Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 October 28

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 28

Template help needed

I've been doing some template drafting on my userspace here, and I'm getting some unexpected error messages popping up both there and on the template sandbox (such as this diff). Now, the template seems to be categorizing as I intended it to, but if I could somehow resolve the error message, I'd be in hog heaven. Many thanks in advance, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the problem that {{#ifexpr:{{{futyear}}}={{CURRENTYEAR}} |stuff}} isn't wrapped in an {{#if:{{{futyear|}}} }}? Thus if futyear isn't defined, #ifexpr gets passed something containing { and explodes. Algebraist 00:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that helped a lot! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Username change

If a user changes his or her username, does the block log go along, and does it say the old username or new username was blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.181.152 (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It used to be that the block log stayed with the account name, which meant that renamed accounts would sometimes get a 1 second block to link back to the old log. However, that was fixed and now block logs follow the account name - but those accounts that were renamed before this fix weren't corrected retrospectively, so you can still find plenty of examples of both. The block log will, I am pretty sure, always use the current account name, even if the block was made before the rename. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

How come today's "Did you know hooks" aren't being archived? I mentioned this in two other places (including the discussion page), but I haven't gotten a response and the problem hasn't been fixed.SPNic (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. When I click "Archive" below the "Did you know" section, I see a lengthy archive of Did You Know entries. -- kainaw™ 02:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No new ones are being added. The most recent one in the archive is dated 22:29 26 October 2008. SPNic (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK is updated and managed by a dedicated group of volunteers, and sometimes they make errors. Please report this to WT:DYK (the DYK project talk page) and someone should be able to correct this problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed now.SPNic (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Soliciting an informal opinion

Is there a general "put something in front of another editor's eyes" process? I know about WP:THIRD, WP:RFC and WP:EA but none of those seem to apply to what I'm talking about.

Perhaps an example is in order. I'm looking at the article Carrera Vilcas, and I'm convinced it is an elaborate hoax. No ghits for the subject or any of the sources, the UW Press wasn't even founded when one of the source books was supposedly published, nothing links there, and so on. But, I don't know squat about Mexican poetry, and I don't want to tag with hoax or open an AfD without another informed opinion. What is the appropriate venue to get such an opinion?

I'm speaking on a broader scale than just hoax articles, of course. Sometimes, I'll look at an article, and I'll just think, "I don't know what to do with this." Is there an appropriate place to ask such questions? For that matter, is it here? gnfnrf (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think your best bet would be to ask the appropriate WikiProjects.- Mgm|^(talk) 05:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Look fishy to me too. PROD it. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Click through the image. It's a fraud; the image is of NYT staff; the individual labeled as "Carrera Vilcas" is in fact Henry J. Raymond. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Contents table

In many articles, there is a Contents table which has links to various sections of the article. How do I get that into my article? I tried viewing the source of articles that had it, but could not find it anywhere. Is it something that comes in automatically?

Riazkopti (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC) thanks

Yes, when a page has more than three headings/sections a table of contents should automatically appear. See WP:TOC. --Silver Edge (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Snapshots

Hallo, can you please tell me where the snapshots are stored? I am unable to find them. Thank you for your help. Guenter Schreiber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.162.120.180 (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can find Wikipedia's best images here, but you can find a lot of free images at Commons. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 11:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is about Wikipedia:Snapshots. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image renaming

This question has been on WT:Image renaming for a while now, and I hven't received a response, so I'm cross-posting here.

I'm listed on Wikipedia:Image renaming/checkpage, but I can't find any way to rename images - could somebody please offer instructions. Thanks! DendodgeTalk^Contribs 11:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the image use policy, there's no easy way, bar downloading the old image, uploading it as a new image, then updating all the instances of the old image to point at the new image and then deleting the old image. It's been a requested feature for years according to Bugzilla, and although there appeared to have been some movement earlier this year (because image redirects were created, an important first step in allowing images to simply be "moved" to a new title), it appears to have petered out. _Gb^T/c 12:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Addition

Please go to the entry for "Stardust" that I just edited. I inserted the paragraph re its use in Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast. Somehow it ended up under "Notes," when I meant it to be under "Legacy." Can you fix this for me? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 45750born (talk • contribs) 11:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. You could easily have done that yourself, though. Algebraist 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like you hit the wrong section edit link. The link applies to the section with the name the link is next to.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. You might like to read Your first article and How to edit a page. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 11:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick Links

Is there an icon-link facility that can be added to desktop and Internet Explorer for quick access to Wickipedia? 91.106.89.176 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can create a shortcut to Wikipedia on your desktop. Also, you can bookmark the page (add to favourites) in Internet Explorer. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 14:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See Computer shortcut and Internet bookmark. --Teratornis (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Would this qualify as 3RR

[1] FeelSunny and 85.202.113.34 are re-inserting the same material, and 7 minutes after the IP's request to discuss on talkpage, FeelSunny posted on my talk to discuss the reverts. S/he's continuing the reverts with other editors. Others remove some of it but the reinsertion is always total. TransUtopian (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. 3RR includes only reversions done within a 24 hour period. The page history shows that in this case, there is no such occurrence. If this is something that happens on a regular basis though, it would be best to discuss about this with the users involved and come to some understanding that suits everyone. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything since Galatee's edit on 20:00 UTC, 27 October 2008 has been FeelSunny or the IP reinserting the same wording (3 times now) that I have removed/reworded completely, and Tomdobb and Gotyear have removed in part. I'm discussing the disputes on FeelSunny's talk page, but would like to know if this is 3RR. I believe it is, but don't want to suggest it to any of the participants if it definitely is not. TransUtopian (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:FeelSunny has made only 3 edits since 20:00, 27 Oct, so definitely no violation of 3RR there. The IP 85.202.113.34 has made 5 edits. However, first 3 are consecutive and the next 2 are also consecutive. As WP:3RR says, "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert". BTW, FeelSunny's 2 latest edits are also consecutive. So I'd say that there is no violation of 3RR here, not yet anyway. Chamal ^talk 14:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. What I'm asking is has he reverted 3 times so far (1: the IP on 23:46-23:57, 2: the IP on 1:00-1:04, and 3: FeelSunny on 13:05-13:07)? (Does the IP's edit summary to go to talk and then FeelSunny's post on my talk mean they're the same person?)

If he has, should I place {{uw-3rr}} on just FeelSunny and the IP's talks to notify him, or on Gotyear and Tomdobb's as well as FYI though they're not yet anywhere near 3RR? TransUtopian (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not in violation of 3RR as it is not very obvious, All edits are constructive in one way or another. It is clear the edits needs to be discussed between all parties, Try to reach a consensus and move on. It is not a good thing to get your way by being overly technical with Wikipedia's policy's as the IP and FeelSunny both have good points too. In other words work together and learn from this it will make you a better Wikipedian in the long run.--intraining ^{Jack In} 15:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to reach a consensus, and will note in a null edit a suggestion for no one to revert and for everyone to discuss it on FeelSunny's talk. TransUtopian (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems, sounds like you are going to do the right thing. I know how hard it is to reach a agreement sometimes, just remember reliable references/sources are almost impossible to dispute. So just try to stick with what can be proved to everybody who reads it. Good luck with it!.--intraining ^{Jack In} 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Theoneintraining. No need to place the 3RR template on Gotyear and Tomdobb's page either. But if the IP and the User are both the same person, then there's a bigger problem. If you strongly suspect that the IP is used by the said Editor, you can place a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. If you have the slightest doubt, I'd advise waiting some more to see if there's further activity like this. I don't think there's enough evidence here. Maybe an experienced admin would be able to advise you better on this? Chamal ^talk 15:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP and user are the same person, and in fact replied to the user's request to talk with some of the comments the IP made. Since it's possible I'm mistaken, I've asked the user if he's the same as the IP, because otherwise I've made the wrong assumption in our discussion. In any case, since I've requested no further reverts without consensus, and right now probably no one is happy with the current version :), I won't make a 3RR report unless there are repeated violations and no discussion. TransUtopian (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is fine, it might be a good idea to post a link to this discussion on FeelSunnys talk page just to keep everyone in the loop.--intraining ^{Jack In} 15:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that 3RR is not a liscence to use reverting as a tactic to enforce your own particular version of an article. Any attempt to use the exact wording of 3RR as some means to defend the practice of edit warring (which is a perversion of the rule) rather than as a means to STOP edit warring (which is the intent of the rule) is seen as gaming the system and will result in the exact same block as if 3RR had been literally violated. The issue is not a book-keeping one; you don't get to revert 3 times every day for eternity, nor do you get to make subtle, not-exactly-the-same edits multiple times, nor do you get to do anything else which is clearly edit warring simply because it does not cross the "4th exact edit in 24 hours" line. If you edit war, you get blocked. That's it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Me and User:TransUtopian discussed the matter on my talkpage and it seems the issue is resolved, and User:TransUtopian commented that no 3RR violation had place. Thanks to everyone involved in the discussion. By the way, I understand it's an offtop, but could someone help us solve the issue with understanding of the language of the WikiNews sources policy? I am not sure about the exact meaning of the Portal:Current events editing rules. FeelSunny (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Is it good enough if you have the actual person you are writing about as a reference? I am in communication with my subject and he has referred me to different places to help in my article. He can verify the accuracy of my article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmgavin (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not act as a secondary source. References must refer to previously published material. If the subject can refer you to magazine/newspaper articles or reviews, that would be perfect. The reliable sources guide has much more info on the subject. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• That said, having the subject of the article at hand to verify the sources you are using didn't make any errors is still a good thing to have. Are you sure the person meets the inclusion criteria? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Report Administrator Abuse

Hello. I have been trying to edit an article and my edits are continually reversed by a wikipedia administrator. He has threatened to protect the article if I continue to edit. While they are removing documented information, the edits are not vandalism because this information is not relevant to the article. I know the people who run the facility mentioned in the article and they do not want this information on wikipedia. Any ideas would be most helpful. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.111.225.41 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

When posting here, it would help if you would say which administrator and which article is involved. If you believe the administrator threatened to protect the article, please state where that occurred. We don't normally let article subjects control what goes in the article, though we are sensitive if any negative biographical info might be involved. Article content should be selected in a neutral way from whatever the reliable sources have written on the subject. It is hard for us to accept you as speaking for the facility when you are editing anonymously and you don't mention how you are connected to the facility. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

i gather this is the dispute in question: Talk:Agudath_Israel_Etz_Ahayem ... looks to me like a bit of a WP:OWN scenario; i don't see the admin "threaten[ing] to protect the article" Sssoul (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence of administrator abuse here as far as I can see. Looking at the article cited, there is some low-level edit warring going on, and articles under a state of "back-and-forth" reverting, such as the edit history of that article show, are elligible to be protected under Wikipedia's protection policy. This protection is to be enacted by an uninvolved administrator, and the article is protected at the state where the administrator finds it without regard for who is "right". Now, one of the parties in the dispute has administrator powers, but he has never threatened to use his powers personally to enforce his version of the article, so there is no "abuse of powers" as far as I can see. In the future, if you need clarification on matters such as these, please contact the Administrator notice board where it will be dealt with more swiftly as needed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The threat was made in his user talk, however the post seems to have been removed. As i recall he said "If you continue to reverse my edits, I will be forced to protect the article" I hope there is a way you can review the archives on Jayig's user talk and see if he has removed it. I speak for the facility in that I attend this synagogue. I am reluctant to expose my name for fear of retalliation, however the necessary data showing my connection can be provided on a one-to-one basis upon request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.111.225.41 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I found the page. On his talk [2] page I said, Once again, please stop revising the wikipedia page on the montgomery synagogue. I have kindly asked several times. While you may feel several sections are relevant, others do not. Please try and respect the wishes of the actual members of that synagogue. I will say again, please stop revising our wikipedia page. Feel free to respond with any questions or comments. I welcome them. You may be interested to view the website, agudathmontgomery.com. This website makes no mention of the several sections you deem important. Finally, for the life of me, I do not understand how you, an administrator no less, can intervene on this page so many times. Please try and communicate to me why you do so and exactly what your credentials are to make such a decision. He responded Please understand that you do not WP:OWN the article on the synagogue, that the standards for the synagogue's website are not those of Wikipedia, and that removing properly sourced, relevant information is considered vandalism. If you continue to delete this information I will be forced to protect the page. If you have issues with article content, please raise them on the article Talk: page. There you have it. The "protect the page" threat.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.111.225.41 (talk • contribs)

In that case, I would say that Jayjg may have overstepped. As he appears to be involved in the dispute, he should probably not be the one to personally protect the article. However, the article does appear to be one which is a candidate for protection by another admin. I, if I had responded to the request either here or at WP:RFPP, would have protected the article without question, for the simple reason that it appears that an edit war is going on. The slight misstep by Jayjg however does not negate the basic premise of his request. Please stop making the same edits over and over and let the issue reach a consensus at the article's talk page before making further changes of this nature. I am an uninvolved admin, and I will take any neccessary steps to see that the edit war stops.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So other users have responded and GeorgeLouis and I agree that his name need not belong on this article. I do not know what Wikipedia deems as a consensus, but without the input of more members, I see this issue going nowhere fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.111.225.41 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

actually it looks to me like GeorgeLouis is suggesting that a section on "notable members" could usefully be added to the article and is generously volunteering to help create it. but either way, as other people have pointed out, wikipedia's purposes & policies are not the same as the purposes of the synagogue's webpage; meanwhile, if you want more editors' opinions, here are the instructions for starting a "request for comment": WP:RFC. Sssoul (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I meant Orange MIke. Not GeorgeLouis. Again, I understand that we do not "own the article." If you want to create such a page, please do. However that does not change the fact that this information is still irrelevant. DoctorKnockersMD (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

wiki toolbar

I think it would be a great help to web users if wikipedia had their own toolbar that could be embedded in web browsers, like google has. That way, I could get to a wikipedia page with one click instead of two (first search for wikipedia in my google toolbar, then for the particular webpage in the wiki search box on the google results page).

What do you think? Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.193.84 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This already exists, at least in Firefox. In the upper right, there is a embedded Google search bar. Click the "G" icon and it should drop down a menu where is Wikipedia is a choice. This should allow you to search Wikipedia. I'm not sure about other browsers, however. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I use Mozilla Firefox which lets you customize its bookmarks toolbar. I added a bookmark to search Wikipedia with Google. That lets me look up articles on Wikipedia, using Google's superior search which tolerates misspellings and expands word stems. Incidentally, that little search box in the Firefox address bar generated 61.5 million dollars in search royalties in 2006 for the Mozilla Foundation. That pays for most of the cost of developing the free Firefox browser. --Teratornis (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Compare selected versions

At each wikiarticle's "history" page there is a "Compare selected versions" button which executes a url, e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=236740618&oldid=236704609

However, if a User wants an "Edit comment" to have the following format:

Added specific information to improve the previous update

The hyper link doesn't appear on the "history" page and instead, the entire url text is shown on the "history" page.

QUESTION: Is there a Wikipedia code (i.e., that can be put in double brackets [[ ]]) that can be used in "Edit summary" to create a hyperlink to a 'difference' wikipage? Please answer at either this talk page or at topic page (e.g., Wikipedia:Comparison), not my talk page. Thankk you for your consideration! Mugs2109 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you are looking for: {{diff}} --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Having tested it in my Sandbox here, I can't immediately see an answer.... The problem is that the edit summary isn't rendered in the same way that normal wikitext is. That means that just using [http://www.whatever.com the usual format] to create a diff is rendered without any linking whatsoever - as with the oldest edit summary in the list. Using double brackets renders it as a redlink, but because it's in an edit summary clicking on it automatically opens the page with the "edit page" function enabled. As you can see from the various iterations I've tried, piping the link doesn't work either. I'll continue having a dig around, but my gut feeling is that it's probably not possible, because it automatically opens red links from edit summaries with the "edit page" flag set to "on"..._Gb^T/c 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So, to summarise that into something approaching readable form, probably not, because a diff in an edit summary would automatically be rendered as a red link, and red links in edit summaries, when clicked on, automatically take you to the "edit this page" version of the page, rather than the page itself..._Gb^T/c 20:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it, but my naive guess would be that the MediaWiki developers only activated wikilinks in edit summaries, and not external links, because edit summaries are not editable by ordinary users and thus they would be a great vehicle for linkspam. Double brackets only link to current revisions of pages; to link to previous revisions or other deep web content requires a URL as far as I have seen. The various magic words that link to dynamic pages (e.g., {{fullurl:...}} resolve to URLs, rather than to double-bracketed wikilinks. --Teratornis (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michael Lucas to David Shankbone on the Iraq War.ogg

Exact copy of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Image:Michael_Lucas_to_David_Shankbone_on_the_Iraq_War.ogg
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
--
Please move this contribution if it should be in another section, but tell me if you do so
I know the generall rules of relevance of wp, but maybe it's a bit different on en.wiki.
Please tell me if Image:Michael Lucas to David Shankbone on the Iraq War.ogg, which is in use on Michael Lucas (director), is relevant for this article. I don't know if audio files in which somebody tells what he thinks about history is important for wp or rather useful.
Please listen to it and tell me if it's relevant for wp.
thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Does nobody can help me with this file?

--D-Kuru (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't get any response here, try the help desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It may fail WP:NOTREPOSITORY. (Incidentally unless Commons:User:Fat Jenny = User:David Shankbone, I wonder how the uploader became the copyright holder.) —teb728 t c 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Shankbone is using the image on his own user page, so I'm assuming if he's not Fat Jenny that he doesn't mind it being there. The image wont meet the "WP is not" criteria either, because it is a commons resource. I think you should seek help at the commons, or with Shankbone. A lot of his stuff is always targeted for deletion, so I bet he knows the process pretty well. Louis Waweru  Talk  00:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit, sorry I misread the first post. I thought you were trying to get it deleted at a duplicate, but you are asking if it's relevant to the Michael Lucas (director) article. Please ignore my above comments. I don't think there's any direct connection to the text of the article. But it is interesting in that it gives the subject a voice. Louis Waweru  Talk  01:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I create a new wikipedia article

please someone answear this question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.166.13 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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. 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. Algebraist 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)