Help desk
< September 29	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	October 1 >

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.

September 30[edit]

Don't know where to turn[edit]

I'm a pretty experienced editor but I'm in a bit of a fix and I don't know what to do or where I'm allowed to turn.

I know of a user who continually goes against a certain guideline. It's nothing major such as WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO but it still affects the quality of articles. I have discussed it with them and still have not gotten anywhere.

Secondly, they have in the past violated WP:NPA. They seem to have cooled down recently but still, the events are there.

So, I looked through the dispute resolution processes.

WP:3O requires that the issue be with a single article. This issue involves most every article that the other editor touches, so that's out.

WP:RFC/USER requires that at least two editors have discussed the same issue with the editor. Right now, it's basically just me who has butted heads with the editor in question.

There isn't a related notice board that I've seen to report issues with the guideline in question.

WP:ANI will just tell me to start at the bottom of the dispute resolution ladder but as I've been saying, the lower rungs of the ladder don't help in this situation.

And finally, avenues that don't involve admins will most likely be ignored by the editor. And even then, it's if-fy. I had a dispute over another guideline with the editor and they were difficult because they had found one admin (somehow) who didn't agree with the guideline and then used the "See, this admin has no problem with my actions" argument.

So, is there a way to work with an admin to get this user to understand that what they are doing is having a negative impact on articles and that they should cease their actions?

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 00:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being too discreet. Please state the problem in a forthright but nonaccustoryu manner on the user's talk page or on your own talk page, and then tell us who the user is. If one of us cares enough, we will read your discussin and comment, thus invoking the "second opiniopn" rule. Alternatively, your can request a WP:third opinion or ask for help from the WP:mediation cabal. -Arch dude (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different areas of Wikipedia have differing levels of compliance with policies and guidelines, just as different areas of a country may have differing levels of law enforcement (less-developed frontier regions, for example, may tend toward anarchy). If a particular topic area has lots of featured articles, then it probably has a number of experienced editors who for the most part follow the rules. In this case, an editor who violates a particular guideline on many articles in the topic area would almost certainly be butting heads with more than one other editor. In contrast, if a topic area on Wikipedia has a high proportion of articles at a poor stage of development, then there could be multiple editors who aren't following the rules. Another indicator is to look at the talk pages of articles. Almost nobody comes to Wikipedia already knowing the talk page guidelines, so a messy talk page may indicate a large proportion of new or casual editors. So, I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that your guideline-violating editor hasn't been violating that guideline on many featured articles yet. If I guessed incorrectly, then you might want to bring the violation to the attention of other editors who have worked on those articles. The better articles on Wikipedia usually have multiple experienced editors watching them. Basically I'm saying that if someone is really going against consensus on Wikipedia, there are potentially lots of other editors who will oppose that behavior when they become aware of it. But on the other hand, it's not the job of you or me to "defend" Wikipedia. Our only job, really, is to articulate the policies and guidelines as they apply to a given situation, and then let the community defend Wikipedia. That is, if you cannot convince another editor to take action against this editor you mention, then maybe you aren't interpreting the guideline correctly. So the real sanity check is whether you can get someone else to take up your cause. --Teratornis (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template help[edit]

How might I make a template that does both of the following:
This:

{{TemplateThatNumbersNames|Joe|John|Mary}}

would yield:

Number	Name
1	Joe
2	John
3	Mary

while:

 {{TemplateThatNumbersNames|Joe|John|Mary|Sam|Sandra|Sue|Dave|Marcus Brutus}}

would then yield:

Number	Name
1	Joe
2	John
3	Mary
4	Sam
5	Sandra
6	Sue
7	Dave
8	Marcus Brutus

Basically, the template forms new rows for each new name, and numbers each new row accordingly. Is a template like this possible to create? Also, is there another place where I could ask if nobody here knows? Thanks, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 00:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to set up something like this:

{| class="wikitable" style="blah blah blah" |- ! Number !! Name {{#if: {{{1|}}} |  {{!-}} {{!}} 1 {{!!}} {{{1}}} }}{{#if: {{{2|}}} |  {{!-}} {{!}} 2 {{!!}} {{{2}}} }}{{#if: {{{99|}}} |  {{!-}} {{!}} 99 {{!!}} {{{99}}} }} |}

This uses ParserFunctions, special templates which can read in information and execute different bits of code if a certain condition exists. The {{!!}} things are escape templates, templates which allow us to print pipe characters (|) that we use in tables that would otherwise get confused with the ParserFunction. Hope this helps, although if you have any more template trouble, feel free to come back, or let me know. For future reference, you can contact anyone in this category or its subcategories with template-related questions. Anyone who considers themselves level 3 or higher ought to be able to handle a conditional template like this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Help[edit]

Hi, I am a new user and I have 3 venerable sources that each put up different numbers as a given fact. Can some one please tell me which help desk I can go to. If it is here then, the number of shares traded on October 29, 1929 was:

less than 16million, the NYSE official web site http://www.nyse.com/about/history/timeline_trading.html
exactly 16million (yeah right) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94721470
over 16million, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/crash/timeline/timeline2.html
or 16.4 million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929

(the wikipedia one has NO CITATION) Best regards Johndoeemail (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC) had to fix a typo Johndoeemail (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) fix another typo Johndoeemail (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I did put all of this on the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929 Johndoeemail (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold; WP:BOLD. Change the article to say "about 16 million," and cite all three references. If you need help with how to cite the references, come back here. Good luck, adn thanks for your efforts. -Arch dude (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we don't try to decide which side of a controversy is correct, although we don't give undue weight to fringe views. If respected authorities or schools of thought differ on some claim, we can cite reliable sources and present the various viewpoints, with attribution. The word "reliable" doesn't necessarily mean "correct," but rather it means an accurate portrayal of the views of some identifiable person or group. All new Wikipedia editors should read WP:NPOV several times, over a period of weeks, until it sinks in, as writing in a neutral point of view is not something most people have had experience with before arriving at Wikipedia. It kind of runs counter to the evolutionary purpose of language, which is naturally about trying to change the behavior of other people, to maximize the biological fitness of the speaker in a social species. --Teratornis (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. I am going to change it to "about 16 million". I think I should be able to come up with more citations on that number Johndoeemail (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources says: Cite the place where you found the material, So I have a quote from a google books web page. How do I preface the quote, "the author says", "the author writes" ??? Best regards. Johndoeemail (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell us the title and author of the book, we could tell you exactly what to do. To figure it out in general, see {{Cite book}}. I like to use {{Google scholar cite}} to look up book references, because if the underlying Universal reference formatter finds the book in Google Scholar, it generates the {{Cite book}} template automatically. Usually it gets close to filling out all the necessary fields. --Teratornis (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to how to preface the quote, I would use the author's exact name: "According to Joe Bigbucks, the number of shares ..." and put the ref tag after the period that ends the sentence. If a claim is at all controversial, we should be explicit about whose views we are presenting. --Teratornis (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

1) The article is Wall street crash of 1929 and it is pretty much a ghost town as far as the discussion page is concerned. IOW, I do not think there is any controversy among editors. 2) I and I alone put in a quote that says: "the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act "...exacerbated the problem..." 3) I and I alone found a quote that says: "There is no persuasive documentation that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff precipitated the stock market crash. Nor is there compelling evidence that it exacerbated the Great Depression."

http://books.google.com/books?id=5Z76pz33EPwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Opening+America%27s+Market:+U.S.+Foreign+Trade+Policy+Since+1776&sig=ACfU3U2nFFSxf9psEJHPV2e8jF-vCIX1hQ#PPA139,M1 page 139 of that book.

I just happen to search around and find the quotes and the sources seem to make completely opposite statements. Both sources look notable to me. But I think it would be difficult to find someone more ignorant of the ways of wikipedia than me.

On a different note, I am having trouble with what, or what not, to include in the article with respect to Smoot-Hawley. Right now, I am going to have to live with the fact that I am going to make mistakes because I feel that is a very advanced topic from where I am now. Thanks for all your help. Johndoeemail (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC) (fix typos, forgot to use Show Preview button) Johndoeemail (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC) (had to fix another typo) Johndoeemail (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creators of Wikipedia[edit]

Who created the Katy perry webpage? Because I have to do a bibliography, & it doesn't state who created the page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.53.53 (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the "toolbox" section to the side of the article (under the search box), there's a link that says "Cite this page." If you click on it, it has citations formatted in several different styles, APA, MLA, Chicago, etc. Because an article really is the composite work of many editors, you can't really attribute any one person. The cite page for the Katy Perry article is here. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia both for more information about how to cite, and some warnings about why you should be careful with what you're citing. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAQ#WROTE --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

health care[edit]

what are the growth requirements for microorganisms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.165.73 (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microorganisms thrive on students who do not do their own homework. (Note: it's September, clearly back to school time in much of the northern hemisphere.) --Teratornis (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends heavily on the microorganism. They all need food, obviously, but they have differing demands for light, air, temperature, leisure time, etc. --erachima talk 05:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A broad variety of mind-sucking and homework-doing-time-wasting television shows probably doesn't hurt, either. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All known microorganisms absolutely require a universe. Time is another important factor. Franamax (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework. Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "Contents" in IE8[edit]

Why can't I use "Contents" (table of contents) in Wikipedia pages in IE8? I click on the link in "Contents" section, but nothing happens. I can use it only in "compatibility mode".--Moscvitch (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an error in IE8. See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 September 9#Contents Navigation links within articles - not working! :s. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting History/Contributions[edit]

Resolved

– PeterSymonds (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able to, and, if so, how can I, delete my edit/contribution/article creation history? Since I have not been able to find information that addresses this, I suspect that I cannot, but I appreciate any help in this regard. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gazel Ministry (talk • contribs) 12:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't edit the the page history or your contributions. Only a very limited number of users have the rights to do this, and only under exceptional circumstances. Please see Wikipedia:Oversight for more info on this. Check Help:Page history & Wikipedia:User contributions if you want more info on histories and contribs. Cheers. Chamal ^Talk ± 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia content is licensed under GFDL, all your contributions have to be maintained for attribution purposes. This is the law, per the text of the GFDL. This is why your contributions cannot be altered. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the information, guys.The Gazel Ministry (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long...[edit]

My schools IP address (170.185.76.19) has been blocked for quite sometime now, but this IP address is to the Alternative Learning Center and when that was placed there was about 13 kids in here who were horrible students, but now there is only kids (3 besides me) who want to contribute to Wikipedia, so I was wanting to know how long the block was because it doesn't say a specific time on the block of this IP address. Thank you!

Hairy Perry 15:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HairyPerry. That IP address is no longer blocked; it was blocked for one week in December 2007, so users will be able to edit anonymously from that address. The block notice at the end of the talk page is merely a notification after the block was originally issued. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well my real question was it says that this IP address is restricted from making accounts and the people that made most of the vandalism are all gone and we only have 3 other kids besides me who want to make accounts (I made one before the restriction), and that ability is not available. Does that mean were still blocked or our priviledges to make accounts are just blocked. We have people at the Alternative Learning Center that can make useful contributions to this encyclopedia. Thanks!

Hairy Perry 16:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File a requect through our "request an account" tool if you wish. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong; the IP is blocked until 2009. To request an account, follow the link provided by WBOSITG. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing books[edit]

If I cite a book multiple times in an article, do I have to cite particular pages, and if so how? Thanks, Grsz ^talk 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to cite pages, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Including page numbers. This will be especially important if you take the article to FA. You can use shortened footnotes, parenthetical referencing or footnote system with {{rp}}.

On the off-chance that someone reading this does not know what "FA" means, see WP:FA, or more specifically in the above context: WP:FAR. And don't forget to sign those replies. --Teratornis (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean WP:FAC. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what happens when we don't link our jargon terms? Even users we trust to guide us on the Help desk can resolve the ambiguities suboptimally. (What a frightening thought - that someone might trust my advice. Note to our ~~victims~~ readers: trust the written policies and guidelines, not our imperfect allusions to them.) (I say "suboptimally" rather than "incorrectly" because getting the footnotes right will also be an issue if a featured article comes up for review. Anyone who edits a featured article should know enough about Wikipedia editing to do featured-quality work.) --Teratornis (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like so? Then pages would be under the Notes section as Chasteen XX. Grsz ^talk 16:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Alternatively, to make life somewhat easier, you could just cite the full book in the references section and footnote the author's surname and the page number. An example is here. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Per reply on my talk page.) You'll note that the references, ie. the book's name, publisher, author, date etc are in a different section. This saves having to repeat that style of referencing in the footnotes themselves. In the Notes section, you have several pages by the same author, for example, "Wake, p. 30" (Jehanne Wake, one author in the references). So if you pretend that book is your example, you would cite different page numbers like this:

I am Peter.<ref>Wake, p. 54</ref>

My username is PeterSymonds.<ref>Wake, p. 36</ref>

which would produce: I am Peter.^[1] My username is PeterSymonds.^[2]

Hope that helps; if you need further clarification feel free to ask. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can also do it this way (and we may be talking about the same thing): create the ref with the appropriate cite template, in your example with {{Cite book}} and ref tag it with a name such as <ref name="wake" > (remembering to close the ref tag after the cite template with </ref>). Then, to reference different pages of the same book use <ref name="wake" page 1 />, <ref name="wake" page 2 /> etc in the appropriate places. I am pretty sure this works, but it's been a while since I used it. – ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Watchlist[edit]

Hi I cant seem to access my Watchlist. I have tried different browsers in Opera I get a 301 moved permanently error. With Mozilla Firefox I can't even login I get an error that states Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete. In Internet Explorer I can't login either the page just freezes with no warning. In Safari I get this error Too many redirects occurred trying to open “http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Main_Page”. This might occur if you open a page that is redirected to open another page which then is redirected to open the original page. At least Google Chrome is letting me login but when I try to get to my watchlist I get this error This webpage has a redirect loop. I have cleared cookies in all the browsers I have tried yet nothing can anyone help thanks. BigDunc^Talk 15:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also getting the "redirect loop" error message on FF3... anyone? – Toon ^(talk) 15:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting those messages/errors, but it seems to have stopped now. I'm not sure what happened. Have you checked at the Village Pump? TN‑X-Man 15:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting the same "Redirection Loop" problem, using Firefox. I have not made any changed to my browser today, cookies are enabled, I have tried clearing my cache, but nothing seems to help and I cannot load my watchlist. RolandR (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem here ... can't access the watchlist in Firefox at all, though it works in IE. Obviously a server problem then; have never had this before. --Jayen 466 15:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the relevant discussion at the Village Pump. TN‑X-Man 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number in my watchlist?[edit]

When I look at my watchlist, there is a number in parentheses (e.g. "(+47)"). What does that number mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the number of bytes the last edit added/subtracted from the article. +47 means 47 bytes were added. TN‑X-Man 17:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<joke>And if you see 666 it means we are all doomed.</joke>. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a headline for you: World Doomed By Single Wikipedia Edit. TN‑X-Man 18:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These bytes can loosely relate to the number of characters added or removed (from text editing). This does not necessarily hold true for template/image and other editing. Scotty dude _review 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Question[edit]

development of education supervision in nigeria

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you'd like to ask a question regarding education in Nigeria I suggest you read the article Education in Nigeria. If you have other knowledge based questions you can ask them at the Reference Desk. This is the Help Desk where people can ask questions regarding the use of Wikipedia. Scotty dude _review 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Wake, p. 54
^ Wake, p. 36

[1] Wake, p. 54

[2] Wake, p. 36

[1]

[2]