Help desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

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 7

Linking to a Windows file share

Is there a way to set an external link to a Windows file share (file://)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallanced (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because file:// (the file URI scheme) is not suitable for general Internet use; it is meant for local access and does not specify a protocol (a way to transfer files). — TKD::{talk} 00:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was thinking, but was hoping that someone had figured out a way. Thank you for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallanced (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload pics

can u please tell me how to upload pics onto a artical???????????

While I'm not an expert in this area - I was able to find Wikipedia:Uploading images which may help. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 03:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What article do you have in mind? Do you want to upload pictures you took yourself, or pictures by someone else? See Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and Illustrating Articles/Adding Images (but note that the section about creating a separate account on Commons is already out of date, as we have single sign-on now). I'm not an expert with images either, but I'm trying to impersonate one, by creating an Editor's index to Commons. It's amazing how complicated copyright issues can be, especially when we consider that copyright is a purely manufactured problem, i.e. a problem that humans have no fundamental need to create for themselves. --Teratornis (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be a user to upload images. If it is for an article, you must create username at Wikimedia Commons or use a unified user (found in your preferences). To see instructions clearly, see the link Ched provided above. Zoo Fari 03:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the article, suitable photos may already be available on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons. --Teratornis (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lupin spell check

Is there a way to force the lupin spell checking tool to display the proposed diff above the edit box? Perhaps through one of my .css or .js files? I've made the mistake before of accidentally changing something in a cite, or perhaps quote (aka [sic]), and was wondering if there was a way to speed up the checking procedure. Thanks. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 02:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - you appear to be the latest winner in the game called "Stump The Help Desk". It might help if you linked to a page that describes this tool. I'm guessing maybe User:Lupin/Live spellcheck might be it. There seems to be some discussion on User talk:Lupin/Live spellcheck despite the screaming red banner that says to discuss the tool on another page instead. My advice would be to find a page where people discuss the tool you have a question about, and ask there. On the Help desk there might not be enough users to insure we have some people who know about every tool. There are probably hundreds of tools, and maybe only dozens of people reading the Help desk, although some people probably know about more than one tool. Whatever the mathematics, you may need to ask elsewhere. --Teratornis (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret page game

I understand that there is some sort of "game" people play where they hide a "secret page" in their user space and see if their friends can find it. Is this a violation of policy, and if so, which admin noticeboard is the proper place to disposition it? KuyaBriBri^Talk 07:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter that caused a lot of controversy recently. Editors are divided in opinion here about whether it's a violation of WP:MYSPACE or not. See this discussion at WP:AN. If you want to discuss this further, WP:AN would be the place, but please see if your concerns have been raised and addressed at this discussion first. Chamal ^talk 07:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That game sounds too easy anyway: If they created the secret page while logged in, it would show up in their contributions page, Special:Contributions. If they created it as a subpage of their users page, players could find it with Special:PrefixIndex. —teb728 t c 21:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the game stays easy, it will probably burn itself out pretty quickly. Special:PrefixIndex, although obvious to wikidemigods, is probably a revelation for the MySpace folks, and if this game teaches them something about MediaWiki's advanced capabilities, that might not be a bad thing. A hypothetical danger is that someone might get clever and think of some potentially dangerous or destructive way to conceal a page, creating a WP:BEANS situation. --Teratornis (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Administatorship

I would like to know, how do i request to be an Administrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Policyofmankind (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may request adminship here. — Aitias // discussion 15:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But be aware that you have no chance whatsoever of receiving it at present. You'll need to wait a while and make a great many more edits before it becomes a possibility. Algebraist 15:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be an admin

I still cant figure this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Policyofmankind (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:RFA Lets drink Tea 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are warned that your RFA, if you figure out how to file one, is pretty much guaranteed to fail, as you don't have nearly enough experience. Adminship isn't to be taken lightly, as the power you have will greatly affect the encyclopaedia. Imagine someone, who has never driven a car before, trying to drive on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, or the West Virginia Turnpike - two of the most dangerous roads in the US. It's pretty much guaranteed they'll crash within the first few miles. Now you're the driver, and adminship is one of those turnpikes. Rack up a few thousand more edits and then try for adminship. Xenon54 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea is to look at some of the more recent RFA's that did not succeed. That will give you an idea of what the community looks for in an admin. A link to such candidacies in chronological order can be found here. A link to successful requests can be found here. Best of luck! TN X Man 16:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until you know enough about Wikipedia to figure out how to become an administrator, you don't know enough about Wikipedia to be an administrator. I recommend that first you should answer at least 500 questions on the Help desk. See Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer. Answering questions on the Help desk will teach you how to figure things out on Wikipedia. Then you will have absolutely no problem figuring out how to become an administrator. You will also be a better administrator because you will have helped 500 people already - you will understand the kinds of problems that new users routinely smack into. And when you stand for an WP:RFA, you can point to your track record on the Help desk to demonstrate your knowledge of Wikipedia. Also read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual for a basic understanding of Wikipedia that I hope every administrator has. --Teratornis (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also advisable to wait for someone else to nominate you for adminship. That is, you should have done enough excellent work on Wikipedia to attract notice from at least one other established user who will consider you a good candidate for adminship. Consider that many if not most of the candidates on WP:RFA are getting nominated by other users (currently I see three out of four are being nominated by others). Self-nomination does not automatically kill your chances, but it raises a big question right away. People will ask, "Why can't this user motivate one other user to nominate him or her?" --Teratornis (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i have requested for adminship, what next?

I just figured out how to make the request, what should i be expecting next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Policyofmankind (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have filed the request incorrectly, you should expect nothing much. If you do successfully file a request, you should expect it to fail very quickly. This might involve you being laughed at. Algebraist 16:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you should do now is go away and edit Wikipedia for another 6 months, do some anti-vandal work, make it clear you understand our policies and guidelines, etc. Do take a look at some successful RFAs as mentioned above and see what those editors have done in the past. What you should not do is keep asking the same question over and over, and you certainly shouldn't actually file a request. dougweller (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user has actually gone ahead and done so. I've moved the request to the RFA page (from the mainspace). TN X Man 16:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't know what adminsip entails. It is a position of maintenance, not of celebrity and importance. Admins know Wikipedia inside and out, and are willing to give their time to enforce rules and clean up the place. Admins are the force that keeps Wikipedia running smoothly: dealing with vandals, resolving disputes, deleting and protecting pages, the list goes on. You have to come to the terms with the fact that you aren't going to be an admin now or in the near future, and you're not going to get a free ride because you wrote an editorial about vandalism. Sorry. Xenon54 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates the problem with taking a faith-based approach to Wikipedia, that is, when a new user shows up and assumes he or she already knows what Wikipedia is or how it should be. In reality, Wikipedia is unlike anything most people have experienced before, so the faith-based approach almost always fails. Instead the new user should take the empirical approach, emptying his or her mind of preconceptions about Wikipedia, and learning about it by reading the friendly manuals and the friendly Missing Manual. Wikipedia tends to be a harsh environment for people who have not yet learned how to think critically or who can only do so under direct supervision. --Teratornis (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing to recognize is that Wikipedia resulted from years of ongoing development, reflecting lots of good ideas by lots of smart people, along with lots of compromises between conflicting goals. There are many other wikis having different styles of organization, but Wikipedia has become more successful than any of them. This suggests that Wikipedia, despite all its flaws, may be close to optimal, which means it is difficult to change Wikipedia in a way that causes a net improvement. Most of the possible changes to Wikipedia's organization would move it away from the optimum, causing it to become worse on balance. This does not mean it is impossible to improve Wikipedia, only that to do this you have to be smarter in some way than all the thousands of smart people who built Wikipedia the way it is now. Some really smart people have shaped Wikipedia, so the bar is set pretty high. Almost certainly we can say nobody is going to improve Wikipedia unless they first become an expert in how Wikipedia is right now. --Teratornis (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator Salvation

The official posters have credited Termiantor Salvation as 'Screenplay by John Brancato & Michael Ferris, Jonathan Nolan and Anthony E. Zuiker. Story by John Brancato & Michael Ferris.' - your page is filled with outdated and discarded drafts (Paul Haggis/Shawn Ryan) whose names have officially been taken off the project. I tried to edit it so the wikipedia did not link to rumors and outdated info - tried to put the new writers up, but you reverted my changes as 'unconstructive' ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.36.232 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have several reliable sources -- newspaper, magazine, website articles -- to back up your claims? "I work on the movie" or "My friend who works on it told me" or "I read it on a blog" won't fly, we need fact-checked stories from reputable organisations. Your edits will get reverted every time unless you provide sources because that section is already very well sourced. Xenon54 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no sources for your edits, so as far as anyone could see you just removed a lot of cited and sourced material and replaced with with unsourced material, an action that will just result in instant reverting. This was your first edit, so obviously you have only just begun to enter the murky world of wiki editing, that 'warning' is really just a request to view the linked welcome page as a guide to contributing to wikipedia. Fell free to edit pages, but make sure you provide reliable references for any major changes magnius (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official posters could be a good source, but you'd have to make sure it's the real deal. Unfortunately, there are some people who take pride in spreading fake posters. Also, even if those people no longer work on the project, the fact they did is still worth mentioning in the production section of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

editing articles by the subject of the article

The person who is the subject of an article wishes to edit and make correction to that article. How can that be accomplished. What has to be done on that persons part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.93.210 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidelines are at WP:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest. Algebraist 16:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should discuss the changes (and make it clear who they are). If the changes can be backed up by reliable sources not linked to them there shouldn't be any trouble. If the article contains some widespread misconception, it's a better idea to talk to the press first, so we can cite a resulting article. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, in particular:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

And see the section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself. --Teratornis (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback rights

Can those be applied to alternate accounts if the main account has them already? Thank you for the response. ESpublic013 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback rights can be given by any admin, so all you have to do is find one who thinks your alternate account deserves them. Algebraist 17:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming your alternate account is a legal one with a clear link to your main account, there shouldn't be any trouble. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

author of article

who wrote the information about edward albee, im doing a research paper and i need to know the author for my citations for the paper.

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I translate?

Hello, I am an user of the italian Wikipedia. I want to ask if i can translate an english article to an italian one. There is a type of copyright? Thank you for the help. --Domyinik (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC) In any case, good luck with your Wikipedia, very nice. Sorry for my errors, I'm not very good in english.[reply]

There shouldn't be an issue with translating to the Italian Wikipedia. There is a template we use here if the original material was translated from another Wikipedia, which can be found at {{translated}}. The equivalent page on the Italian Wikipedia can be found here]. TN X Man 20:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EIW#Translate for links to lots of pages about translating articles between the various Wikipedias. The text of articles on the English Wikipedia is under the GFDL, so you have no worries about translating the text. Some of the images, however, may be under a fair use condition and probably not acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia. This is why editors on the English Wikipedia should refrain from using non-free images in articles, and only use images from Wikimedia Commons which are under free licenses, and are therefore suitable for all the Wikipedias. --Teratornis (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.truthorfiction.com

I would like to know if you have any information on the truthorfiction site, who runs it, how it's run, how reliable is their information, etc .

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. Algebraist 20:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For questions like these, it is usually easier to go to the site in question, where you often find a page like this. -- kainaw ™ 21:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures in Article

A user inserted a gallery of pictures in the article Ankur Sharma. These pictures are all low-quality photos of newspaper articles, presumably sources. Moreover, the text of the articles are too blurry to read. The pictures should be removed from the article, right? Should the picture files themselves be deleted too? They're practically useless. (btw if you're willing you could also assist me in cleaning up the article, converting the external links and incorrectly-formatted references to correctly formatted references where appropriate) ~EdGl (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They all appear to be copyvios: All but the last are photos of recent newspapers and magazines. The last is a photo of a letter with a logo in the letterhead. I have tagged them as copyvios on Commons. —teb728 t c 22:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]