Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< June 16 << May | June | Jul >> June 18 >
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.


June 17[edit]

Today's featured picture[edit]

I posted this at the Village Pump but then noticed there aren't any recent posts there, so I thought this more highly-trafficked page might get this a faster fix.

The Welcome page is protected from editing and I have no idea where one is supposed to go to point this out, but the text appending the photo of Gerald R. Ford is wrong. It reads, in part:

"...the Watergate scandal, which began an attempted break-in..."

When of course it should read:

"...the Watergate scandal, which began with an attempted break-in..."

Hopefully someone here is cleared to edit the page or can forward this to the appropriate page. If someone would note on my talk page where that is, so I know where to go in the future (I've noticed a similar error on the main page in the past), I'd appreciate that. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place for such things is WP:ERRORS, which is transcluded onto Talk:Main Page. Algebraist 01:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it there for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Abrazame (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intermitent problems with Twinkle[edit]

Resolved

Has anyone else been having intermittent problems with Twinkle? I find rollback failing to work completely, and page tagging to work sporadically. Warnings appear to work without issue. This has been going on for maybe 3 days, and is replicable across different CPUs (all using firefox 3.0.10). Shadowjams (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is a known issue and it's being discussed at the twinkle talk page. Seems to only affect the secure server. Shadowjams (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italics in section headings?[edit]

Is it OK to put italics in section headings? I searched the help desk, but every editor seems to have a different answer and fails to back it up with an actual guideline. From reading the Manual of Style I'm assuming that if it meets WP:ITALICS it should be italicised. Copana2002 (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is correct. I have seen articles where there are section headings in italics. I am awfully nervous right now (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's always been my assumption, but I can't back it up with a specific style guideline. Abrazame (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find the correct copyright tag?[edit]

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of writing my first article ( L'Hôtel_du_libre_échange ) and would like to upload images to it. I've taken these pictures myself and have read page up and page down on how to upload, insert into text etc etc etc. But before I can do any of this I have to select the correct copyright tag to it and I simply cannot find the correct one. I've been browsing and browsing the copyright tags pages and I just can't find a tag that applies to a self-made picture I want to release to the public domain for non-commercial use only. It's supposed to be a fairly straightforward and common tag; but I still have no idea how to make it. Someone please help me? Nimloth250 (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Nimloth250[reply]

Due to the license Wikipedia uses, we can not accept images with restrictions such as non-commercial use only. Prodego talk 07:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what license tag should I use? Nimloth250 (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Nimloth250[reply]
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags has an overview and links to lists of tags (eg you can pick a licence from here). Generally the easiest way is to select a tag from the drop down box when you upload. Note that "public domain" means no restrictions, and that Wikimedia project don't accept non-commercial licences. Ideally all freely licenced images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and not English Wikipedia, that way the French version of the article can use the images too.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend CC-BY-SA, and that you upload the image to commons. Prodego talk 07:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Nimloth250 (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Nimloth250[reply]

Deletion templates[edit]

I have been improving some images by converting them to pngs, but now there are two versions on Commons. Is there a template to say that a better/converted version is available and that the original can be deleted? I have made sure to redirect links to the right place. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevetsjc (talk • contribs) 07:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You might try {{Db-f1}} SpitfireTally-ho! 07:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking this Help Desk is for questions about English Wikipedia only. Commons has its own Help Desk. – ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reliable source?[edit]

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be considered a WP:reliable source for an article on The Oaxaca Community Foundation? It's a book by the Social Enterprise Knowledge Network about the organization. (The text isn't available online, though I know that's not a criteria for a RS).

Thanks --Chriswaterguy talk 09:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best place to ask questions about reliable sources is the Reliable source's noticeboard. The reliable source policy can be quite complex at times, and is therefor more likely to yield a correct answer at a more specilized board. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - will do! --Chriswaterguy talk 17:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Link - Contribution or spamming?[edit]

Hello all. And thank you for your brilliant services.

I've got a question to make.

I got into Ammouliani and I wanted to add an external link of this blog post Ammouliani Info & Photos. Is that consider as spamming? Am I not allowed to create such an external link?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EerieNim (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blog seems to be basically an advert for a restort, so yeah that would be considered spam. The other problem is that it's not in english and we presume that the majority of people checking that page would be unable to understand it - so it would have no value in increasing their understanding of the topic. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:EL, it will give you details about what kind of things that can and can't be added as external links. Blogs are not usually used as external links, whether it is spam or not. Cheers. Chamal talk 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image map errors at Area code 480 and Area code 602[edit]

I don't know how to fix, can someone take a look? –xenotalk 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (the error message is pretty self-explanatory). Algebraist 14:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was errors by DrilBot. See User talk:DrilBot#Damage. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many of these DrilBot errors are unfixed. How can it best be investigated? A bot request? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The great G. O. Ogle think the only article where this has caused an error are: Nines (Enneagram of Personality) – Area code 602 – Area code 623 – 1 E0 m² – 1 E-2 m² – 1 E-1 m² – 1 E-4 m² – Area code 520 – Area code 480. Some of them may already have been fixed. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed now. There ought to be a maintenance category for this, though. Algebraist 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Which Google search did you use? I did "Error: no valid link was found at the end of line" site:en.wikipedia.org. It gives 19 hits and I fixed the featured article Samuel Johnson which had been broken (by AWB!) for 11 days. I will go through the rest of the hits. Any easy way to find errors not indexed by Google? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed 1 millimetre which was the only remaining in my Google search. The AWB problem has apparently been fixed at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Your code creates page errors inside imagemap tags. Locobot has also caused the problem: [1]. I will inform the operator. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it will work (I think it does for some messages and not others), the easy way to find these errors would be to create a hidden category Category:Pages with ImageMap errors or whatever, and put it in the system messages Mediawiki:imagemap_bad_image, Mediawiki:imagemap_invalid_coord Mediawiki:imagemap_invalid_desc, Mediawiki:imagemap_invalid_image, Mediawiki:imagemap_invalid_title, Mediawiki:imagemap_missing_coord, Mediawiki:imagemap_no_areas, Mediawiki:imagemap_no_image, Mediawiki:imagemap_no_link, Mediawiki:imagemap_poly_odd, and Mediawiki:imagemap_unrecognised_shape. Algebraist 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a lot of messages to mess with. At User talk:Tim Starling#Finding imagemap errors I have asked the author of mw:Extension:ImageMap if there is a way. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page[edit]

How Can I create a new page without having it atomically register as spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.182.61 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, 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 and be free of promotional material and advertising. 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) 15:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A supreme move is needed.[edit]

Resolved
 – Page moved. – ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Building" in United States Supreme Court building is not capitalized. (It should always be capitalized.) I tried moving it, but received some kind of funky error message. Is it because someone made the correct spelling a redirect? If so, how do I go about solving the issue? APK (If You Wanna) 15:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should open a discussion on the article's talk page, and/or make a request at WP:RM. – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by User:It Is Me Here. The diff is here. TNXMan 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Problem[edit]

When I have edited about a third of an article in the normal way, I find that the cursor (and all the text), has a habit of leaping towards the bottom of the screen with each press of a key. I can still continue to edit, but I must constantly scroll the page up to see what's coming. Its all very irritating. RASAM (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this when you type in the edit box? Is the whole edit box visible on the screen? Which browser are you using? Does it happen on all pages or only on for example large pages? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try an F7. – ukexpat (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such prompt replies to my question. To answer your questions (sorry that you have to ask): Yes, when I type in the edit box; The whole edit box is visible; It happens on all pages that are large enough to require scrolling; I have Internet Explorer 8; and finally I have tried pressing F7 when the cursor is at the bottom of the page with no result. RASAM (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using WikiEd try disabling it Arlen22 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracing[edit]

I need to trace a number from leask Sk. They call my house @ <blanked> and their phone is for outgoing calls only..no information at all when i reverse the number...when i call it says only outgoing calls....could i please get some assistance with this. You can call me at the above number and my name is darryl....the number I am trying to trace is <blanked>...if you know who thye owner of this line is please call me..i believe my wife is broken down there somewhere...Thank-you wonderful people. You can also contact me at <blanked>

Thank-you Darryl Caldwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.244.79 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but we cannot track phone numbers for you. This help desk is for asking questions about Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. The only suggestion I can offer is try using *69 to determine the number that called you. TNXMan 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting factual errors[edit]

Yes, I know, be bold and fix it myself. I read Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error, but it doesn't help me on this situation.

The error here: List of countries by amount of economic aid received is arguably minor - the site claims the data comes from the 2008 CIA Fact Book [2] , and it appears that it came from the 2007 version [3] (There must be a better source, but this is the one I used). However, the source is the place with the error - so one possibility is that the page should change the reference date to 2007 and explain why. Another possibility is that the source cannot be considered reliable.

I have noted the problem in the talk page, but I don't know that this is sufficient. Suggestions? --SPhilbrickT 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide links? hmwithτ 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, very sorry, I swear I composed a post with links, not sure what happened - the downside of trying to multi-task --SPhilbrickT 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way...[edit]

To find all articles that have been at any time categorized in a particular category, whether they are there or not today? Carlossuarez46 (talk) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know SQL and are you willing to do some work? In theory, all the information to answer this query should be in Wikipedia's database. See WP:EIW#Download and WP:EIW#Query. As you probably already figured out, the history of the category page itself is no help, because the information you seek resides in the histories of the individual articles you want to find, and you don't know those articles in advance obviously. It's possible that you would have to scan all the histories of all the articles to see which ones had at some time contained a link to the category. That would probably be an expensive query to run on Wikipedia itself; you might have to download your own copy of Wikipedia and run the query on your own computer. Why do you want to do this? --Teratornis (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know SQL, sorry. Willing to do some work? yep. Reason: to figure out what the results of AfD's over a period of time that were categorized in a particular category. More specifically, to track deletions in category "P" places and transportation and see what the fates of certain types of articles as more information that just the WP:OUTCOMES to see what the WP consensus in action tends to be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Footnote"-type question[edit]

If I want to identify certain members in a list of individuals as part of the same group, what's the preferred style? Typically (in print) you see asterisks or daggers used, with one note at the bottom of the page. I could use standard numbered footnotes, but I'm not sure how to THEN avoid having a list of identical "explanatory" footnotes at the bottom, where just one would really do. I tried using an asterisk, but of course that appears as a square at the bottom in "saved mode." Thanks for any help. RadioBroadcast (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want Wikipedia:Footnotes#Separating reference lists and explanatory notes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have two issues. The previous response shows you how to separate the footnotes from the references in the article by using the "group=" construct of the "ref" tag. Your other problem (how to use one footnote from several places in that article is solved by using the "name=" construct of the ref tag. See WP:REFNAME. You can use both "group=" and "name=" in the same ref to create a single "non-reference" footnote referenced from multiple places. -Arch dude (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sin City[edit]

There was a book written years ago about Waterbury, CT - I believe it was named Sin City. How can I find any information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.69.89 (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at all of the articles which we have about Sin City, it doesn't appear that we have an article on the book to which you refer. You may be able to learn more by either asking at our humanities reference desk or searching Amazon or Google. TNXMan 17:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Wicked Waterbury: Madmen & Mayhem in the Brass City by Edith Reynolds and John Murray. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userifying Autobiographical articles?[edit]

I got no response to on the village pump, so I'll try here:

Is it considered appropriate to userify apparent (based on user name) autobiographical articles that are clearly intended to be Encyclopedia articles? For example moving Bob Nobody to User:Bob Nobody

I would think not, because:

  • If the person is notable, the fact that they created the entry doesn't change that
  • If they are not notable and/or the article is highly promotional in nature, userifing does not solve the problem as promotion is not allowed even in user space.

However, I see no specific policy guidance or previous discussion on this point, so I am seeking further guidance. --ThaddeusB (talk)

I agree with you. A certain amount of autobiographical material is OK on a user page, but there is absolutely no reason why an autobio of a non-notable person should languish in userspace. – ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think userfication is OK, because it allows the user to work to improve the content, even if there is a conflict of interest. The idea (as I understand it) is that the user will ask another editor to review the content before moving it back to the mainspace. If it's written neutrally, well-sourced, etc., then it can be moved back. If not, it stays in the userspace, where it is out of sight of readers. TNXMan 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't allow spammy draft articles to linger in user space for too long, so why allow non-notable autobios?  – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's being actively improved, why not? The article is out of the normal readers' sight and is still subject to review before being moved back to the mainspace. If it has been inactive for a while, there's no reason the article can't be brought to miscellany for deletion. TNXMan 20:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)\\[reply]
I was responding to the second point above, on the assumption that it is not being actively improved or has no chance of ever meeting the inclusion criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are absolutely sure that the autobiographical user page has no chance of ever meeting the inclusion criteria, then we should encourage the user to transwiki it to Wikipopuli or Wikibios. If the user made a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia (for example, if the user is inexperienced as would very probably be the case), then applying the usual high-handed deletionism might give the user a very unpleasant perception of Wikipedia and then we might lose potentially constructive future contributions from that user (we might even create a new vandal out for revenge). It would be nice if once in a while we could arrive at a remedy which the victim user is comfortable with. I get the impression that in the vast majority of deletions on Wikipedia, the feelings of the page creators don't even enter into consideration. We rarely bother to look for a way to protect our precious guidelines and policies that might also create a satisfactory outcome for the person whose work gets clobbered. In other words, it might be nice if we could figure out a way to treat well-meaning but inexperienced users somewhat differently than we treat vandals. As far as pages in userspace go, I think we should be as permissive as we can be, as long as users are contributing something constructive to the encyclopedia. Userpages are cheap in terms of computer resources, and if they motivate people to put in the hard work to learn to edit on Wikipedia, then I don't care how many userboxes etc. a person wants to display on their userpage. I can see Jimbo's point, but I think in the bigger picture, people really do not work for free. Everybody who puts something into Wikipedia expects to get a little something out of it, and if they want a somewhat autobiographical userpage, what's the problem? Joe Nobody's page is not going to get 100,000 page views anyway, unless they are actually notable. A page that nobody looks at isn't costing us anything we could measure. Just my opinions, of course, which count for nothing here. --Teratornis (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you create a "rough draft" article?[edit]

I am a brand new member of wikipedia, so i am very unsure of how things work. I've tried reading the help pages, but they dont have concise easy to follow answers.

My question is how do I create a page, but not publish it officially? I want to lay the initial groundwork today, and then come back several times afterwards to add refferences, add content and edit it. Please give me a SIMPLE step by step on how to do this. Thank You.

Niederauer2009 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUBPAGES - let us know if you need help creating a subpage. – ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is as simple as I can make it:
  1. Click here: User:Niederauer2009/Sandbox and start editing the page.
  2. Follow the instructions in:
The only way we could make it "simple" would be by knowing exactly what you want to do - and more importantly, exactly what you don't want to do. Wikipedia is an extremely complex artifact (with 6,818,904 articles and growing, on almost every imaginable topic) - in fact, Wikipedia may be the most complex artifact available for the general public to mess around with. (Does anyone know of a more complex system which the public is free to modify? Linux might be another contender). Our instructions are complex because we write one set of pages that must cover every contingency, special case, and conditional branch that 47,333,716 users can cook up. If all users wanted to write on the same topic, and they fully agreed about it, then we could make things simple. Incidentally, the Stanton Grant aims to make Wikipedia more "usable", but I doubt anyone can make Wikipedia appreciably simpler, and I think Fred Brooks would probably agree. --Teratornis (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments about your working draft in: User:Niederauer2009/Sandbox:
  • The subject sounds like it is probably notable, but you will need some reliable sources to assert the subject's notability. See WP:CITE and WP:FOOT to learn how to include your sources as footnote citations.
    • In particular, put a {{reflist}} template in your References section to make your footnotes appear. But you should move your <ref>...</ref> tags up into the body text to put them after the claims they support. see WP:FOOT for details.
  • Since the subject is an organization in Brazil, you may also like to edit on the Portuguese Wikipedia.
  • See Help:Section and WP:LAYOUT to get your layout right. You are using bold text for section headings, when you should rather make them like this:
==History==
--Teratornis (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish handball biography stubs[edit]

Resolved
 – Nor sure how, but resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that some articles using the template {{Sweden-handball-bio-stub}} do not appear under Category:Swedish handball biography stubs, but under the parent category Category:Handball biography stubs. I can't find an explanation for this behavior and I don't understand why some articles work fine and others don't.

Examples:

Can someone take a look at this?

--Aikurn (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of minor edits (to use the {{Lifetime}} template) and both articles now appear in both categories. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Aikurn (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steganography[edit]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the U.S.A. and many "civilized" countries are signatories, declares that privacy is a fundamental human right.

I am the inventor of a steganographic method which is undetectable and unbreakable. The method was created in service of protecting the fundamental human right of privacy.

It is of no danger to any open, moral, democratic society but is lethal to the likes of governments like that of Iran.

As the inventor and holder of preliminary patents and copyrights it is my right to devulge to whatever extent I feel appropriate the ideas and methods associated with these patents and copyrights, yet I have twice tried to amend the article on Steganography only to see its content erased.

This is what I added:

Modulus Of Dithered Color Offset -Steganography An entirely undetectable, and unbreakable method developed by Ivan J. Grimm and submitted for provisional patent application in May 2009.

This statement is entirely true and highly relevant to the topic under which it is categorized.

It is not an attempt to sell anything, it is merely a statement of historical fact.

It is as if there was an article about airplanes that contained nothing except outdated information about bi-planes and when someone posts information about a huge technological advancement, a jet plane capable of mach3, you delete it !

May I be allowed to post information about "modulus of dithered color offset" steganography in order to update your stupid, worthless collection of obsolete information about steganography ?

Thank you,

Ivan J. Grimm Inventor, USPTO Patent Application # 61/214,733, filing date 04/28/2009, confirmation 3538. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.28.57 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all we only have your word that you are who you say you are, but that's irrelevant. If you can provide reliable sources for your edits, they will more than likely be accepted. Alternativley, discuss your changes on the article's talk page. Oh and coming here an making comments like "your stupid, worthless collection of obsolete information" isn't helping your position. – ukexpat (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your informed comments. They were genuinely helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivangrimm (talk • contribs) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everybody who edits much on Wikipedia feels frustrated occasionally. But I think if someone is going to defy the government of Iran, learning to deal with Wikipedia should not be much of a problem. The worst that happens here is your edits may get reverted; as far as I know, Wikipedia does not issue fatwas calling for anyone's murder. The first step is to understand Wikipedia's distinction between "truth" and verifiability. Since anybody can edit Wikipedia, and anybody can change anybody else's edits, we cannot take any user's word as authoritative by itself. Instead we must have reliable sources to support any claim which anybody else may feel like challenging. See WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, and WP:CITET. Also note, when you throw down the gauntlet to the Iranian government, people from Iran may be editing here as well - therefore we must find a way to communicate which our opponents can accept. And please go easy on the loaded language; you implicitly claim the moral high ground, yet appear to espouse software patents, something that a number of thoughtful people would find incongruous at best. Wikipedia is a leading example of free content and open source software, and software patents pose an existential threat to what we are doing here. --Teratornis (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the gratuitous comment wasn't helpful, I just read the article, and it is in need of help. There are some citations, but far fewer than necessary. I hope Ivan will contribute. If we deleted every factual statement not supported by a reliable source, the article would be quite thin.--SPhilbrickT 21:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for everyone's comments. I do apologize for my abrupt comments which were entirely not artful. I should rather have said "I would highly recommend the current article to any 8th grader seeking a passing grade". Even though I feel that the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office) could authoritatively verify that patent application 61/214,733 filed 04/28/2009 does in fact exist, and therefore is a published resource which verifies the content which I tried to add to the Wiki Steganographic article, I have decided to hold back making any future changes to the steganographic article. I am hoping to meet with the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Geneva in three to five weeks to discuss assigning them the rights to the patent. For those interested, the method is not only usable for serious things like preserving privacy in conventional communications such as e-mail, edi, etc. (undetectable means also unfilterable so China would no longer be able to block content), it is also usable for "hobby" purposes through use of an HTTP Proxy software system which incorporates the patent and which is called "DARK FUDJ". "FUDJ" implies a change to something, like an accountant "Fudging" the books. Dark FUDJ would allow "hobbyists" to upload image and movie files infected with undetectable and unbreakable hidden data to sites, lets say to porn sites, where other "hobbyists" can visit these sites using HTTP proxy software which "detects" and extracts the undetectable data as files and then the hobbyists would separately know to go to some designated site, lets say the official web site of the Chinese government, where the site targeted by the data hidden in the other site appears mocked when viewed by an ordinary browser using special "Dark FUDJ" HTTP proxy software. The official Chinese web site would appear entirely different, perhaps appearing to be a web site advocating the overthrow of the Chinese government and coordinating activities to seek that outcome or something more harmless like party leaders pictured in altered pictures doing ridiculous things. The entire point of the patentable method is not to simply preserve a fundamental human right, privacy, but to inflict absolute ridicule on governments who would deprive their citizens of fundamental human rights. Basically it is "virtual grafiti" and any web site in the world, including WIKI, could become the target of bands of millions of hobbyists competing for prizes donated by human rights organizations to see who can ridicule someone who deserves it the best. Conceptually an "underground" Google would be created funneling, through advertising revenues, hundreds of millions of dollars to human rights organizations.

Trouble Moving an edited page[edit]

Every time I try to move a page I created to its proper heading, I get a giant internal error and Wikimedia exceptions (see below). Can anyone help me here?

MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: exception 'AFPUserVisibleException' with message '<abusefilter-exception-regexfailure>' in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.parser.php:1591 Stack trace:

  1. 0 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/memcached-client.php(1075): AbuseFilterParser::regexErrorHandler(2048, 'Only variables ...', '/usr/local/apac...', 1075, Array)
  2. 1 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/memcached-client.php(801): memcached->_flush_read_buffer(Resource id #108)
  3. 2 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/memcached-client.php(413): memcached->get_sock('enwiki:abusefil...')
  4. 3 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.class.php(469): memcached->get('enwiki:abusefil...')
  5. 4 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.class.php(448): AbuseFilter::recordProfilingResult('72', 0.0058519840240479)
  6. 5 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.class.php(398): AbuseFilter::checkFilter(Object(stdClass), Object(AbuseFilterVariableHolder), true)
  7. 6 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.class.php(673): AbuseFilter::checkAllFilters(Object(AbuseFilterVariableHolder))
  8. 7 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.hooks.php(72): AbuseFilter::filterAction(Object(AbuseFilterVariableHolder), Object(Title))
  9. 8 [internal function]: AbuseFilterHooks::onAbortMove(Object(Title), Object(Title), Object(User), NULL, 'Page finishing')
  10. 9 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Hooks.php(132): call_user_func_array(Array, Array)
  11. 10 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Title.php(2606): wfRunHooks('AbortMove', Array)
  12. 11 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Title.php(2641): Title->isValidMoveOperation(Object(Title), true, 'Page finishing')
  13. 12 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/specials/SpecialMovepage.php(354): Title->moveTo(Object(Title), true, 'Page finishing', true)
  14. 13 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/specials/SpecialMovepage.php(46): MovePageForm->doSubmit()
  15. 14 [internal function]: wfSpecialMovepage(NULL, Object(UnlistedSpecialPage))
  16. 15 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/SpecialPage.php(783): call_user_func('wfSpecialMovepa...', NULL, Object(UnlistedSpecialPage))
  17. 16 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/SpecialPage.php(559): SpecialPage->execute(NULL)
  18. 17 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Wiki.php(233): SpecialPage::executePath(Object(Title))
  19. 18 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Wiki.php(62): MediaWiki->initializeSpecialCases(Object(Title), Object(OutputPage), Object(WebRequest))
  20. 19 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/index.php(116): MediaWiki->initialize(Object(Title), NULL, Object(OutputPage), Object(User), Object(WebRequest))
  21. 20 /usr/local/apache/common-local/live-1.5/index.php(3): require('/usr/local/apac...')
  22. 21 {main}

Exception caught inside exception handler: exception 'AFPUserVisibleException' with message '<abusefilter-exception-regexfailure>' in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/AbuseFilter/AbuseFilter.parser.php:1591 Stack trace:

  1. 0 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/memcached-client.php(1075): AbuseFilterParser::regexErrorHandler(2048, 'Only variables ...', '/usr/local/apac...', 1075, Array)
  2. 1 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/memcached-client.php(801): memcached->_flush_read_buffer(Resource id #70)
  3. 2 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/memcached-client.php(413): memcached->get_sock('enwiki:gadgets-...')
  4. 3 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/Gadgets/Gadgets.php(79): memcached->get('enwiki:gadgets-...')
  5. 4 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/Gadgets/Gadgets.php(55): wfLoadGadgetsStructured()
  6. 5 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/extensions/Gadgets/Gadgets.php(171): wfLoadGadgets()
  7. 6 [internal function]: wfGadgetsBeforePageDisplay(Object(OutputPage), Object(SkinMonoBook))
  8. 7 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Hooks.php(132): call_user_func_array('wfGadgetsBefore...', Array)
  9. 8 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/OutputPage.php(1011): wfRunHooks('BeforePageDispl...', Array)
  10. 9 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Exception.php(159): OutputPage->output()
  11. 10 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Exception.php(186): MWException->reportHTML()
  12. 11 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Exception.php(284): MWException->report()
  13. 12 /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Exception.php(343): wfReportException(Object(AFPUserVisibleException))
  14. 13 [internal function]: wfExceptionHandler(Object(AFPUserVisibleException))
  15. 14 {main} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelcan (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which article are you trying to move and to what target title? – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed this. — Werdna • talk 20:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem still exists, I get the same problem when moving my page 'Precise Software' from my sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by V sara (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

How do you add pictures to an article? --Dragonslayer619 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:IMAGE. – ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) First make sure the picture you want has been uploaded, either to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Then you'll need to insert the picture into the article by adding [[File:Example.jpg]] (be sure that you have the name and extension listed correctly). You change the picture some by adding the appropriate syntax. TNXMan 20:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What pictures? There are big differences between these cases:
  • The pictures are already on Wikipedia or Commons.
  • The pictures are not on Wikipedia or Commons, but you created some pictures yourself, of objects or scenes not having any potential legal restrictions, and you want to upload them.
  • You found some pictures on the Web that someone else created.
Tell us more about the pictures you have in mind, and we can tell you how to proceed. If you want to figure it out yourself, see the links under Commons:COM:EIC#Copyright which explain (in detail) what sorts of pictures we allow. --Teratornis (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of talk page[edit]

98.223.100.96 (talk) appears to be using their talk page as a collection of facts about horses. This user has no other contributions except to their talk page, and I am concerned about this, but I don't know what (if anything) should be done. just a little insignificant 20:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, resolved. Their talk page has been deleted. just a little insignificant 21:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio of various locations, and a welcome/warning left. Thanks for bringing this up. BencherliteTalk 21:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, thanks for taking care of it. just a little insignificant 21:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion regarding {{catmore}}: how do I make sure it gets wide consideration?[edit]

I have made this suggestion on the talk page for {{catmore}}. How can I make sure that this suggestion gets the attention of interested wikipedians who may not be watching this particular template? Regards—G716 <T·C> 22:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The former suggestion on that page was posted to Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Catmore template. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That also led me to WP:CATP —G716 <T·C> 23:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Importing CSS or JS code[edit]

Resolved

On a different wiki, is their a way to add something to MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Common.js that would import a page of cs or jss when loading a certain page? Erwin Springer [talk] 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to do this on Wikipedia, or on some other wiki that runs the MediaWiki software? If you want to do this on Wikipedia, then in addition to determining what is technically possible, you must also determine what is politically possible. If it's your own wiki, then you can do whatever you want (which is technically possible). I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's politics, but it looks like when people want new features in the pages you mention, they discuss them on the talk pages (MediaWiki talk:Common.css and MediaWiki talk:Common.js). To determine what is technically possible (I'm not an expert there either, at least for what you seem to be asking), you can start by reading the pages linked under WP:EIW#MediaWiki particularly m:Help:Contents#For administrators which documents the dizzying array of customization options. --Teratornis (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Personally, I think if you want to add CSS to just one page, put the CSS rules in MediaWiki:Common.css and don't use those rules except on the page that you want them on (that's how we do it here, anyway). Same with Javascript: add the code you want to MediaWiki:Common.js and surround it with an if statement that looks at the page title to see whether the current page is the page the code should execute on. Although there might be a better way, that's the only way I know of. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, the second explaination helped. Just put something like this: (copied from MediaWiki:Common.js)
else if (wgPageName == "Special:Search") //scripts specific to Special:Search
{
    importScript("MediaWiki:Common.js/search.js")
}
Erwin Springer [talk] 12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_June_17&oldid=1159448289"