Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 December 8

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.

December 8

Hiding the donate bar

I looked around a little but I couldn't find anything on hiding the donate box above every article. Is there some sort of javascript I can apply to hide it? (I am referring to completely hiding it, not just collapsing it.) Thanks, Aiuw 02:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Preferences > Gadgets > Browsing Gadgets > Supress display of the fundraiser banner. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Aiuw 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this trolling

In ten minutes I was accused of not assuming good faith and trolling here here and here. Are these users allegations justified? utter bullshit to me. It started when I removed an unsourced claim off of the Up Series article.--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding: the comments I left on the user talk page were deleted, in the edit summary's I was accused of being a troll.--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You automatically assume that your interpretation of WP:CITE#CHALLENGED is correct, that MarnetteD is trying to re-add false information, and that MarnetteD's suggestion to read WP:AGF is a personal attack. You wrote, "You can shove that good faith page up your arse" and "How dare you accuse me of not assuming good faith". That is a prime example of assuming bad faith. Xenon54 02:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree but I will accept your interpretation of the situation.--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:CIVIL, and remember that in any disagreement on Wikipedia, the side which understands the rules best generally wins. If everybody understood and followed all the rules, we probably wouldn't have any disagreements. That's because the rules accumulated as a result of past disagreements and their resolutions. In other words, almost every policy and guideline on Wikipedia exists because it resolves some sort of disagreement that tends to arise repeatedly in the absence of said rules (or in the absence of knowledge of said rules). You can think of Wikipedia's rules as a way to predict what other editors will tend to do. To the extent that other editors understand and obey the rules, their behavior becomes easier to predict. This is fundamental to allowing Wikipedia to function. Since we aren't all sitting in one building where we can see each other and work things out face to face, we must create a similar degree of structure through other means. Actually I think Wikipedia has more structure than most real-world organizations. In much of the real world, many of the rules aren't written down, and so they become subject to personal interpretation. In many real-world situations, there are no explicit rules, so you are never quite sure where you stand, and people end up wasting vast amounts of time on repeating the same kinds of arguments over and over. On Wikipedia, ideally, a particular dispute only needs to occur once, and after that everybody can read the friendly manuals instead of repeating the same dispute. Of course no one individual knows everything in all the manuals, but it's readily possible to understand enough of the rules to stay out of most kinds of trouble. --Teratornis (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation's the same as Xenon's; see WP:MASTODONS. If you're accused of being a bad faith editor, the best way to prove that accusation false is to respond with all the good faith you can muster. Also bear in mind that instructing another editor to shove something up their arse is never, ever beneficial to what we do here, unless you're answering a question about suppositories at the reference desk. Disagreements are inevitable and often constructive. Conflicts are avoidable and rarely constructive. So by keeping a clear head and communicating politely, you're ultimately saving yourself a world of headaches. --Fullobeans (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing on Wikipedia can demand a lot of sangfroid, depending on where one edits. The more personally involved one feels with a particular topic, the harder it is to remain emotionally detached when someone else savages one's edits. One way to avoid getting bothered is to find something less bothersome to work on. A good example is the Help desk, where you forget about your own problems and instead answer other people's questions - I find it to be very calming. See Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer#Why volunteer?. --Teratornis (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution

There seems to be a consensus on Template talk:RS500 that Template:RS500 should be substituted for its actual text wherever it is used in the article namespace. I read on Wikipedia:Template substitution that there are bots that help with this task, but from what I understand, this is generally limited to the User talk namespace. Where should I go/who should I contact to stop this transclusion? Thanks! —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 04:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You can post to Wikipedia:Bot requests. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Great; thanks for the help, PrimeHunter! —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 05:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

help needed

I need a help in redirecting a page from Sonu to Sonu (disambiguation). I cannot make a redirect by myself because the page Sonu is locked. Chandra.20 (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:DABNAME which states "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added . . .". I think that Sonu (actress) should be the primary topic so Sonu (actress) should redirect to Sonu which should contain a hatnote (see also WP:DLINKS) linking to Sonu (disambiguation). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• What would you like to see at Sonu then? I don't see any meaning that is more common than the others, so I'd actually support moving the dab page from Sonu (disambiguation) to Sonu in the spirit of using the least unneccesary description. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have moved Sonu (disambiguation) to Sonu per WP:DABNAME. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

But shouldn't Sonu (actress) count as the "primary topic" for the term "Sonu"? All the others on that list are not precisely "Sonu" while the actress is. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

People on List of one-word stage names (where Sonu is currently not listed) rarely get the exclusive right to a common name just because they perform under that name alone. Maybe if they are very notable with a rare name widely associated with them, but Sonu (actress) appears to have lower notability than some of the other Sonu's. I guess people entering Sonu in the search box might as well be looking for one of the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Some ads deleted some stay intact

there are quite a few advertisements on Wikipedia... for example indiabulls, CRISIL S&P et al.. Then why is ist that you delete my article without even waiting? this is no frustration but a genuine question.

Regards,

Sandeep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeeponthenet (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• For a variety of reasons. Not all articles on companies are adverts. In a lot of cases difference lies in the language. Whether were choose to keep or rework an article about a company relies on whether we can find other people (not just anyone, but reliable sources) writing about them. We also have some additional criteria at WP:CORP. indiabulls for example, is a company that is registered at a National Stock Exchange of India. Companies that are already succesful don't need to advertise, but a lot of starting companies that aren't yet, try to use the high visibility of Wikipedia to their advantage in order to get noticed, that's why we have the rules. If something should be deleted according to the guidelines and isn't, chances are no one noticed or no one felt comfortable to make the decision to nominate it for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

When talking about 'advertising', the tone that the article is written in also matters. If it is written in an obviously promotional manner (eg: our company is dedicated to providing...) then of course it will be advertising. Wikipedia articles should always be presented from a neutral point of view, and not in a biased manner. As for why some articles violating policy do not get deleted, we have a lot of articles here, and many are being created everyday. It's not possible to check each and every one of them to see if they comply with the policies. Many are found and deleted soon after they are created, and the ones which are not seen will be deleted when they get spotted. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 12:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See also What about article x?. In short, there is no central authority that applies policy and guideline consistently and at the same time. Rather, we are a collection of thousands and thousands of separate and individual volunteers, each editing by his or her own lights. Thus issues in an article (such as blatant advertising) may be addressed moments after the article's creation, while another article with very similar issues may not be focused on by anyone for months. So generalizing from any one article's existence or state to conclude something about other articles is a logic that often doesn't work well here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And see WP:BFAQ, WP:COI, and WP:PEACOCK. Almost all companies need to advertise, but companies that are already successful can pay for their advertising. They don't need to look to Wikipedia to get some free advertising, but if they do, other users will eventually police their edits here. Prominent companies are well-known to many people, so there is often lots of criticism published about them. That lets Wikipedia write articles such as Criticism of Microsoft to go along with the Microsoft article (which is a featured article i.e. one of the best articles on Wikipedia). If you want your company to be on Wikipedia, would you like to have a "Criticism of ..." article about it too? That is what can happen here. Companies which want to control the message about themselves will do so in their paid advertising. --Teratornis (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Current US state Chief Justices

I have written in to complain about purging problems very often in the last few weeks. I am now experiencing the most unusual problem at {{Current US state Chief Justices}}. When I go to the page I see each office and each officeholder has a link. When I look at the history, I see the last version of the page is of this format. However, when I attempt to edit the page I see the following

{{US states navbox with columns
|name = Current US state Chief Justices
|title = Current [[Chief Justice]]s of [[United States]] [[U.S. state|state]] and [[Territories of the United States|territorial]] [[State supreme court|Supreme Court]]s
|suffix = Supreme Court

|AL = [[Sue Bell Cobb|S. Bell Cobb]]
|AK = [[Dana Fabe|D. Fabe]]
|AZ = ''[[Ruth V. McGregor|R. McGregor]]''
. . . .
|NY = ''[[Judith Kaye|J. Kaye]]''
. . . .

When I return to the template and click on NY it takes me to New York Supreme Court. I actually want it to take me to New York Court of Appeals. I was going to edit this, but my edit view is quite a problem. In the past purge issues have not affected my edit view.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As the source shows, {{Current US state Chief Justices}} uses {{US states navbox with columns}}. The latter adds state links with the suffix parameter suffix = Supreme Court. It appears there is no option to change suffix for individual states so I don't have a solution for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I created this page and did not include that command. I will go back to through the edit history and see who made the change. That person will be the best person for me to talk to. Thanks for deciphering the code.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Account creator

I have been trying to process requests made through WP:ACC but when I try I get an error due to the fact that my ISP now accesses Wikipedia though an IP shared by millions. How do I request the "account creator" right. Anonymous101 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Acc. :) That only allows you to bypass the throttle though, so I doubt it would help you bypass the ISP blocks. I'm not entirely sure on that though. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blocked (as long as I log in) just the IP I use has created more then 6 accounts today. Anonymous101 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help by the way. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have granted the account creator flag to you. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal Ads

Hi,

I found a link to a physician's private practice website on the Neuroendocrinology page (at the bottom under Neuroendocrine Physician). This seems like inappropriate advertisement. Is it OK to delete it? Thanks! Horus (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:EL and WP:SPAM and arrive at your own conclusions, however I personally think that deleting this link may be supported by the relevent guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I read it and removed the link. Horus (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Author, Skip Stover

I am an accomplished author and would like to know if Wikepedia could list information about me. I can be reached at <email removed>. To find out about my works, you can type Skip Stover on any search bar on the internet. I can also supply you with a very detailed background from my early child hood and family ties. Thank you. Charles "Skip" Stover, author —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipster56 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CREATIVE for specific notability guidelines for creative professionals. Even if you do meet the guidelines, don't start the article yourself. You can request that the article be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts/Literature, and you can make the job easier for other editors by providing links to books reviews, newspaper articles, etc. --Fullobeans (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Question for Wikipedia regarding monetary contributions

I loves Wikipedia, but I also loves my privacy.

I'd like to send some money to Wikipedia, or Wikimedia (I presume that's where you send it); but I want to do so anonymously.

I'm thinking of sending it in a (reasonably) opaque envelop—$20 to $100 in cash. Now I know the warnings and they aren't to be taken lightly, but I've done this in the past in other (non-Wikipedia related) transactions, and it has worked most of the time (I regarding the occasional loss as acceptable in the grand scheme of things).

What would happen, if you, or more aptly they, got a letter with the cash, my username, an email addresses (free Yahoo! or Hotmail or something like that). Would the money be used as intended, and would it be accredited to me—that is, my username? (Note, I asked this question at the Village Pump (miscellaneous)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Where, by the way, should I be asking it?)

Any and all comments would be appreciated. Yartett (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your questions are actually about the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the entity one donates to, and which handles the finances for all the List of Wikipedias and other Foundation wikis (Wikibooks, Wikiquote, etc.). See foundation:Donate/Questions/en, foundation:Frequently Asked Questions, foundation:Contact us, and if you don't find the answers you need there, you'll have to figure out who you can ask. Unless someone who happens to know the answers reads your questions in the places where you have posed them. I'm pretty sure you can donate anonymously without resorting to cash in envelopes, because the Foundation reports lots of anonymous donations. But I don't know exactly how you do that. --Teratornis (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the donation methods available is payment through Paypal, which is about as anonymous as an online donation scheme can be. As far as I know, only Paypal has the information on who sent what. The recipient sees only payment from Paypal, a username and an email address. If this is not for you, your donation by mail would be sent to:

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 919227
Orlando, FL 32891-9227

However, a second, and probably better option than sending cash but just as anonymous, is to procure an anonymous money order ($1,000 maximum allowed for postal in the U.S.) made out specifically to the Wikimedia Foundation. This method avoids the possibility of the envelope opener pocketing the funds because it can only be cashed by the payee.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I got this feeling, Wikipedians are watching me

When I joined Wikipedia a few months ago, I very quickly got a greeting on my username:talk page. When my attempts at articles were huffed and a few of my early postings were edited out—no hard feelings—I got comments, mostly by this greeter.

These people seemed amicable enough, but it lead me to wonder: are there people who hang around the "recent changes" part of Wikipedia waiting to greet, or even sponsor, newbies? If so, is there a "newbie-sponsoring-duty" protocol that Wikipedians volunteer for? Is there a hierarchy of types of articles checked—usernames, then articles, then talk pages, then user sub-talk pages, pictures, etc.

Any and all comments would be appreciated.Yartett (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See the links under WP:EIW#New_page, especially those with the word "patrol". Also see the links under WP:EIW#NewE. When you have a question about why a Wikipedia user did something, the most efficient person to ask is usually that person. You could ask your greeter on his or her user talk page how he or she became aware of your activities and decided to welcome you. You could also look at his or her User page and see if he or she describes any participation Wikipedia's various new page and new user patrols. On Wikipedia, some users leave helpful clues about why they do things, specifically to answer questions such as yours that their actions tend to raise. Wikipedia becomes deeply satisfying once you discover the abundant resources here for answering these types of "why?" questions. --Teratornis (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course we're watching you; and the sweater you're wearing right now is lovely. But seriously, the answers to your questions are yes, yes, and not really. The New Pages Patrol patrols new pages (imagine that), the Recent Changes Patrol patrols recent changes (you may see a pattern here) and the Welcoming Committee attempts to leave an appropriate welcome message for every new user who either registers an account or makes their first edit. Involvement in these projects is casual and voluntary; plenty of people are involved in all three. So if a prolific editor is in the habit of patrolling new users, pages, and changes, you may cross paths often. Also, you can change your account settings so that every page you edit will be placed on your watchlist, including user talk pages. This means that, every time you get a comment on your talk page, it's probably showing up on the watchlist of several other editors. This could conceivably lead them to check up on how you're doing by scanning through your recent edits. There is such a thing as Wikistalking, but it sounds like people are just trying to help you out by informing you of the appropriate policies as you go along. There's also an adoption process, for those who want to be formally "sponsored" by a more experienced user. As far as a hierarchy of importance goes: nope, individual editors decide for themselves what's important (although people can be recruited to a project if it needs more help). Some projects and patrols are more popular than others though. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

language interwiki question (linkings)

An English-speaker, Spanish-speaker, French-speaker, Esperantist, Russian-speaker, Arabic-speaker, Chinese-speaker do an article on the same topic. Presumably, the spelling for the subject would be the same for the first four languages if it's a biography (e.g. Barack Obama or Bob Barr), but how are links between the interwikis made if it weren’t, if the spelling differed, or if there's another script? Thanks.Yartett (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Interlanguage links. The link is to the exact spelling of the target article on the other language Wikipedia, whatever the spelling happens to be over there. --Teratornis (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

language interwiki question (size and number of articles)

Note that on the English Wikipedia, the articles on Barack Obama, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, even Joe Biden are lengthy, often editted, and locked. Now check out the the Scots wiki. [[1]] Nothing on [[2]]John McCain. Barack Obama gets only 13 words. The Scottish Gaelic onis a little better. [[3]]. Other language interwikis are the same. Why is this? Is it because (a) they aren't as popular; (b) not as popular and there aren't enough sources in Scottish Gaelic, and even less so in Scots. Must sources be in that particular language, or can one cut and paste from the English and translate. Thank you.Yartett (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is by far the largest of the Wikipedias. Once you get past the top ten or so language Wikipedias, the remaining Wikipedias are small-ish and therefore their coverage of non-local topics can be spotty. The user community of each Wikipedia is responsible for their own content, so what you see reflects the priorities of the people who happen to be editing there. The best place to ask questions about what's on another language Wikipedia would be on that Wikipedia's version of this Help desk or Reference desk, if it has such pages. As to using sources not in the language of a given Wikipedia, on the English Wikipedia the guideline is WP:NONENG. Other language Wikipedias may have different guidelines; see their help pages. --Teratornis (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Translation. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My ISP is blocked

Hi. I joined some time ago but I've never gotten around to editing anything yet. I went in to make my first change today (line 'It is not the Garnier it is the popular as to have proof from were I stand I can easly say that Erik built and worked in the Popular. because it made no sense) but I was told that my ISP is blocked because of abuse. Apparently, there's a load of stuff changed that has been traced back to my particular area (I assume, because I have not yet made an edit). I understand that you will get a lot of people messing about and putting up fake edits for fun, but is there any way I can be unblocked, seeing as I haven't actually done anything wrong? Cheers, Emer k —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emakav (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your ISP must not be blocked. If it were, you could not post here. —teb728 t c 23:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Is it possible you were not logged in when you attempted the edit? —teb728 t c 23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're currently blocked. If you click any "edit" or "edit this page" when blocked then it will say "you're blocked" and tell you how to become unblocked. Blocks are often only a few hours, so you probably didn't need to do anything to be unblocked. More at WP:BLOCK. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I rolled back the last edits to Erik (The Phantom of the Opera), including the text you cited. —teb728 t c 23:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, your ISP is either not blocked our the block was lifted really fast.--Archaeopteryx (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned AfD

Can someone take care of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saab Lofton. It's an untranscluded AfD, needs to be procedurally completed and submitted or else deleted. Grazi, Skomorokh 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the alert.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Skomorokh 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Anytime:)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I am unable to figure out how the closing admin come up with the figure of 100,000 potential entries from this discussion. S/he thinks the discussion is very clear but it looks more like a misunderstanding to me. Can anyone confirm that I am actually right or else point out the flaw in my understanding? Thanks. Juzhong (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

100,000 does appear to be an arbitrarily selected number; the actual total would be in the millions, assuming we could come up with a name for every participant from every country which fought in the war. Note that the title of the article is not "List of notable Korean War veterans," "List of Korean War veterans with Wikipedia articles," or even "List of Korean War veterans from the United States" (which would itself be well over 100,000 entries), but "List of Korean War veterans." How could one even do justice to a list like that? It would be impossible to source every entry, impossible to keep vandals from inserting their own names into the list, and nearly impossible to complete. The end result would be mind-bogglingly huge and useful for little apart from memorializing the veterans, which is something we have a specific policy about. The article you mention in the AfD discussion, People of the Spanish Civil War, is concise and restricted to notable figures who either played an important role in the war or were strongly identified with a particular cause. It's easily navigated, illuminating, and informative, even if you don't click on any of the wikilinks. There's no reason a list like that shouldn't exist for the Korean War, too, but I get the impression (obviously I can't read the list myself) that "List of Korean War veterans" was much more indiscriminate than that. Better to have Category:Military personnel of the Korean War and People of the Korean War. If you'd like to take on the latter project yourself, just clearly state the parameters for inclusion in the lead section (you know, "This is a list of people who are strongly associated with their role in the Korean War. For others involved in the war, see Category:People of the Korean War.") and I doubt you'll have anyone clamoring for deletion. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The list only contained blue links and described itself as being a list of notable people, I didn't know it had to have that title. Juzhong (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, our naming convention for lists of people says that the word "notable" is assumed, and should not be in the title of the list. Your options now, if you want to continue working on this list, are to ask that the article be userfied so you can work to improve it and clarify its scope, or to ask for a deletion review. Just remember to remain civil and to stay cool when the editing gets hot. DHowell (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)