Help desk
< May 4	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 6 >

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.

May 5[edit]

Browser alignment problem[edit]

Recently, it seems that when I open Wikipedia in Mozilla Firefox, that the left-hand side menu is "pushed" down below the Main article. I'm not sure why this has been happening. It looks fine in Internet Explorer, however. Perhaps it's something I did wrong but am overlooking or a recent upgrade to the website that corrupts the display in Firefox.

NorthernThunder 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about my Wiki-ness[edit]

I am trying to understand the subtleties of becoming a more effective Wikki-writer. Would someone from the editing team be able to look at things I've written (ie Prakash Vir Shastri) or have had the major part in writing (ie Tyagi) and offer me suggestions. The latter article is the more recent of the two as far as my learning curve goes. I really am just in awe of the Wiki-phenomenon--keep up your amazing amazing work. Chantoke 00:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Vir Shastri needs a few things:

Standard sections. See: WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and WP:WIKIFY.
An infobox, for example: {{Infobox biography}}.
A photo of its subject; see Help:Image.
Another tag on its talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, namely: {{WPBiography}}.
All the references placed in footnotes; see: WP:CITE.

--Teratornis 01:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also recommend WP:ER - see comment on your talk page here Hersfold ^(talk/work) 01:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfamiliar words should be briefly explained rather than just linked, e.g. instead of "gotras", say "gotras or clans" or "gotras (clans)". Don't force people without much knowledge of Indian culture to read other articles to understand the article they want to read. Clarityfiend 06:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page notice at bottom[edit]

I've been trying to get my user talk page notice to float at the bottom here. I was able to put in the div code to get it at the bottom, since you can't actually put it there because it would move up when a new topic is started. However, it covers the bottom topics. How can I get it to be under the last comments and not covering them? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 01:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Prodego ^talk 01:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It covers up things at the bottom like cats, but thanks! --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Increase "margin-bottom:" (not "padding-bottom") to adjust that. Prodego ^talk 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

porn problems[edit]

I would like to donate once you've figured out how to stop porn on Wikimedia Commons. It can sure hurt a child. You need to find a way. Period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.48.67 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, if you have a suggestion... I don't think commons has a problem with that, since users patrol the new images. However, this should probably be discussed on the Commons, rather then on Wikipedia (sister site). Prodego ^talk 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. So isn't the real world. — Kieff | Talk 02:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You might also want to note that Wikipedia is not censored. If an image is relevant to an article and not in violation of our policies, it may be included, even if it may be considered profane or offensive to some editors. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: we don't show porn, which is "the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal". We have explicit images where they are helpful to illustrate the concept presented in the article, but it would be a severe challenge to find even 1 pornographic image. Prodego ^talk 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

Is there an available script that tells a person when viewing your Userpage that you're either online or not? Jac_roe 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online on what? There seem to be some MediaWiki extensions that can let users tell when they are online in an instant messaging service. See this search of mediawiki.org. See Special:Version for the list of extensions installed on Wikipedia. --Teratornis 04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online on Wikipedia. Jac_roe 04:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen what you're talking about on some user's talk pages but I don't remember which ones, sorry. I always kind of wondered how they worked though. Dismas|^(talk) 04:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mw:Extension:Whos online, but it does not seem to be installed on Wikipedia. --Teratornis 06:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are templates such as: {{Wikibreak}}, but those are just static indicators that a user must manually put up and take down. --Teratornis 06:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one that works by clicking links rather than repeat editing. See WP:US/S. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to ask for help with an article[edit]

I just stumbled upon the aerobics article, which I have tried to improve a bit (I added fact tags to my own additions because I'm going to find citations for them later). My problem is trying to wikilink the important words, which I am being stymied with partly because I can't figure out what fits best (Wikipedia doesn't seem to have articles for some of the things I want to link to), and partly because some really typical things have really weird redirects or something. The worst of these is cardio vascular, which seems to forward to a band called Circulatory System of all things. Sooo... I am feeling really stuck and frustrated, and I don't know where to go for help. Can someone help me?? Yahoo!Sirius 04:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, don't worry too much about creating links to things that don't have articles yet, i.e. red links. This helps as an indicator as to what we still need articles on. Also, when someone does write that article, the links will automatically turn blue. I've directed the words "cardio-vascular" to the Circulatory system article since that's where Cardio-vascular system redirects to. Dismas|^(talk) 04:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks very much. But the article cardio vascular still redirects to that band name, I notice. Yahoo!Sirius 04:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore it doesn't. Just fixed that a minute or so ago. I figure that more people will want to know about the circulatory system than a rather obscure band. Dismas|^(talk) 04:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page question[edit]

There are two disambiguation pages - Great Expectations (disambiguation) and Great Expectations (film) - when there only needs to be one. I have fixed the former and intend to make the latter a redirect page, but there are links to German and Polish(?) wikipedias there. What purpose do they serve? Can I just copy them over? Clarityfiend 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more information about the links to other language Wikipedias, see Wikipedia:Interlanguage links. --Teratornis 17:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New page potential clash[edit]

Hi,

I am new to creating pages on Wikipedia, bet you've heard that one a few times!

I would like to create a page for the UK computer magaizine of the 80's, 'Personal Computer Games'. I just wanted to know if this would cause any kind of confict or problem when users try to link to 'Personal Computer Game', as in, the page about computer games in general. I didn't want to go adding the section about the mag if I am going to upset people trying to look at the section on computer games if every time they try they have to select from extra links or get redirected to my magazine page instead!

This may sound like a foolish question but as I say, I'm new to this!

Thanks

Russ Smith

Russgalleywood 09:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people were looking for the general link about such games, it should be located at Personal computer game or PC game. Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, capitalization counts. So, no. I don't think it would cause a naming clash. - 87.209.70.231 10:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Creating Personal Computer Games sounds OK to me. All 3 words are capitalized and it ends with 's' unlike Personal computer game. Still, I would suggest placing {{otheruses4}} at the start, for example {{otheruses4|the 80's magazine|games in general|Personal computer game}} which renders as

PrimeHunter 13:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Guys, I will do as suggested.

It would be '80s actually, but that might be academic because someone has nominated the article for SD. With which I would agree, as it stands. If you can establish notability, by all means do so, but you'll need to add a hangon tag to delay the deletion. Adrian M. H. 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who needs hangon tags? I removed the speedy deletion to give you time to expand the article and establish notability. Don't take forever though, or it will be deleted. Prodego ^talk 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user who created a contested article, funnily enough. Adrian M. H. 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My user account[edit]

I have a user account in Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, but I don't know what benefits I get from having one. I may have not noticed it but I don't feel the difference of being a member or not while using Wikipedia.

Chandravadhana 11:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are various advantages but if you don't use Wikipedia much then you probably wouldn't notice them. They are listed at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --Cherry blossom tree 11:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category problem PLZ HELP ASAP[edit]

i wz try to add D. S. Senanayake College Category:Schools in_Sri Lanka but it wont added to this catagory and i have added da same college to this to categories too, and it has added to this 2 categories Educational institutions established in 1967 & Public schools in Sri Lanka.. why cnt cant i add it to the CATEGORY: SCHOOLS IN SRI LANKA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Udara0072 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

User assisted on IRC by purging the cache Mart inp23 12:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing Image With Edited Version[edit]

I've added a couple of links to an existing article, but I'm very new to editing Wikipedia.

I saw an image that needed improvement and wanted to replace this image [2] with this edited version [3]. This image is used in several articles so it must be done correctly or it won't be picked up properly by the various articles.

I've tried to read and understand the procedure for replacing an image, but it's too confusing for me. It may require Perl, or Javascript or ???

What I thought might be useful is a image "Test" area where I can experiment with image uploads and replacements, but I was unable to find such an area. Is there such a test area? Is there a cookbook explanation or Idiots Guide for replacing a picture? --Thot 13:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox is the testing area. Or you can can put a sub page under your user name such as User:Wiki name/sandbox and do all the testing you want to do there. As far as image help goes, WP:IMAGES provides many good links. Dismas|^(talk) 16:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that complicated. Just upload it under the exact same name. Before you do that, though. How is the new image improved? Also, you can simply upload it under a real name and edit the articles to point to the new image so the other one can be retained (or even better: moved to the Wikimedia Commons). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finally figured out how to change that picture, and judging by the time of your post you went to it after I changed it. That's why you didn't see a difference. This place is confusing. Does this help area apply to the Commons area as well as the not-Commons area? Unfortunately,it appears that editing a picture in the Commons area requires a different procedure than in the non-Commons area. In trying your suggestion to just upload the edited version of an image using the same name I get this error message "A file with this name exists already. You can't upload a new version because your account is too new." I've had an account on this website for over a year. When does an account become un"new?" Thot 15:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find...?[edit]

Can anyone tell me where to find that upright line that you use in links when you want to link a word that is not the title of the page. Is it on the keyboard?Staug73 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This line is called pipe. You should have this character on your keyboard near Enter button (it may be also presented as a broken bar, i.e. ¦). Jacek Kendysz 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have the pipe key on your keyboard, you may find it near the upper left of the big box of character links that appears below the edit window on Wikipedia. --Teratornis 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jacek, I have the broken bar - just to the left of the z key. | there it is. And Teratonis I have found it in the symbol box - I never thought to look there and didn't realize anyway that you could move stuff from there into the edit box. | I can see new horizons opening up. Thanks for those helpful tips.Staug73 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and the MediaWiki software which powers it are both extremely deep (and getting deeper all the time with software upgrades and more add-on features). You will probably keep finding interesting new tricks as long as you edit here. You probably won't find many other comparably deep systems which are so easy for total beginners to start using in simple ways; most software that is deep in features is hostile to beginners; while most software that is friendly to beginners has been stripped of features and dumbed down to the point of near-uselessness. While there are some things here I would have designed differently, Wikipedia is, overall, one of the finest and most well-thought-out systems you will find anywhere today. In my opinion, which everybody might as well agree with, Wikipedia provides the first real hope we've had in some time that the Internet can be made to not suck. --Teratornis 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that my comments above violate WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV, so if this were a real article, I would try hard not to write like that. --Teratornis 04:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing problem with Beverly Hills High School[edit]

I just updated the section on DIVERSITY in the article on Beverly Hills High School, and the bottom half of the entire page disappeared. How can I or you restore the missing info?Dr. Maitland 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, you managed to post this twice and without a heading. I sorted that for you. I'll take a quick peek at the article, but if it is messed up, it's easy to fix. Just revert! Adrian M. H. 17:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Looks fine from here, as far as I can tell.~~ Ah, I see it. You messed up a closing ref tag. Fixed now. Adrian M. H. 17:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wikipedia as a source[edit]

Is this acceptable? I'm not sure. I'm reviewing an article for GA and they've cited another Wikipedia article as a source. I'm assuming it would be fine considering we wikilink to other articles, and in this particular instance they're referencing a list rather than a word or phrase, if that makes sense. I don't see anything about it in WP:CITE or other similar WP policies. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an essay about it, if that helps. It is not necessarily a reliable source. Adrian M. H. 18:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The other Wikipedia article should be sourced. If so, use that source. If not then the info isn't reliable. --Cherry blossom tree 22:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Question[edit]

I am attempting to restore a long standing version of an article that another editor has recently deleted and now insists on keeping removed. I have tried to take his comments into account and in fact removed two paragraphs that he thought didn't belong. Now he's deleting for additional reasons (copyright) and it's obvious that he just doesn't like what the information is saying and will find any possible reason to remove it. You can see our discussion here [4]. I have provided a Wikipedia comment about copyright that I believe allows me to use these quotes [5] from Wikipedia:Non-free content. While I acknowledge the importance of copyright I suspect that if one had to attempt to get permission for every quote used in Wikipedia quite a lot of the content would be disallowed. Any recommendations? Thanks. 4.246.200.18 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Stop taking up half the article just to say that Bush's environmental policies resemble Watt's ideas. Clarityfiend 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the article offended you, but this whole controversy between Watt and environmentalists is sort of what he is all about and known for. It's like saying "stop taking up half of the article about Monsanto with stuff about genetically engineered food". 4.246.200.18 23:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't offend me, bloated writing does. Anyway, I see that other editors have made their opinions known with more direct action. Vox populi, vox dei. Clarityfiend 00:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You're a friendly one! 4.246.205.22 00:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with an article about my organization[edit]

Hope for Another Day

I am the owner of the Hope for Another Day organization. This was sent to me via email, saying the article was created. Some of the information is not true. You have standards about us creating our own article, but would we be allowed to edit the information with more reliable resources and to be more accurate?

We vow to keep the article neutral. This is a non-profit organization.

Thanks,

Nicholas Burrus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.233.43.130 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anyone can edit any article. We have guidelines against people editing articles on themselves or their organizations, but that's only because most people find it very hard to be neutral about themselves. But if you can provide reliable sources to back up your claims, it's perfectly acceptable to edit your article. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that if any claims currently in the Hope for Another Day are not reliably sourced, it is perfectly acceptable to remove them, according to the Great Leader (see: Wikipedia:Verifiability#_note-1). However, it is good to explain on the talk page what you are doing and why (that is, cite the guideline your edit applies). On Wikipedia, verifiability is actually more important than "truth" per se. --Teratornis 04:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Hope for Another Day and it has a number of problems, for example nothing that appears to be a reliable source, several typos, and vague wording (I read the article and still have no idea what the subject is about; for example, what is an "issue" as the article uses the word?). I've watched Wikipedia delete quite a few articles that were in better shape, so you might want to read Why was my article deleted? to get a glimpse of your probable near future, unless the article improves quickly. I suggest you save a local copy of the article to your hard drive while it's still up. --Teratornis 04:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]