Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 June 12

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< June 11 << May | June | Jul >> June 13 >
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.


June 12

edit

possible sockpuppets

edit

i think the users: fatalerror, pwange8, and nouse4aname are sock puppets, they all hate me, they all make the same edits and type the same way, they all edit the used page and they all try to get me banned and tell me im a vandal and they have the nerve to say i have a sockpuppet. ive had many problems with them for the past few months on the used page. its just to the point of redicolous where they say i need permission from them to make an edit but it is ok for them to edit whatever they want with out talking about it, it is very frustrating and there is an admin on there side where if they say i made a vandal edit when i didnt, the admin wud just go and block me, i get into many edit wars with them and when i do, im the only one to be banned, it just seems weird to me how 3 users could all edit the same page and all hate me and go against everyhting i add and edit to the page which is why i think those 3 users are sockppupets, or shud i say this one person has 3 sock puppet accounts. im at the point of being s frustrated, they all showed up starting to edit the page in dec/jan which is more prrof of my theory that they are sock puppets, also when pwange8 made 3 edits to the same page, to aviod the 3rr rule, fatalerror just happened to show up on the page 5 minutes later to make the same edit the pwange8 did (leaving me helpless beacause i already made 3 edits and couldnt do anything more about it) someone please help to get rid of what appears to be these sockpuppets account because it is just too frustrating now. USEDfan (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a quick look, but you may want to try WP:SSP. Just because people "hate you" doesn't mean they're the same person, and that's more a reason to look for dispute resolution. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my brain's not working just now... USEDfan, all of those editors are long-established contributors who don't appear to be sockpuppets at all. I'd highly suggest that you review what consensus is and seek some form of dispute resolution if you're having problems with editors. The Help Desk isn't the place for this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might find this interesting: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/May 2008#User:USEDfan. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

business ethics

edit

who are the major contributor of business ethics? what is the mening of ethics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.161.209 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge 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, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing you might try doing is - your own homework. At least make an attempt before asking others for help. SpinningSpark 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question

edit

Now, before I state my question, I have exhausted all other resources. I have looked in the FAQ. I have asked users, and I still can't get a straight answer. All I want to do is to add a picture to an article or two. Again, I have checked the editing FAQ, no luck. Just give me a straight answer on how to add a picture to a few articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.142.205 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get a simple answer, you have to ask a simple question. For a question to be simple, it must be specific. The more general the question, the more complex the answer has to be to cover all the possibilities. If you would tell us the picture (preferably with a link so we could look at it) and the articles you have in mind (again, with links so we could just click to see them), that would make your complex question into a simple question. Your vague question allows even more possibilities than Fuhghettaboutit's answer covers (for example, images sometimes appear in templates, creating an additional layer of syntax). Wikipedia did not get to be one of the world's top ten sites by being simple. Wikipedia got to be popular by having a fantastic depth of features and content. Managing all that stuff is unavoidably complex - and Wikipedia doesn't really even try to avoid complexity. See the Editor's index to see what I mean. --Teratornis (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys make it sound so difficult. What you do is:
  1. Register, make some edits, and wait 4 days.
  2. Make sure the image is on your computer (you cannot link directly to an image on another website).
  3. Click on the "Upload file" link in the box on your left and follow the instructions there including all the stuff about license and (if appropriate) fair-use rationale.
  4. Add "[[Image:imagename.jpg]]" to the articles where you want the image to appear.
Astronaut (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing

edit

I'm wondering about using a drawing when you can't get a free use photograph for an article. If the drawing is from a photograph found on the net, would this be copyright-acceptable? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, if you drew a picture from a picture on the Internet? That depends, I suppose, on whether that drawing counts as yours or a derivative of the original... it's confusing, that's why they hire lawyers to sort this stuff out :) I'm going to tentatively guess the copyright is yours and you can do whatever you want with it... but I don't know. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, if I drew from a picture on the internet. It wouldn't have to be the exact same, just an extract or a drawing made up of several images to get a portrait or line drawing for example. I saw a drawing of Sartre on that article (now looks like it's been replaced by a photo); and one of Pierre Bourdieu on the French pedia. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The answer probably depends on the specific meaning of the word "from." WP:IUP#User-created images says:
  • Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright — copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity", and not by the amount of labor which went into the creation of the work.
How "creative" will your drawing be? "Creativity" might be the criterion that matters, not that I know how attorneys define the term. (Perhaps their definition depends on who is paying them.) See the links under WP:EIW#Image for possible clues. For example, someone in Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration might have experience with this. I might add that in the not-too-terribly-distant future, we can expect to see software that analyzes a collection of 2D photos of a person, and then constructs a 3D model of the person, and from that, it would be possible to synthesize photo-realistic fake portraits of the person from any camera and lighting angles. I think Hollywood studios already have this stuff (and the various CSI franchise television shows purport to have it); if anybody has it, then we can expect Moore's law to steadily beat down the price until even the little people can have it. I would imagine when that day arrives, it will guarantee lifetime employment for lots of attorneys. Unless voters ever become smart enough to vote away copyrights. --Teratornis (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Are we in the wrong business? Personally, I'd rather create using several 2D images through hand sketching. I'd feel more culpable if I simply manipulated an existing image digitally though not to the extent of an image I saw (direct copy) of Shantaram's author Greg Roberts' dust jacket mugshot displayed on Amazon but then they gave him black hair and dark eyes while he is fair and blue-eyed. That ends up being misrepresentation. So maybe the best thing is to ask the illustrators, thanks for your help. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry forgot to answer your question about how creative. Different size, media and rendering manner would contribute to it. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:BP Pedestrian Bridge/GA1

edit

Why aren't my comments showing at Talk:BP Pedestrian Bridge/GA1?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean these comments? That page is doing something weird with parserfunctions, in particular what are those {{#if:...}}'s doing there? I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles which explains that odd markup. I have not participated in any good article reviews yet (shameful, I know), so I'm not familiar with the markup people might use for that. You could probably search for more information about it. You might try copying the whole section you edited to a sandbox page, and see if it renders correctly when you remove the peculiar parserfunction stuff. --Teratornis (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason everything appears twice and if I move my comments to the second location they appear on the page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optical fiber question

edit

I have edited a page on optical fiber, under subheading other uses of optical fiber. Under this I have placed a photograph depicting how optical fiber is used to monitor strain, but the photo is not showing up, kindly advise.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mascotmayank (talk • contribs) 06:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image you are trying to link to: Image:OTDR.jpeg shows up as a red link. Its Wikipedia log and Commons log are both empty, suggesting that nobody has uploaded a file with that exact name. Did you upload the image? If you have an image you want to upload, see: Wikipedia:Uploading images. --Teratornis (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not able to attach a photo to a topic

edit

i have edited an article on optical fiber and have attached a jpg file for the same but the photo is not showing up, kindly advise.--Mascotmayank (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of "Optical fiber question" above.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic reverts

edit

Twice, on two different articles, I've had serious editing reverted. In both cases, the ones doing the reversions left stock phrase posts on my Talk page (very good practice). What concerns me is that these search-and-revert missions seem to be automatically generated. Is there such a bot or function, and if so, how can I lodge a deep concern that it is much more disruptive than useful? Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are bots which revert edits automatically, but that's not what happend here. For the latest case, User:Arienh4 made a simple mistake and apologized for it; no need to blow this out of proportion. For the earlier one - That's not how you get rid of redirects. You need to put something in the article in the same edit, otherwise you get a blank page which is bad. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, as far as I know, the bots I mentioned have a very low rate of false positives. While having a good edit reverted is never pleasant, vandalism is rampant in Wikipedia, and the occasional mistake is better than having all articles full of junk and all editors leaving the project because they get tired of fighting vandalism bare-handed. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meni Rosenfeld, thanks for your useful comments. I've edited (in detail) only about a dozen articles, and only created one or two. To have two auto-reverts erroneously remove my work is an unusually high percentage. Where do I file my concern, other than here? Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at User talk:DOR (HK). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time in signature

edit

Can someone take a look at this user's talk page and suggest why the time in the signature is 8 hours ahead of the time the comment was made (01:39, 12 June 2008 according to the page history)? The same has happend when this user has left comments on my talk page, though I have since "corrected" the tine so the discussion appears to be in the right order. My own preference page is for times to be UTC. Astronaut (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the user is in that time zone and wrote it [1] manually in good faith without knowing that signatures should be made with ~~~~ and without knowing what UTC means (but having seen it in other signatures and just copied it). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that the time in the sig and the time given in the page history are often different. I checked this in a sandbox just now, and typing ~~~~ generated a timestamp of 05:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC) while the history read 01:26, 15 June 2008. The history's time is correct for my time zone. The sig's time is not. I surmise from this that the signature will always give the time in Coordinated Universal Time but the history will give the time in your time zone.
Due to the discrepancy, I always use the times on history pages and contrib lists (also given in my own time zone) to compare when edits were made (for instance, for comparing a vandal's user contributions to when they received their last warning). While the time zone may be different for me than for them, the amount of time between those edits will be correct, whereas comparing my time zone's time given in the contribs to the UTC time given in the sig after a warning will give a time difference that is hours off. --Icarus (Hi!) 05:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right place to post that stuff ?

edit

Hello,

First of all I would like to apologize for any spelling mistakes as english is not a language I spell well.

My question is whether or not the article about microsoft excel is the right place to post a guide on how to create certain types of graphics that are not originaly possible in microsoft excel (such as a Boston consulting group matrix or a financial risk analysis graph). It is not original work it comes from the work of Jean Rougier, Excel teacher at the Lausanne hotel school in Switzerland and I can provide sources (a published book) to support it. My worry is that it would be at odds with the actual content of the microsoft excel article that does not give any usage tips.

I would like to stress that this information is not available (for free as a user build solution that is) anywhere else (that I know of) on the internet. I have secured permission by the creator of the method to post it so no worries there.

So, can I write it or should I go elsewhere to share this type of info ?


Thank you very much for the free help.

Regards, Andrea D. Edelman Switzerland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.52.157 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have good intentions, but one of the things that Wikipedia says about itself is that it is not a manual or guidebook or textbook, so it doesn't seem like instructions on how to do someting in Excel would be appropriate for the encyclopedia. -- Natalya 12:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it might be appropriate for Wikibooks. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibooks has several pages about Microsoft Excel, including:
Wikipedia may not want its articles to be a how-to guide, but wikiHow does:
For example:
It looks like you could find a suitable place on Wikibooks and/or wikiHow. --Teratornis (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multli Column bulleted list

edit

I've looked extensively around in the helps and FAQs hoping not to duplicate the question here with no luck. My question is: Does Wikipedia support a multi column (my use is for two) format for construction of bulleted lists. It seems that a single column bulleted list takes up so much space and forces you to scroll at length.--Johnnybegood12 (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes: 

{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-3}}
* 1
* 2
* 3
{{Col-3}}
* 1
* 2
* 3
{{Col-3}}
* 1
* 2
* 3
{{Col-end}}

Gives:

You can tighten this up by using {{Col-4}} or higher, but only defining three columns. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or use {{multicol}} with {{multicol-break}} and {{multicol-end}}; these templates do not require that you specify in advance the number of columns that will be needed. Gary King (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cannot log in

edit

have been trying to log in but system will not take password - keep getting wrong password or secret word is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.103.190.11 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your username? Is Help:Logging in of help? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina editing

edit

I noticed the Hurricane Katrina entry is now Semi-Protected. I have been a Wikipedia user for some time, and lived through the storm, and from time to time added little things to the article. I cannot see any way to do so now. Am I totally blocked from making edits and additions? Thanks.

Whatsyourexcuse (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you made 10 edits? The autoconfirmed level (at which you can edit semi-protected pages) is 4 days and 10 edits. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What PeterSymonds said is correct. Alternatively, you can wait until the semi-protection expires. The time a page is protected varies, but looks like NawlinWiki protected the page last month. TN‑X-Man 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have not made ten edits, nor have I made any edits at all in the last few months. I'm not sure I understand... Do I need to have made at least 10 edits in 4 days to be eligible to edit a semi-protected page, or does that preclude me from doing so (in which case, I should be eligible, correct?)? Many thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatsyourexcuse (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have at least ten edits AND be a user for at least 4 days. Reviewing your edit history, the four days should already be taken care of. A few more edits and you'll be up to ten. After that, you should be able to edit semi-protected articles. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help POV Pushing Tag Team In Play What To DO?

edit

Not quite up to speed on what to do or who to contact?


I am looking for some input to help in a POV Push tag team who seem hell bent on pushing a 3RR war, reverting large amounts of data and also controlling the edits of others. This exercise has not been pleasant and I don’t believe editors have to put up with this type of behaviour.

The aggressive member of this team is User:ScienceApologist and he is constantly back up with a revert from User:Kwamikagami


At the controversial page Unidentified_flying_object


These two will not play wiki and seem to be in a hell long path to edit wars. I have been as helpful and polite as I can without any threats, but it seems totally impossible reason with these POV pushers.

User:ScienceApologist seems to be very un Wiki in his bully tactics, his discussion page is littered with unhappy editor… this does not bode well for Wiki.

User:ScienceApologist also has a very poor history with admin block.

User:Kwamikagami if I am right also has admin rights? So he should know better.


Unfortunately I live in Australia and need to go to bed to sleep, these pushers are in the US… so if I can help please leave me a message.

Can anyone advise or help?

Thank you for your help.

Best Regards Vufors (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the links under WP:EIW#Dispute. Wikipedians have documented almost every imaginable aspect of content disputes and how to resolve them. Wikipedia is the world's largest do it yourself project, which means everything is a matter of reading and following instructions - there is really no mystery to what we do here; it's all in the Editor's index. The best way to get help on the Help desk is to make it as easy as possible for Help desk volunteers to understand a problem. You did link to an article and to two user names - that's good. However, you merely editorialized about your problem, rather than describing it coherently. For a Help desk volunteer to understand what you are asking, the volunteer would have to slog through the revision history of Unidentified_flying_object, and analyze the edits of everyone who is edit warring. Tip: whenever there is any kind of dispute on Wikipedia, the side which demonstrates the best understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines wins. (See: WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia doesn't care about my opinion or your opinion, or pretty much anybody's opinion except in rare cases Jimbo Wales'. What matters on Wikipedia is what the policies and guidelines say. Your ability to influence Wikipedia is directly proportional to your knowledge of the policies and guidelines and your ability to link to the sections relevant to any situation.) User:Kwamikagami is indeed an administrator, which puts you in a shaky position, because the RfA process is supposed to insure that admins have a solid grasp of policies and guidelines. That doesn't mean all administrators do everything perfectly, but most of the time when a non-admin complains about an admin, the admin turns out to be most compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's analogous to a dispute between a shopper at a store and a security guard at the store. A few guards might abuse their power, but most of the time the guard understands the store's rules better than someone who just wandered in. Therefore, you have to meet a substantial burden of proof if you want to overturn an administrator's actions, and your poorly-phrased question isn't a promising start. I'm not trying to be mean here, just explaining how the Darwinistically merciless world of Wikipedia works. --Teratornis (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think the first thing to do, Vufors, is to engage in the ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article, in which both of the other editors are engaged. Currently I think their version is better; although I don't want to get involved in an edit war to support them I think you should take into account the fact that it's those two plus me against one (you), so the only way to make progress here is to discuss why your proposed changes would be better. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats great but these two did not engage in the discussion at all they just did a mass edit. Well I guess 3 to 1 is how the bully system works. Thats how the POV system plays. One of you does a mass edit without any talk in the discussion then the other two back him up in a tag game. I thought wiki was better than that... but I see I am wrong. So sad.Vufors (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

using referense desk archives

edit

It is strange, but on the pages of the referense desk there are no (or there are?) links to the archives. For example, I need to check once more answers to my question asked in the beginning of May on linguistics, but I can't find the link to it. How can I do this? Thank you. --88.84.200.1 (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at bullet point number 1 at the top of this page, I believe there is a link to search the archives. Is that to what you're referring? TN‑X-Man 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silkscreen (typeface)

edit

Hello, I'm wondering why the article on the typeface Silkscreen has been deleted and would like to see it undeleted. Silkscreen is a typeface used everywhere in the Internet and I'm quite convinced most Internet consumers run into it daily. –Zinjixmaggir 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should then be taken to WP:Deletion review. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was proposed for deletion and there were no objections after 5 days. The proposal reason was "non-notable font." Simply being used is not enough to satisfy our notability guideline. If you really want, you can request it be undeleted at WP:DRV, but you're better off writing a new article with citations to show how this is a notable subject for an encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WWMPD. On Wikipedia, what we know does not matter as what we can reliably source. I tried some searches and didn't find anything that looked promising on the first results pages:
I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia decides the "notability" of a typeface. See the articles in:
I had to click a few times to find a typeface article that wasn't just a stub, and actually has some references: Centaur (typeface). Perhaps those references will give you some ideas about what sort of references would establish notability for the silkscreen typeface. I did not see a WikiProject banner template on the talk pages of the typeface articles I looked at; often a WikiProject has additional style guides for articles under its purview, which might give clues about how to fend off the deletionists. And speaking of stubs, check out Category:Typography stubs - as to why the Silkscreen (typeface) article got deleted, yet all those kajillion typeface stubs are still here, your guess is as good as mine. --Teratornis (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we have an article about Jason Kottke, the author of the silkscreen typeface. --Teratornis (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warm thanks for your answers :) –Zinjixmaggir 08:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Company link in "Gasket" article

edit

While reading the article on Gaskets, I noticed that a user from 24.190.232.30 added a company link to the list of sources without adding anything else to the article. The user, itself, has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia. All in all, it seems suspicious, but I am unsure as to how to proceed. Please advise.

--James-Chin (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That edit has been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought that might eb the correct procedure, but I wasn't sure. I appreciate your assistance. --James-Chin (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

I am creating my own Wiki for my company and i was wondering how to create a "Back to Top" link. The article is long and has many sections. At the end of each section i want there to be a link that says "Back to Top" and will direct the user back to the top of the document. I've tried to find a help page that explains how to do this, but i haven't found anything. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loffles (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must create a <div> that is positioned where you want it. Then wiki-link it to #globalWrapper (for reference, the bottom is #footer). Hope that helps. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the code in Wikipedia:Help desk/Header. --Teratornis (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To make much headway as a MediaWiki administrator, a person needs to get good at reverse engineering well-developed wikis such as Wikipedia. Wikipedia users have customized Wikipedia extensively, and a lot of features one comes to expect on Wikipedia are not part of the plain MediaWiki package. Thus an early step in setting up one's own MediaWiki wiki is to copy a bunch of stuff from Wikipedia, including a few dozen (or hundred) templates, some or all of MediaWiki:Common.css, installing some extensions such as appear in Special:Version, and more things than I can write here. Questions about MediaWiki belong in mw:Project:Support desk. You might try learning how to answer questions on the Help desk - perhaps nothing else teaches a person how to find answers about this stuff faster. Help desk volunteers have collaborated with other Wikipedians to build some interesting search tools (such as {{Google custom}}, {{Help desk searches}}, the Editor's index, and the FAQ). --Teratornis (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in text wiktionary link

edit

how do you link a word directly to the wiktionary, i saw it done but forgot the exact formatting. i know it is something like "{{wikt|insert word here}}" but "wikt" didn't work so what is it exactly?Myheartinchile (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use an interwiki link prefix like this: wikt:example. There is also a {{Wiktionary}} template. Where do you plan to use this? There may be rules for where we can insert such links (see possibly WP:SELFREF). --Teratornis (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks a lot, ahh so your supposed to use a colon as a separator not a pipe and double brackets not braces, and you can use a pipe after the title to remove the wikt part from the article. thanks man.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability for fiction articles

edit

Hi,

I found an article that I'm interested in working on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_%28novella%29.

But it has a tag at the top that says it needs sources or references and I'm not sure what to do about that. It is a new novel by a very well known and successful children's author, so it seems like it should be notable, but I just don't think there are any sources. I signed one academic book about this author out of the library, but she is a children's author, so academic works aren't that common and this book is way too new to have anything like that written about it. I looked all over the Verifiability page and I can't seem to find anything there about how to work with fiction.

Is the tag correct? Should it be there or can I just take it off? Is there a page that tells me how to write about things that exist and are notable, like many works of fiction, but that don't have many, if any, sources? CharlotteMR (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to articles more cleanly, like this: The Game (novella). (But thanks for giving us a real link; too many questioners don't even mention the article they have a question about, leaving Help desk volunteers to work on our mind reading skills. Of course you could have helped out lazy helpers like me by also providing a link to the author you mentioned but did not name: Diana Wynne Jones. It's not just that we're lazy, but also the longer we take to research a question, the more likely we are to get edit conflicts with other helpers.) Welcome to the often vexing world of Wikipedia! Finding reliable sources can be one of the hardest things to do here. It's often easier to start with some reliable sources, and go find articles to put them in, than to start with an arbitrary article and try to find sources for it. But since you seem to like a challenge, what can we do? First, see Wikipedia:Notability (books). ("Notability" on Wikipedia is more or less synonymous with (or analogous to, or at least reminiscent of) "verifiability," although enough people seem to regard the two concepts as being distinct enough to require their own names and policies. Whatever the difference, the similarity is we establish both by finding reliable sources.) Once you find some suitable references, the fun is only beginning; see: WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, WP:CITET, and WP:LAYOUT. Lately I've been playing with an interesting citation tool, {{Google scholar cite}}:
That finds some links to the author's books, and to some scholarly papers about the author, from which you can get a citation template by clicking the handy {{Wikify}} link, for example here is one (which may or may not apply to the article you are asking about, this just illustrates one way to get citations):
<ref name=Rosenberg2001>{{cite journal
 | author = Rosenberg, T.
 | journal = Papers: Explorations in Children�s Literature
 | volume = 11
 | pages = 14–25
 | year = 2001
}}</ref>
--Teratornis (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Some very good questions. It is assumed that if a novel is "notable" (in that it is worthy of note), that someone reliable has actually made a note of it. To this end, notability and verifiability are tightly coupled. What does this mean for a work of fiction? Well, if the book is notable, then odds are that a reliable source (a book reviewer, a literary critic, etc) has made some mention of the book, including a summary. Other sources might be the New York Times Bestseller List. The publisher (although a primary source) would serve as a good source of uncontentious information, such as the publication date and the author. I hope these clarifications help. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit

I would like to create a new item on Wikipedia and link it to to other Wikipedia items. My concern is that I may be infringing on someone's(someones'?) copyright. What I would like to do is create a page "San Quentin Quail", and link it to Wikipedia's "Jailbait" page.The term "San Quentin Quail" is used in Mary Hemingway's 1970 publication of Ernest Hemingway's novel "Islands in the Stream" describing the possibility that one of the characters may have had sexual relations with an underage person and then had legal difficulties because of it. Although the term may now be in the public domain and might have been at the time the novel was written or published, I am not sure. Can you clarify this for me?

Thanx, Rumpedia (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

If I understand correctly, want to write an article defining “San Quentin quail” as “jailbait.”, That wouldn’t be a copyright violation just because someone used it that way. But it probably wouldn’t be an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article either: dictionaries give definitions—not encyclopedias. —teb728 t c 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you understand correctly. I do not intend to write an article defining "St. Quentin quail" as "jailbait", but to write a Wikipedia article on the term. I think you may have misunderstood me as I wrote I would like to link to "jailbait". By the way, thank you for your help. What are your Qualifications on the topic of copyrights?

how can i have video on a wiki page?

edit

how can i have video on a wiki page?

Thanks

--CharlesCkaloustian (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the short answer is, you can't. The longer answer is, what is the video, and why do you want it on here? Is it an addition to an existing article that is appropriate for an encyclopedia? Tan | 39 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Hosting video is currently so limited as to be almost nonexistent. Please see m:Video policy. There is a link there to one extant article with a video.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can include videos on articles just like you can include images; here is an example: Hitler#Hitler_in_media. Gary King (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_June_12&oldid=1089370527"