Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 December 14

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 14

Page ordering snafu

Resolved

100 yard dash has something odd going on. The references appear above a table of runners of said dash; but the underlying code has the refs at the bottom of the page. What's going on? How to solve? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The wikitable on that page was not closed, which historically leads to "funny stuff" happening on pages. I have closed it with the standard "|}". Intelligentsium 00:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted - thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth images

Is it allowable to use Google Earth screenshots on Wikipedia? I'm trying to get my hands on images for a lot of streams that don't have images on Wikipedia, and there's very few places where I can find them, so is it allowed to just rip something off GE and upload it? Should it be under a fair use license? Thanks, Shannon^talk _contribs 01:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth images are copyrighted, and as such generally can't be used. I also don't think that it'd work as fair use, at least in my opinion, as it wouldn't usually be impossible to obtain a free image (like a photograph of a stream or whatever). AlexiusHoratius 01:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

However, Google states that Google Earth images are licensed for non-commercial use, and Wikipedia isn't a commercial endeavor; it is for non profit, so would that license apply to Wikipedia? Shannon^talk _contribs 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not commercial, when we're talking free images, it means that people should be able to reuse them outside of Wikipedia too. - 131.211.211.171 (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur - Wikipedia's licence means that anyone can use any content for any purpose including commercial use - so although Wikipedia isn't commercial, end-users of Wikipedia's content could be, so we can't use the images. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, no. See File:BD-propagande-2 (en).jpg and Commons:COM:L#Acceptable licenses. What specifically are you trying to find images of? Did you try searching with {{Flickr free}}? Did you read the links under WP:EIW#Maps? --Teratornis (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth images do not come under a free license, so we can't use them here. However, there's a somewhat similar software, NASA World Wind, that we can use. Images created with this software are normally in the public domain and can be uploaded either here or at commons with {{PD-WorldWind}}. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also see NASA's Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth. Examples: Commons:Category:Astronaut photography of Earth. --Teratornis (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I may try to find that World Wind you mentioned. Does World Wind also have topography? Shannon^talk _contribs 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh c&@#. World Wind is only for Microsoft as I suspected. Bleah. Is there by any chance a NASA Blue Marble overlay for Google Earth? Shannon^talk _contribs 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy about CAM/Alternative Medicine

Is it Wiki policy that all articles about CAM/Alternative Medicine should include reference to Fringe Theories and Pseudoscience? Or is there some distinction about when these reference are to be included? ThanksQuantummech (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what CAM is but the general term "alternative medicine" includes some very serious non-Western or non-MD-type forms of medicine and healing, including but not limited to chiropractic medicine and acupuncture. The term also includes things which are so far off the wall the fringe theorists think they are nuts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cam (disambiguation) lists Complementary and Alternative Medicine; is that what you mean by "CAM"? You can ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to get opinions from people who edit these articles, and read the archived talk pages there for prior discussion. Also see Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Teratornis (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And see WP:FRINGE. --Teratornis (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If mainstream/evidence-based medicine sources describe it as "fringe" or the hypothesized mechanisms as "pseudoscience", then yes: it is important to describe it that way. If they don't, then it's probably equally important not to describe it that way. Not all AltMed is either fringe or pseudoscience.

"Fringe" is used to describe uncommon and unaccepted things; nearly all unusual AltMed programs will be correctly described as "fringe". "Pseudoscience" is used to describe treatments that have dressed up their claims in a fancy -- but widely rejected -- science-y story.

To give examples: A common AltMed treatment, like taking Echniacea to cure a common cold is probably not fringe (even if the accumulated evidence says it doesn't work) and not pseudoscience (because nobody's making up fake science-y stories about it).

"Take four drops of basically pure water that I've diluted and maybe you'll feel better" is not pseudoscience; "The quantum electrodynamic properties of the water molecules in this vial, which were prepared using state-of-the-art precision equipment according to the program established by our master researcher, have been programmed through succussion to retain the memory of a single molecule that they were once in contact with" is pseudoscience. (Both of these sentences are accurate descriptions of homeopathy.)

In general, Wikipedia follows what the sources say -- and not just the sources about people that are trying to sell something, either. Hope that helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the News

Apologies in advance if I'm not in the right section, but is there like a tool or bot or something of that nature that can be used to determine if an article here is being linked to from a major news network page or newspaper site? I recall seeing templates about articles that have been the subject of news stories, but I am not sure if those templates are added manual or by some sort of script/bot/tool. I ask because the recent UAV that went public a few days ago has a caused an article within milhist's scope to garner over 150,000 hits in less than 7 days, which seems to imply that our article's been linked to somewhere, but I am unsure of where and would like to know if the capacity exists here to find out before rolling up my arms and net surfing to find the answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of a WP tool that can do this, but you can use Google to do what you want. Just make sure that both possible URLs are tried. You have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Example either of which could've been linked. If I remember correctly, you need to use linkto:, but if you go into the advanced search of Google you're given the whole thing on a silver platter. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not aware of such a facility, but The Wikipedia Signpost regularly features an "In The News" section - and suggestions for the next issue can be left here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the "In the News" Section; I was hoping there was a tool for locating articles sited off wikipedia. As a practical matter, even the signpost notes that not every mention of wikipedia in the news will get a mention in the section, hence the question. At any rate, thanks for the replies. One last question: would it be possible to design a bot to this effect? Me thinks it could be useful here, but I have no programming skills and thus no idea about the bot policy here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

.ws domain

Google page under .ws (Domains) is out of date 10 years with Wikipedia.

Website .ws was originally owned by the Samoan Government and was known as .ws (Western Samoa). Global Domains International (USA Company) purchased the name in 1999 and now are a Global company operating under .ws (websites)

The association of .ws with Samoa is totally incorrect and needs adjustment to provide accurate up to date information.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.175.75 (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 

• Please read about Reliable sources. We can't update anything until we can prove the information you've provided is in fact correct. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Signing Issues

Resolved

 – Mysdaao ^talk 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to put it, but here goes... whenever I sign by typing the four tidles, it appears as it should with my name as I want it (Douglas) and the date and time, however it's not a link to my Userpage like a lot of other peoples are. Is this because I'm logged in as me and hence I don't need to click my name, or is it because I am doing something wrong? Thanks muchly for any help! (and if this is the wrong spot, feel free to move it to the correct one) Douglas 12:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcarriso (talk • contribs)

It sounds like you have a custom signature that isn't working right. Click my preferences on the top right of the screen, and look under "Signature". Either edit the signature in the box, or uncheck "Sign my name exactly as shown". --Mysdaao ^talk 13:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Sign my name exactly as shown" box was unchecked, but I checked it and put the Wikicode in manually so now it should appear correctly (it does in the Sandbox at any rate) Thanks for your help :) Douglas 13:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Mysdaao ^talk 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

INR option is not available.

Hi , I would like to donate wikipedia but i couldnt find INR Indian Rupees Option on the page. Regards, Anshul Sethiya <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.125.67 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways to give listed at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en, such as by check. --Mysdaao ^talk 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• This same question was posted here a couple of days ago. Please look through the archive of the appropriate day. I remember several people weighing in on the answer. - 131.211.211.171 (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was actually on 4th December, but the only suggestion was as above. It was also mentioned in November 2007 (here) which mentions sending a che(ck|que), but there are charges involved with that. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal Request for a high level Review of Climate Articles to find out whether lobby groups are editing

I have for some time thought that some editors on climate articles are just too prolific and to coordinated to just be coincidental. It's like the old pick-pocket trick - one takes your purse, and though you know who took it, there's no proof, because they work as a team.

Having read the climategate emails, I wasn't aware that some of the key scientists themselves actively engaged on websites (e.g. Michael Mann seems to run RealClimate.com) and so this has put a whole new perspective on e.g. this article. If I had the opportunity, what I would like to do is to check the emails, IP posting sites of all the editors on the climate articles e.g. Global Warming, global warming controversy, and climategate (whatever it's been called) to see whether there was any pattern which would suggest certain editors or groups of editors are effectively commenting on their own "work".

I am also very suspicious of the insistence of some editors that all material should be "peer reviewed" - because as we see in the climategate emails, the peer review process in climate science has been manipulated by the climategate people to exclude those who might "make trouble" as another email puts it. This seems to be another strand of the orchestrated campaign that I've seen going on for many years.

So:

1. The evidential basis has been skewed at its root by the climategate people
2. Wikipedia articles have been prevented from using anything but this skewed "peer reviewed" material
3. I believe that many editors are either climategate "scientists" or people who work for these "scientists" - and many others are workers for the many green activist groups - again groups who aren't backward in using orchestrated campaigns of political action to achieve their goals.

So I think it is time that Wikipedia had a formal review of the editors on climate articles to see if Wikipedia is being manipulated by these groups (and let's not be coy it is possible that some skeptics are orchestrated - after all who am I?). The formal review should ask itself: is there evidence of collusion and if so, the worst culprits should be removed and clearly if collusion is proven, I think it is also right that those who have been banned trying to stop this POV push should receive an open amnesty. Let's have a clean slate, and really I can see why people like "scibaby" have had to go to such lengths - normally you can't condone sock puppets, but in light of the apparent misuse of Wikipedia I think there should be a general amnesty even though in the case of Scibaby it's likely (s)he will probably get themselves banned very quickly again, but at least it will this time be for breaking the rules, not for opposing the climategate editors. Isonomia (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course I'm going to be asked to produce evidence of POV. The clearest most simple evidence is that the climate hasn't warmed significantly since the turn of the century. It has definitely cooled since 1998, it has cooled since the IPCC report at the beginning of the century, and there is 0.03C/decade warming if your century starts in 2000 - "paused" is a NPOV view of the climate "real current warming" which is the impression you get on climate article is bogus POV. There are two possible explanations for the pause/cooling:

1. there is underlying warming which is being masked by larger natural cooling (which suggests it is temporary).
2. the theory of manmade global warming has been tested against real data and found wanting.

A neutral article would explore these possible explanations because both these are interesting subjects in themselves. But if you read all the climate articles, you get no sense at all that there is any debate about the current "pause" in the climate. But if you read the climategate emails, you find this a common theme of discussion. public "it's warming", private "we can't explain the decline". This is pure and simple POV ... pure and simple propaganda.

There is also much more, such as questions about the adjustment made to temperature data, the factual existence of the 1970s scare on cooling (I watched the BBC documentary - I know it was real!) - the point being that sincere scientists jumped to a conclusion and if it happened once why not again? I could also mention the way the reduction in atmosphere pollution is know to have raised the temperature of the climate, but you wouldn't pick up on this in the climate articles, (but again it is mentioned in the emails as being as large a contributor or larger than CO2). Isonomia (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no process to review editors like you describe. There is a place for voluntary reviews at Wikipedia:Editor review, but each user has to put himself or herself up for review there. And the Wikimedia Foundation is certainly not going to release the information you want (e-mails, IP addresses) of editors because that's a breach of their privacy policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy) which says that such information can only be released in very specific circumstances, and this wouldn't apply.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the editors involved are members of activist groups. All Wikipedia editors are treated the same and must abide by the same rules. The reason they are asking for peer-reviewed material is because it is part of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources says "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." and "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available." Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable sources says "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

In response to your other comments, the Help Desk is not the place to have long discussions on problems you see in specific articles. The first place to bring up these issues is the articles' talk pages, but I see you've already been doing that. If you don't feel that's enough, I suggest bringing up these issues at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to ask the community if the articles are compliant with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rollbacking

Whats the difference between [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

These are features of Twinkle. The description of each link is on Twinkle's documentation page at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Difference between revisions. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism standards

Resolved

 – Mysdaao ^talk 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've recently been using Twinkle to do some recent changes patrolling (mainly for vandalism), and I'm just wondering how far AGF goes. I identified this edit, where someone has added jumbled letters to the middle of a word, as vandalism and reverted it. I could imagine, however, that someone may have done this as a test edit, and that a new user might be put off by having a test edit labeled as vandalism. Could a more experienced recent changes patroller give me some guidance here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear's Fool (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well even if it is a test edit its still vandalism, and the user needs to know that.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But please remember, they may have intended to "revert it" and did not know how. Assume good faith - tell them that it is vandalism, but please be gentle because I remember being jumped on by editors when I started and it was a horrific experience! Isonomia (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, a test edit is not vandalism. Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism". If you aren't certain that the edit is deliberate vandalism, then assume good faith but still revert it. For the case given, since that was the very first edit made by the IP address, I would say there's no way to know for sure it's a bad faith edit, so it's better to assume it's not. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, using Twinkle, if I see an edit that may be a test edit, I use the AGF reversion and then post a warning on their talk page? Lear's Fool (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm wondering about edits like the one I'm talking about in my first post, which are probably vandalism, but might be accidents or test edits. Lear's Fool (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if you aren't certain that the edit is deliberate vandalism, then assume good faith. For edits like the one you gave in your first post, don't mark the edit as vandalism, and give a warning for test edits. From Wikipedia:Vandalism, "If you are not certain that an edit is vandalism, always start with {{subst:uw-test1}}." --Mysdaao ^talk 03:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks. Lear's Fool (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Mysdaao ^talk 13:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Linking IP adresses to Username

I edited some pages before and after creating an username from 2 different IP Addresses.. How can I link those changes from the IP Addresses to my Username?

--Coquidragon (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It used to be possible, but hasn't been since 2005. Your IP edits cannot be assigned to your user name, I'm afraid. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But as the page says, you can list your contributions made with the IP addresses on your user page. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Template double direct problems

Help! I moved the original template {{Parks in Quebec}} to {{Protected Areas of Quebec}}. I intend to create similar templates for all the provinces of Canada. Anyway, I then created categories for the Protected Areas template, and then edited Aigle-à-Tête-Blanche Ecological Reserve to show the Protected areas template directly. Now the article also shows up in the categories Category:Quebec navigational boxes and Category:Protected areas of Canada templates. Why is the article also being placed in those categories, when I did not specify those categories in the article itself? I don't know enough code to understand how this is happening. Is it due to the infobox at the top? How should I fix this? Thanks for any help. Jllm06 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

When you added the category with this edit, you put the new category, along with the original category and the interlanguage link, outside the <noinclude></noinclude> tag. Any text within the noinclude tag is prevented from being transcluded onto the pages using the template. Because the category is not within the tag, it is added to the pages using it, like Aigle-à-Tête-Blanche Ecological Reserve. If you move the two categories and the interlanguage link between <noinclude> and </noinclude>, they won't be added to pages using the template. --Mysdaao ^talk 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The template had two categories and an interwiki at the bottom:

• Protected Areas
• fr:Modèle:Palette Parcs nationaux du Québec
• Category:Protected areas of Canada templates

I moved them to a documentation subpage so that the articles will not show in them. The template still includes Category: Parks in Quebec, so articles will show in that category. if this is not desireable, the it should be discussed on the template talk. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Image Copyright Status

Hi, my question is regarding the copyright status of the image I want to upload. Actually, I wish to upload an image of a notable person whose article is on wikipedia but his image is available on a state government website where no copyight information is to be found (anywhere in the website). So, what do I do? *Truth* (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You can either assume it is under copyright and treat it as a WP:FAIRUSE image, which generally doesn't allow for images of living people. Or, you can find another image that you know is under a free license or in the public domain. If the person is or every has been a government employee or official, there may be a free image on a federal web site or in book printed by the feds. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with DavidWR: just to clarify, creative works (including images) are automatically copyrighted, unless the creator actively specifies that they are not. So if you can't find licensing information pertaining to an image it's unlikely to be available for free use. (See WP:COPY for more.) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Can I just ask if the person in question is still alive? As a general rule, if the person is alive, then pictures found on websites which are under copyright (the basic rule of thumb here is if the site does not specifically state that the content is not under copyright, the contents will be copyrighted) cannot be used under the "fair use" provisions, as it would be possible for someone to take a picture of the individual in question. If you are referring to Shesh Paul Vaid, then it could be argued that with the level of protection around him, it is unlikely that you would be able to approach him and take a photo! My advice would be to contact the website with the photo, and (using the guidelines at WP:IOWN and the consent form at WP:CONSENT) get permission to use the specific picture. If you need help or advice on this, feel free to ask on my talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

redirect title

I created a new page at User:Manderson.utsystem/Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning and then after it was edited by our team, moved the page to Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. A search for "Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning" brings up the correct page and URL but with the title User:Manderson.utsystem/Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. I'd rather the "User:Manderson.utsystem/" not be shown as it implies I was solely responsible for the content. Should I go through the "move A to C, delete A, move C to A" process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manderson.utsystem (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Manderson.utsystem, the page that was in your userspace (with the prefix User:Manderson.utsystem/) has now been moved to the mainname space, see Intercultural Communicative Competence in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Is this what you wanted?

On another note, you appear to be sharing your current account among a number of people. this is prohibited by policy, see WP:ROLE. You also appear to have a conflict of interest with the afore mentioned article, although you are not prohibited from editing articles with which you have a conflict of interest, it is strongly advised against. Please see WP:COI and WP:BFAQ.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask them here. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point - the article reads to me like a term paper or journal paper and not an encyclopedia article, maybe with a bit of WP:SYNTH thrown in. So my question boils down to whether this is in fact a suitable article for an encyclopedia? – ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, but the article was too dense for me to make heads or tails of. TNXMan 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Question

Hello.

I found the exact text copied from a Wikipedia page on a website that does not appear to be part of Wikipedia. I don't know how to tell if the site uses the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License or the GNU Free Documentation License. It's a website of "training journals." I could not see a credit or link to Wikipedia or the author(s) of the Wiki page on the website in question. If this is a possible copyright violation, should I report it somewhere or post the link here?

Thanks. Manyhats (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly; are you sure that the Wikipedia article is not copy from their website, rather than the other way round?

I believe that Creative Commons allows for the reproduction of content on Wikipedia, so long as others share the content alike, and attribute it to Wikipedia, if you want, you can contact the website and request that they attribute their content to Wikipedia. I don't think the foundation bothers chasing these things up themselves, although I may be wrong.

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The original article on Wikipedia has been updated several times over the years, whereas the site in question just posted the latest version of the article, with a copyright date of 2009 (only). If Wikipedia doesn't care about having its content reproduced, "case closed." Thanks! Manyhats (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and the links to sites at the top. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

unblock my server

How do I unblock my server it has been block because of a brute force attack How can I fix this?Peggycasteel (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. TNXMan 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Search text in lead section

I’m trying to ascertain when a phrase was added to then removed from the lead section of an article. I know about wikiblame, but I don’t see how to use that to search a particular section. Can it be done?SPhilbrickT 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Testing

How do I go about getting tested for Native American heritage, though your info is great it is too much for me to obtain the info I need to startin the right diection. Helo Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.49.113 (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. TNXMan 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What is "Wikiwak" and how do I delete a page from it?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Some months ago a page was created on Wikipedia containing false information on me. It was deleted, but it continues to appear on a site called "Wikiwak.com" which claims to be a mirror of Wikipedia. Needless to say I would like the page permanently deleted, but don't seem able to do so. What is Wikiwak? Is it affiliated with Wikipedia? How can I delete this page permanently?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.57.222 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Wikiwak site is not affiliated with Wikipedia. You'll need to contact them directly in order to have the info removed. TNXMan 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture Problem

Why won't my pictures show up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara378 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note that hot-linking to outside images is not allowed (and doesn't work anyway) - so all pictures must be uploaded first.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing references

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,4-Dioxane

The above link has a reference that is out of date, and although it links to an updated page, I would like to change the title of the link.

The reference I would like to change says: ^ "CHEC Chemical Summary: 1,4-dioxane". Children's Health Environmental Coalition. http://www.checnet.org/HealtheHouse/chemicals/chemicals-detail.asp?Main_ID=273. Retrieved 2006-02-02.

I would like to change it to: Chemical Encyclopedia: 1,4-dioxane". Healthy Child Healthy World. http://healthychild.org/issues/chemical-pop/1,4-dioxane/. Retrieved 2009-12-14.

However, when I click to edit the references, the references do not show up and I cannot change it. Am I blocked from editing this page? How can I access the references to make this small modification?

HealthychildLA (talk)healthychildLA —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

Hi, this is because you have tried to directly edit the "References" section. Because the article uses inline citations you will need to edit the "Uses" section and edit the citation that looks like ^[2] when viewing the page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to fix it, does it look alright now? References are just footnotes really, the references section collects them all together via either; <refrences /> or {{reflist}}, if you want to change the wording of one of the foot notes you have to find where it the article it is used. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, if you want to find where the code is, just click on the ^ next to the reference, and that will take you to the section where the reference is defined. Then you can edit that section. If you look at the section, and you just see <ref name="xyz"/>, then the reference is "list-defined" rather than "in-line". In that case, you will see the reference in the References section, looking something like this: {{reflist|refs=
<ref name="xyz">{{cite .....}}</ref> - that will be where you can edit it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you!

HealthychildLA (talk)healthychldLA —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

So http://healthychild.org is a reliable source? Or, if that reference is just a copy of text from somewhere else, shouldn't the reference be to the somewhere else? – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What is "Wikiwak" and how do I delete a page from it?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Some months ago a page was created on Wikipedia containing false information on me. It was deleted, but it continues to appear on a site called "Wikiwak.com" which claims to be a mirror of Wikipedia. Needless to say I would like the page permanently deleted, but don't seem able to do so. What is Wikiwak? Is it affiliated with Wikipedia? How can I delete this page permanently?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.57.222 (talk • contribs)

See 3 posts above, in short you will have to contact Wikiwak. – ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• A mirror is a site that copies content from other websites, in this case from Wikipedia. It has no affilliation with Wikipedia. The only way to have it removed is directly contacting them (or force them by contacting their ISP) - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As a mirror, it should update and reflect the deletion eventually, though not immediately (I'm writing in general, do not know anything about this particular site). SPhilbrickT 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is, or was, at least one site that purported to keep deleted articles around for the specific purpose of keeping deleted articles around. I don't know if it still does. Frankly, given BLP and ATTACK concerns, I don't know why their lawyers would let them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup it's still around. – ukexpat (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Redlinked categories?

What should be done with them? Nelson58 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, just means a page hasn't yet been created or has been deleted.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 20:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They can be useful as an indication of related articles which might require creating. Wikipedia:Red link gives guidelines on when (and when not) top create them, and advice on dealing with them. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely that's articles though, not categories? Nelson58 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite correct, Nelson58. I should have referred you to Creating a category page - this shows what should be on it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be that someone made an error with the category, for example Category:Reggae Musical Groups instead of the correct Category:Reggae musical groups. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Check the history of the articles in the category. Either re-categorize the articles in the case of typos or novelty categories, or turn the red cat blue by creating the category. If you create the category, be sure to add appropriate parent categories, and possibly make it a parent to other categories. Red categories still function as categories, albeit without parent categories. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)