can you help? It would be so appreciated. Best wishes, Jennifer Campbell Sometimes posted as Jennifer Lynn Campbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.176 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Jennifer Campbell has no picture, and seems never to have had one. As for the issue with the birthdate etc, this was over a year ago, and reverted after a few days. It is unfortunate that this vandalism took as long as it did to revert, but I hardly think this qualifies as 'identity theft'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you're talking about the photo of the Canadian opinion columnist that shows up when you do a Google search for Jennifer Campbell, I'm afraid that Google is the one who adds that image, not Wikipedia. Google's been known to mess this up before, but there's nothing Wikipedia can really do about it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an image of the correct Jennifer Campbell has now been added to our article. This might possibly solve the Google issue, but it is entirely out of our hands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is additional information in case you don't understand why we say it's not our fault:

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information.

Google's search page on your name has a "Feedback" link where you can mark the photo as wrong. We have no inside knowledge of how Google processes such reports. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted post...

We created an article about our organization on your service and was pleasantly surprised to find out that the article was deleted without any warning. Our Organization is duly registered under the Norwegian law.

This is the message I got while accessing the link :

Nigerians United Against Corruption

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

This is the link to the About us page created - Nigerians United Against Corruption

Why was it deleted? Why was there no contact prior to its deletion?

Thanks 81.167.80.126 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 'Dele Olawole[reply]

The deletion log says "Currently has no sources and is written like an advert." Not everything in the world can or should have an article in Wikipedia: subjects are required to be notable in Wikipedia's special sense, which means that reliable sources (such as major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers) have already written about the subject; and an article must contain references to these sources. We also require that articles be written in a neutral tone, and anything that reads like promotion is not permitted. Assuming the PROD procedure was followed, the article will have been proposed for deletion for seven days, after which, if nobody objected, it will have been deleted.

If you think that your organisation meets the criteria of notability, and you want there to be an article, I suggest you use the Article wizard to create one in a safer way. However, you first need to consider that you have a conflict of interest, and are therefore strongly discouraged from editing such an article, as it is likely to be difficult for you to write in a suitably neutral way about it. Your best bet may be to assemble the necessary references, and request somebody else write the article, at WP:Requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 July the article was proposed for deletion with a big box at top of the page saying: "Currently has no sources and is written like an advert. Google test brings up some sources but they are of dubious reliability." A notification was immediately posted to the article creator at User talk:Oladeleolawole#Proposed deletion of Nigerians United Against Corruption. I guess that's you. Users can set an email address at Special:Preferences and request email notification when their talk page is edited but you apparently haven't done that. There were no objections to the proposed deletion after 8 days and the article was deleted 30 July. This was all in accordance with our policies. We are an encyclopedia with millions of articles and don't contact external people or organizations when we make or delete articles about them. Organizations are generally not supposed to create articles about themselves anyway. I'm confused by your statement that you were "pleasantly surprised to find out that the article was deleted". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irony Rojomoke (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if article I am working on has been reloaded for consideration?

Hi there ... I have uploaded a revised text further to helpful comment provided by the wiki team. I have made changes as recommended. I have reloaded text but have not heard anything back? Article was on architect Paul Stallan. Is it just the case that the team is busy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallan-Brand (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was apparently submitted for review today. The backlog is on the order of three weeks. Moreover, please read referencing for beginners . There was an unclosed ref tag that was hiding a significant part of the content. I have fixed that. There appear to be bare inline URLs used as citations. The one citation using ref tags has no metadata (publisher, author, date, etc)) cite templates, such as {{cite web}} are one way (but not the only way) to record such information. I advise you to improve the cite formatting or ask someone to assist you in doing so, before this comes up for review. DES ^(talk) 23:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the recored i am refering to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Stallan. It is very helpful to give a link when you post about a particular article or draft here. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a good deal of clean uip of the formatting and a little copy-editing of the text. Note that if you find your self using a <br> tag, you have probably missed the correct wiki-markup. And use of an external link form (with http or https) to a Wikipedia article is almost never a good idea. DES ^(talk) 23:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also you should read our conflict of interest guideline and our guideline on autobiography, as this draft seems to be about yourself. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]