Help desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 29 >

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.

March 28[edit]

Unable to remove page from my watchlist[edit]

Resolved

There's a page on my watchlist that I probably accidentally watched when tagging for CSD or something, but I can't get rid of it. I've tried "View and edit watchlist" and checking the box, and I've even edited the raw watchlist and removed the line, but it's always still there after I save. The page in question is HAGGER?. Any ideas on how I can get it removed short of clearing my whole watchlist? --Darkwind (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click on the 'unwatch' tab? Kayau Voting IS evil 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Perhaps you could purge? Kayau Voting IS evil 01:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I go to the redlinked edit page, it actually says "watch" and not "unwatch" for the tab at the top. However, the page is undisputably in my list. I guess I could copy my raw watchlist, clear it from the server, and paste it back excluding the unwanted page. --Darkwind (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That worked.--Darkwind (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a page on your watchlist is moved by anybody then the new title is automatically added to the watchlist and stays there if the page is moved back or deleted. See Help:Watching pages#Moves, creations and deletions. There has been a lot of page move vandalism to titles containing variations of "HAGGER". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several variations on that word in my watchlist, and I don't remember putting them there, it was kind of anoying when I first saw them there. If it's the work of vandals, I'm guessing that I don't want to look up the meaning of the word on a public computer. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTEX EMISSIONS[edit]

Can you give me the legal limits for BTEX that are in force say in SE Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhargate (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICP as the featured article.[edit]

Are you serious? Don't encourage them.

Yes, this is a problem that hurts the credibility. Shit like this is why wikipedia can't be cited for reports or essays.

Featured articles achieve community-based consensus before they become featured, and after they become featured, they need to go through another discussion to achiece community-based consensus before they go to the main page. Even if the featured article is fascism, nazism, or even something that's pornographic (like the German Wikipedia scandal), it can go into the main page as a featured article. All featured articles have a neutral point of view, so you can be sure that we are not encouraging anything. Regards, Kayau Voting IS evil 07:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia (or any other encyclopaedia) should almost never be cited for reports or essays. See WP:Citing Wikipedia and the links therein for why. --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Criticism of Wikipedia. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying Resources[edit]

How does one verify a source on a topic that is at the bottom of a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.226.249 (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right after the fact, use the code: <ref></ref>. See WP:Inline citations for more information. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Verifying a source usually means to check that an already listed source exists and supports the article. Do you want help checking a source that isn't available online? PrimeHunter (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means the 'see also' section. Or maybe the cats :) Kayau Voting IS evil 11:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you can, do please clarify your question. And by chance your question alludes to the fact that some sources you have seen in some article seem not authentic, you could post a query on the article's talk page inviting other editors' viewpoints. In cases you need support, do take a look at our reliable sources noticeboard where questions on the reliability of sources are placed by editors wishing outside opinion. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

accessibility view?[edit]

I apologize if I'm not posting this question in the right place. I have looked around Wikipedia and tried to find where to put it. If it needs to be somewhere else, please move it. For about a week the format of Wikipedia has been doing odd things - it seems to be going back and forth between normal view and what I guess is accessibility view (all logos and images removed, plain text on a white background). There doesn't seem to be any pattern to this - as I navigate through Wikipedia, some pages will be normal, some will be plain. One of my colleagues at work has mentioned the same problem - but I also get this problem at home, so I guess it's not my employer's browser or server. I have no idea if this has to do with my preferences or settings, but I haven't changed them anyway - ever. What's going on? Can I fix this somehow? SPimpernel (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia had technical problems 3 days ago. They should be fixed but maybe your browser still has bad files cached. Try to clear your entire cache (not merely reload the page you are watching). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have the issue, try posting it to Village Pump (technical) along with details of which browser might you be using. (I had this problem once, and it was because of the browser where I had ticked an option that if the page is getting delayed in opening, show the text version). Also, there is an option in some browsers where, in case the page is not opening, the browser opens the link which seems closest it. This might result in a mirror website opening. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My page has not been moved[edit]

I am a new user to wiki. I drafted a page and requested for a move on 18th March. My page is still not active and I can't see it in deletion log. What should I do to ensure that it is up on wiki.

Page title: u-rooms User: VibhaSridhar

Vibhasridhar (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You're probably not autoconfirmed. That's why you can't move pages. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are not autoconfirmed at present; you have passed the four-day requirement but need two more edits. Xenon54 / talk / 13:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unable to get Wikipedia pages due to proxy error[edit]

For several days now I have had problems accessing numerous pages when I log into either the secure or English version WP.

Here is one example of an error message I receive:

The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request GET /wikipedia/en/wiki/3rd_Battalion_3rd_Marines.

Even when I have finally accessed this page I get the same error when I try to edit it.

But this is not the only page I am having problems accessing.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask at the technical village pump. Most of the developers as well as folks with a good knowledge of Wikipedia's "behind-the-scenes" functions hang out there and should be able to tell you exactly why this is happening. I also started coming across the errors on the secure server a few days ago (after, I think, Wikipedia had some technical problems) but have never had them on the regular server. Xenon54 / talk / 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk Page[edit]

Are you allowed to delete everything on your talk page after it gets messy? Just a question that I had. Lamb99 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is yours and you can do with it what you like. However, there are things that are heavily frowned upon. Removing comments in an attempt to hide something you don't want others to see is one of those. Editing something that somebody else wrote and signed is a big no-no. It is more common to make an archive, move the contents to the archive, and start with a new talk page. -- kainaw ™ 16:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One exception, you should not remove a block notice during the term of the block.--ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to move everything to an archive subpage and link that page from your main talkpage. There are even bots that will do this archiving for you. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also not edit other people's comments on your Talk page to make them appear to say something different from what they originally said. Woogee (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reference citations to either new or revised text[edit]

I've recently become the subject of a Wikipedia biographical entry (Sean Thackrey), which is fine; but many things in the article are inaccurate or incomplete. I'd like to change those, but of course want to add footnote references; however, since there are already many such references listed, clearly I want those I'm adding to come at the end of those already there. I haven't been successful at finding any way to number the reference I want to add, so that, a., the number - let's say "19" - will appear at the correct point in the article, and that, b., clicking on "19" will go to reference "19", which in turn will appear with that number and in the correct position in the references section of the article. In fact, to make all the more confusing, at present the page itself appears with current references all intact, yet if I go to edit the reference section, no references appear. ˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thackrey (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki -- the software that runs Wikipedia -- automatically takes care of both the numbering and references list given the proper code. In other words, you just enter the reference and MediaWiki will automatically number it correctly and place it in the appropriate place in the references list. In addition, reason why you don't see anything in the references section is because all that needs to be placed there is {{reflist}}, which tells MediaWiki where to generate the references list. The code for the references themselves are scattered throughout the article, where the reference appears in the text. The actual order of the references in the list comes from the location of the reference in the article, not when the reference was added. If I had two references, and I inserted another reference in between the original references, the new reference would be #2, not #3.

I understand that this probably isn't making sense to you. Referencing is quite complex and since I have been editing Wikipedia for far too long I often find some aspects of this website difficult to explain in simple terms. If this is the case, then I suggest you also take a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and of course please don't hesitate to come back here if you have further questions.

Also, since you are editing your own article, you are subject to the conflict of interest guideline. However, since you appear to be editing only statements of fact and you are backing up your edits with reliable sources, you appear to be within the bounds of that guideline. Xenon54 / talk / 21:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friday 13[edit]

Hi, I have 3 daughters, all 3 are born on Friday 13 1974 September, Friday 13 1980 June and Friday 13 1982. Anyone knows what the significance of this could be. Was once told that it had to do with black magic. heinz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.164.187 (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significance to it other than a statistical cluster (well maybe it says something about when you or your mate [can't tell your gender] is fertile and the timing of your sex life) and there is no such thing as magic, black or otherwise. You might be interested to know that some studies have concluded that because of this rank superstition, statistically speaking Friday the 13th is a slightly safer day for people because they act more carefully based on their magical thinking. By the way, this page is for questions about using Wikipedia. General, unrelated questions are appropriate for the reference desk.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]