Help desk
< October 1	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 3 >

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.

October 2[edit]

Uploading Images to Existing Pages[edit]

If I do not have clearance to upload an image, how can I attach an image of a CD cover to a page that already exists, or a Record Label logos to their pages?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.230.128 (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, you must be a registered (and autoconfirmed) user to upload images. There is no other way to get an image onto Wikipedia, so you have to either register or give the image to a registered user to upload for you. (Registering has many benefits besides being able to upload images; see Wikipedia:Why create an account?) Additionally, uploading non-free (i.e. copyrighted) images is much more complicated than, say, an image you take yourself; see Help:Image and Wikipedia:Non-free content for more. Xenon54 / talk / 01:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions to "Enterprise (NX-01)"[edit]

I've tried to ad factual information to this article on several occasions by it has contually been removed by another more experienced user, how can I see to it that my contirbution remains in place?

Allan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radio-commander (talk • contribs) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you added has undue weight for the lead of the article given that it is original research. It is also uncited. I do think though that you have been given too strong warnings over this. Also please be aware of the three revert rule. If you add something, and another editor immediately removes it, then it is usually best to take it to the talk page, and start a discussion there. Martin451 (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that information "factual"? I certainly don't see it, and actually see it more as a fan term than anything else. ArcAngel (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Martin, I think the reason he's getting strong warnings is because for the last few days he's also been adding this as User:121.45.45.79, also with no discussion. User talk:121.45.45.79 had much better explanations of what he's doing wrong, which he apparently ignored. Hopefully your good advice sinks in, and they can put this behind them; the talk page is the place to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Martin, source your additions and discuss on the talk page. Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Plagiarism in Polanski Article[edit]

A significant section of the article was lifted nearly verbatim from an article appearing in the Honolulu Sun Times, and was not correctly attributed (I am being polite.) I have posted this to the talk page and contacted an Admin who had done some changes earlier today, but I am still learning how to use the tools and I'm not sure if this is when I am supposed to use an edit request (because it is a significant portion of the article and will address an area under contention) or simply cry for help. I'm opting for the latter.Oberonfitch (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... All the 2003 references are from an article that appeared in the Honolulu Star Bulletin. It is available in an archived format. This is the feed for the Salon article as well as the Times Online, and probably the source for a number of other quotes as well. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2003/03/20/features/story1.html I suggest an immediate reversion to a much earlier version that does not have sourcing problems, as this may actually be crossing the line between dumb mistakes and serious mistakes.Oberonfitch (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to the article, "Roman Polanski"? Intelligentsium 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large blocks of uncited trivial material[edit]

I chose to revert an entry that was a huge section of unsourced fanwriting--I thought that there were too many problems to fix one by one. That led me to this. My problem here is that they are good faith edits by what might be a younger contributor, and then I saw some warnings on their talk page. I'd really like some advice on this one. Mjpresson (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Adding: there are a few of these in the editors history. I'm leaving it alone for now since I already reverted him once. Mjpresson (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This problem sounds a bit too tricky for this forum. You might try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I should note that plot summaries generally do not have to be sourced since the work itself is considered the source. Excessively detailed plot summaries are discouraged however.--RDBury (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proper procedure for when the reason for an issue notice appears to have been resolved?[edit]

What is the proper procedure when the reason for an issue notice appears to have been resolved? Does one just edit out / remove the issue notice?

North8000 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I would do. If there's a discussion of the issue on the talk page then you might want to append a note there that the issue has been resolved.--RDBury (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise (NX-01) article edit was again removed[edit]

This time I included citations to prove that the content I added was true and correct yet someone still saw fit to arbitrarily remove what I'd posted, what can I do about this while stil ensuring that I'm not blocked from future editing?

Allan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radio-commander (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you provided is inappropriate (see WP:RS). I think your best option is to discuss this on the article's talk page and see what others think about it. Since your edits have been opposed, a discussion should take place on why it should or should not be included. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't ask question here if you plan on completely ignoring the advice you get. That's four people who have recommended you use the talk page, but instead you've reverted to your version for the fifth or sixth time, and made exactly zero edits to the talk page. One more and you're very likely to get blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to clue this user in, I have copied the above text to the article talk page and added my explanation as to why his edit was reverted. ArcAngel (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

full fashioned[edit]

What does it mean in manufactured clothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.51.88 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should ask that question at Wikipedia:Reference desk.--RDBury (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Fully fashioned stockings or Fully-fashioned knitting? They are the only 2 articles that seem to be about 'full fashioned' - if not, then as RDBury says, ask at the Reference Desk. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hagger[edit]

I edited the page yesterday as information on it is incorrect. I have a section of Notes (sources) to add and am working out how to link the Notes in the text to the references at the end. I also left until today the adding of square bullet points and single spacing. It looks single spacing on screen.

What happened to my pre-reverted version? Has it been deleted? I cannot retrieve it. If you have a copy, could you please let me know how I can access it so I can resume editorial work on it. Otherwise I will have to start again and key in from the version I printed out. I assume that the version with Notes and sources will then be constructive.

Please somehow send back my original text on this page to save me having to copy-type.

Sanrac1959 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your edit was reverted. A copy of it is here. To get there in the future, go to the article, click the history tab, then click on the date. Don't save this version but copy and paste it into where you are working.

It looks like you are making a huge edit and I am not too surprised that it was reverted since it was unsourced and could have been read as an attempt to be promotional. You could tag it with an "under construction" template but since you are relativity inexperienced I would recommend working on it in a personal sandbox (let me know if you need a hand). And asking for feedback when you are finished up. I would take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article for some tips. The article is already created so focus on the links discussing citing sources. I would also make sure to collaborate with editors who might already be working on it at the article's talk page.

Nice work on getting so much info and have fun.Cptnono (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A huge number of Wikipedia articles have been vandalized by people writing nonsense containing the word "Hagger" (don't ask me why). Lots of editors have seen this vandalism so if you are not careful to make reasonable sounding and well sourced edits to the article then other editors may suspect it is "Hagger vandalism". That may have been the case for the editor saying your edit appeared to be unconstructive. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

load?[edit]

Is anyone noticing any lag issues with the encyclopedia? I am seeing signifficant wait times. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the wiki seems to be moving a bit slower than usual. When I archived my talk page, it was several minutes before everything was as it was supposed to be. Intelligentsium 18:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

translations[edit]

I see that many sites that on the left hand side a button where you can change the language on the page. How can I set this up on my page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.70.20 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to interwiki links. When an article has an equivalent in the Wikipedia of another language, the two can be linked in that way. There's no translation function, it's just a connection to an article that's already written in another language. See H:ILL for more details. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

need help setting my clock[edit]

can't get my clock set for pst. --Mark Pearcy (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this has to do with your Wikipedia time settings (in Special:Preferences), then set your time zone under the "Date and time" tab - but this will only apply to the histories of pages, not signatures, which are still in Coordinated Universal Time (which is 7 hours ahead of Pacific Daylight Time).

If you're having trouble setting the clock of your computer's operating system, then please take your question to the Computing reference desk. Xenon54 / talk / 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press and hold the button on the left. Now (while holding the left button), press the hour button. Be careful, if you hold the hour button down for more than a couple of seconds it starts to go real fast. While your adjusting to PST you may want to adjust the minutes as well. Same as before but this time while your holding down the left button work the minute button till you get it right on the money. Hope that helps. 174.146.63.93 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I learn[edit]

besides the sandbox that is? Is there a beginners class I can sign up for? A Glass Bubble (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is completely run by volunteers, so there's nothing in the way of classes. You can read The Missing Manual, which does a pretty good job of explaining the basics. Xenon54 / talk / 21:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)We have a tutorial which will take you through the basics. You can create your own sandbox to experiment with by clicking this link: User:A Glass Bubble/sandbox. You can also use the public sandbox, although it gets blanked every few hours, so a personal sandbox can be useful for creating draft articles. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, you can ask them here at the Help desk, where someone should be able to answer you, or at least point you in the right direction! There aren't any centrally organised classes, although I understand sometimes volunteers from local Wikimedia chapters will hold classes for businesses, schools or other organisations. --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 21:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at the WikiProjects which cater to users with specific interests. Wikipedia is extremely broad, and most editors specialize on a comparatively narrow range of topics. Editors further specialize on particular types of tasks, such as correcting typographical errors, drawing maps, uploading photos, developing templates, etc. If you tell us what sort of editing you want to do, we can tell you how to learn it. If you are very new to Wikipedia, be aware that lots of users tend to arrive with some misconceptions about Wikipedia, since it is different from anything most people have experienced before. The more you like to read our friendly manuals, the happier you will probably be here. Wikipedia's users have written instructions for almost everything our users do. --Teratornis (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to that user contributions page[edit]

...that used to be linked at the bottom of the user contribs screen. The one with detailed analysis of where your edits go and what articles you edit most etc. I guess people didn't want it shown? Is it still available? Richard001 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the toolboxes at WP:RfA. Intelligentsium 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soxred93's counter seems to work well, thanks. Nothing much has changed for me actually, probably because I used to edit much more than I do now. Richard001 (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]