Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 November 26

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< November 25 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 27 >
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 26

edit

Wikipedia is Dying Under Its Own Weight

edit

... and if you want an example have a look at this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Lee_(academic)

There was a feature in the UK news magazine, Private Eye on this article.

I have no truck with this person. I don't even know who he is to be honest. But he's evidently written his own hagiography on this entry.

Despite attempts by some to point out the silliness of trying to claim that this is an encylopedic article, nothing gets done.

Individuals and organisations use your smug endeavour to further their own PR needs, and there is nothing you bother to do about it.

And you have the arrogance to offer a guide to 'citing' Wikipedia - as if 'articles' like this have any kind of academic weight!

Pathetic - and yet hysterical. If that's an encyclopedia article, I'm a muskrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.240.201 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you from improving the article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia#A caution before citing Wikipedia. This help desk regularly gets questions about how to cite Wikipedia. It would be odd to withhold that information. Many promotional articles are deleted daily or have poorly sourced and unsourced claims removed. Others slip by for some time but may be improved at any time, for example by you. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a recent example of an inappropriate claim which was removed 70 minutes later, see [1] which reverted the only other edit by the IP address in your post. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the Help Desk for Wikipedia - we will answer any questions about how to use Wikipedia. However, you have not actually asked any questions! You are entitled to your opinion, but the Help Desk is not the place to air it - it would be better placed on the article's talk page here. If there are factual inaccuracies, mention these there, and give your sources of information (from reliable sources) that show that your information is correct and that in the article is wrong. The article in question has references sourced from UK national newspaper, which most people (apart from yourself, I assume) would count as reliable sources of information. I was not aware that Private Eye was counted as more reliable than The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, Times Higher Education or BBC News, which account for 10 out of the 14 references given! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Lee (academic) has had about 424 views so far this month. Articles which few people read take longer to improve, as readers outnumber editors on Wikipedia by at least two orders of magnitude. In general, articles on Wikipedia which get few views may remain poor in quality for a long calendar time, but the most meaningful unit of time on Wikipedia is the page view. Thus on average roughly the same number of people will view a poor quality article as it evolves toward something better. See for example the most popular articles right now. Most of them are either of respectable quality or are rapidly progressing toward it - rapidly in terms of calendar time, but not page-view time. If a significant number of people cared about Simon Lee (academic), his article would get better fast. On Wikipedia there is no deadline. Check back in a few years and things should be better than they are now. Wikipedia does not try to be all things to all people, so if you don't like it, that's cool. --Teratornis (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wizard draft how to upload/move - need more

edit

My draft, created in the wizard is complete with extensive references. I cannot find how to MOVE/upload it to the encyclopedia. My account in new and I do not have edits made to quzlity me for MOVE on my own. I am completely stumped and already spent 3 hours going through all the HELP questions, etc. Marcomgirl (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need ten edits and four days to move a page (which I have). I will review the article and move it if appropriate. Please wait for a few minutes while I do so. Intelligentsium 03:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned there is some clopse paraphrasing in your draft, which may be of some legal discomfort to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. You may ask any experienced user to move it for you after you have revised it into more of your own words (not me though; it is very early in the morning here). Intelligentsium 04:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned with the sourcing and that it comes across overly promotional. I assume it might be easy enough to fix, though. I can provide some feedback on your user tlak page if you want.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contets box

edit

How do I get contents box at the top of article User:Zaikovskis. It doesn't appear there automatically. Have I deleted something? Thanks – imis☂ 04:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

use the template {{TOC left}}. --Jayron32 05:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it, I want it to be on top. Please advise. Thanks – imis☂ 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The table of contents automatically appears when there is at least four section headings so you currently need one more. You can force it to appear in a given place regardless of the number of headings by placing the code __TOC__ (double underscores on both sides). See more at Help:Section. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Resolved
 – Thanks – imis☂ 02:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Account lost password

edit

Is there anyway to get a password for an old account.I lost the password and have not been able to log on for a few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koneesha24 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the account has not stored an email address then the account cannot be retrieved. User:Koneesha has no email address. If you prefer the old username then you can make a request to usurp it. But creating a new account when the old only has two deleted edits is perfectly OK and preferred over usurpation which gives us more work. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.K.A. - How to?

edit

Is there an easy way to specify a person's alias within an article and have either name redirect there? Or must a separate redirect page be created? For example I have a page Curtis Grubb, but he also spelled his name Curttis Grubb. Can I handle this within the existing page, or do I have to create a redirect to it? LynnSGrubb (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should create a redirect and mention and cite the alternate spelling. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can't open wikipedia pages

edit

Dear All - this is pretty basic I'm afraid - frequently I try to open a wikipedia page and I get a dialogue box headed "File Download - Security Warning" which says "Do you want to save this file, or find a program to open it?" - in effect I can't open the page. This happens with many but not all pages - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitz_im_Leben is an example of one where it does happen. I'm using Vista, which must be to blame, since it is the source of all wickedness in the modern world. Any suggestions?

Many thanks

JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.210.171 (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrrm... yes, thanks, now I can open that one... and it does seem that if I search directly in wikipedia I get through. But some pages that I previously searched for on Google and failed to open I don't seem to be able to open in wikipedia either! I can't open the article on von Rad from here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=von+rad, for example. But I guess I can live with that! Thanks for your help -

JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.210.171 (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

information on natural mutagens and toxicity testing

edit

please give information on natural mutagens and toxicity testing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghunekkanti23 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of 49,000 editors

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Resolved
 – Got it, new encyclopedia. Please don't feed them. TNXMan 16:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Community,

I was dismayed to read in the news that Wikipedia has lost 49,000 editors.

What can I do to help this magnificent and extensive encylopeadia of knowledge ?

Please provide me immediately with a position of trust (e.g. moderator) so that I can start helping you ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.62.65.10 (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

There are a lot of ways to contribute. Please read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Job center for suggestions, but you can also be bold and improve anything you see that you think needs improving. You don't need to be an administrator to help out. If you want to be an administrator some day, please read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship for more information, but be aware that an anonymous user has never become an administrator. I suggest you create an account, and generally candidates should have been active contributors for at least several months, so it's unlikely you'll become an administrator soon. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Mysdaao talk 14:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, Mysdaao for your swift reply.

Regarding your suggestion; "Be bold and improve anything you see that you think needs improving" - I have indeed attempted this on several occaisions, but unfortunately my improvements on each occaison have been reversed. In fact on several occaisions my IP was banned for a period of time.

The reason I require "Moderator" status, is so that I can overrule other moderators, and if need be, ban them.

Together we can make Wikipedia great.

No. Wikipedia does not have one ruler. You do not need a position of trust to be able to edit. A few well-established users are chosen by the community to receive special privileges that help keep the encyclopaedia in order. Even then, these administrators are still subject to community rules and can have their privileges revoked at any time. You would not be able to get any sort of privileges, anyway, if you are not logged in. This is not Slashdot: Administrator privileges are not randomly doled out; you must earn them.
If your edits are getting reverted, then I suggest you read the tutorial to learn how to edit a page correctly and what constitutes an acceptable edit. Your posts make it clear that you have several misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. Xenon54 / talk / 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I give you points for being bold :D Everyone can edit, but that doesn't mean that it is easy. You are welcomed to do your best and listen to the advice (aka "SCARY WARNINGS on my talk page") given by others. You do not have to contribute, but if you want to, the door is always open. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's not really in the spirit of wikipedia, on wikipedia we work together to achieve consensus, we don't just block users we disagree with or dislike. I suggest that you read up on our guideline on blocking. Furthermore users aren't granted adminship just so that they can block users they dislike, adminship is granted to those who show a genuine interest in improving the project, kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you misunderstand what it means to be an administrator on Wikipedia. It is considered no big deal and doesn't give you special rights to not follow the policies. I don't know the reason for the your previous blocks, but if somebody reverted your well-meaning edits, that's part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, so you could've and should've discussed the edits with the users(s) who reverted your changes to work together. Remember, nobody owns the articles and all Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. If you were an administrator, it would be considered an abuse of power to block editors whose edits you disagreed with. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Equality and Wikipedia:No vested contributors to gain a better understanding of these principles on Wikipedia. --Mysdaao talk 15:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysdaao, my friend, you leave me no choice.

I will create my own virtual encyclopedia, and run your Wikipedia into the ground. You are a mindless bore-ro-crat. Do not come asking me for a job on the new virtual encyclopedia, once it's set up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.62.65.10 (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend you try wikia, anyone can create a wiki for free there. Kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 16:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see how your business model would attract the kind of editors that left Wikipedia. May the best online encyclopedia win. —Akrabbimtalk 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do let us know what the name of your encyclopedia will be - then when it overtakes Wikipedia as the most popular and wide-ranging online encyclopedia, we'll be able to say "We were there when 194.62.65.10 went off to start it". Enjoy being a moderator for your encyclopedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation template for an annual report

edit

Hi. I'm citing a company's annual report using the citation template. Now I'm not entirely sure what parameters to use or how.

Here's an example of how I used it:

  • date = April 7, 2009 (The date when the annual report was published.)
  • periodical = Annual Report 2008 (The title of the report.)
  • version = 12 (Version of the annual report. It says 12th operating year so I'm guessing it's the 12th version of the report.)
  • publisher = CCP (The company publishing the report.)
  • pages = 64-67 (The pages I'm citing.)

There are probably some important parameters that I am forgetting and/or misusing. Could somebody take a look at the company's article and check it out. Cheers. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you employed by the company or do you have some other kind of relationship with them that would put you in a conflict of interest? – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change my email?

edit

I got a new email address and I can't figure out how to change my old email on wikipedia to the new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argyleislife (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the topright when you are logged in is the option "Preferences". On the first tab, at the bottom, you will find "Email options". —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category with template

edit

Is there a code to put on a page so that a category that is embedded in a navbox template will not show on a specific page? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about a category for a template, try adding <noinclude> [[Category:(insert category here)]] </noinclude> to the template. If you want a template placed on a page to automatically categorize its article, add (to the template) <includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{category|}}}}}|no||[[Category:(insert category here)|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly> . Hope this helps! - I.M.S. (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template already has the code that adds the category automatically. The problem is that for a few pages that are in this navbox, there is no need for that category since the pages are in a subcat of it already. Other pages in the navbox, however, need the category. I could take the automaticness out of the navbox template, but then I would have to manually add the category to the 20 or so pages that do need it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't help you there, although I see your problem. It would probably take some rather advanced code, but until someone figures it out, perhaps your idea of adding the categories manually would work best. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Category suppression. If a template is coded to add a category then a use of the template cannot prevent it (bugzilla:835 has a 5 years old request for that). The common solution is to let the template add categories by default but have a parameter saying to not add categories. A few templates have code to check for such a parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages linking to an infobox

edit
  Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how can I find out, which pages are making use of a certain infobox? Thx for your support. FHessel (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Whatlinkshere should show which pages transclude the template. Simply enter the full page title, for example "Template:Infobox software", in the "Page" box, leave "Namespace" at "all", then click "Go". Xenon54 / talk / 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you FHessel (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can also click "What links here" in the toolbox to the left (at least in the default MonoBook skin) when you are on the template page for the infobox. See more at Help:What links here. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

edit

I've rewritten a definition section. I wanted to include a references, but I wasn't sure where to put the ><ref>…</ref> marker. I've written the standard definition and given some explanation of my own. Putting the <ref>…</ref> marker at the end feels like only the last sentance is from the given reference. I settled on putting the ><ref>…</ref> marker in the section header; but that doesn't feel right either. What's the way of doing this? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the simplest, add <ref>...</ref> at the end of a sentence, and add, at the bottom of the page, {{reflist}} or </references> so that all your references show. Adding a ref after a section header isn't proper. Within a ref, at the simplest, you can add something like : Smith, John (1998). p. 39. Try messing around at the Sandbox until you get the hang of it. Here's an example:

... died on Nov. 1st, 1926.[1]

References

edit
  1. ^ abc, abc, (2004). p. 300


Hope this helps... I went ahead and fixed the problem on your page. I added <refname="Arnold"> to the ref (see how it looks in wikitext). That way you can use your source multiple times throughout the article. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the changes. But your reply didn't really address what I had in mind. I'm already very familiar with how to put in references and reflists. My question was this: If a whole paragraph or section is supported by one reference, then where should the reference tag go? Peppering the article with a reference tag at the end of every sentence is not acceptable; but putting only one isn't ideal either: it might imply that only that one sentence is supported by that reference. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 13:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems.

edit

Hello. We've added a few images over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saw_characters but for some reason the thumb pic for the characters Lawrence Gordon, Daniel Rigg and William Easton won't update and show their recent image changes. Its taking on the new pictures dimensions but not updating the actual image. If we remove the 'thumb' value it seems to update the pic but leaves them too big. Anyone know why this is happening?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try purging or bypassing your cache. The browser may just be displaying the old thumb because it does not detect that there is a new file to retrieve from the server. —Akrabbimtalk 13:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an IP...

edit

There was an essay I read a long while back about not discrediting IPs, because they can make useful contributions. It included a story about an IP, that, at one point, received an admin nomination. I'd like to get the IP's name (or number, whatever) and if possible, the link to the essay. I'd like to be able to argue on behalf of poor IPs that are called vandals on every talk page I've been to, but I just can't remember the blasted information. ~Thanks, ~九尾の氷狐~ (「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」) 22:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal. Nanonic (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an IP RfA: [2] Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you two~ Happy Thanksgiving, unless you don't celebrate it, in which case, happy Thursday :3 ~九尾の氷狐~ (「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_November_26&oldid=1124962064"