Help desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

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.

July 13[edit]

PROBLEM TABLE SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES?[edit]

Serbian language and Croatian language is two differetes independentes language

PROBLEM TABLE These are illustrated in the following table:

		South Slavic					West Slavic			East Slavic
Late Proto-Slavic reconstruction	Late Proto-Slavic meaning	Old Church Slavonic	Slovenian	Croatian	Serbian	Bulgarian	Macedonian	Czech	Slovak	Polish	Belarusian	Russian	Ukrainian
*gvězda	star	звѣзда	zvezda	zvijezda	звезда zvezda	звезда	ѕвезда	hvězda	hviezda	gwiazda	-	звезда	звізда
*květъ	flower, bloom	цвѣтъ	cvet	cvijet	цвет cvet	цвете	цвет	květ	kvet	kwiat	кветка	цвет	квітка
*ordlo	plough	рало	ralo	ralo	рало ralo	рало	рало	rádlo	radlo	radło	рало	рало	рало

You are going to have to be more clear on what the problem is and what article you are referring to. If this is a content dispute, then it needs to be discussed on the article talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I can see in the table above is that the branch headers at the top don't line up with the language columns below them. I guess that this is because somebody has added a column for Serbian, (or Croatian) without increasing the 'colspan' for "South Slavic". --ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Inappropriate Link PLEASE REMOVE[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam:

Please delete this site as it is fraudulently being linked to my facebook accounts

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oops_%28Oh_My%29&action=history.

Please remove any links to the following facebook sites:

It seems that this person is targeting my client's sites which are totally unrelated to this SONG Wikipedia site. THIS IS A HUGE conflict of interest because the Wikipedia site depicts rap music profanity. My client is a conservative Christian. PLEASE REMOVE /DELETE and DISENGAGE these links from this site IMMEDIATELY!!!

Thank you so much for your cooperation. Please confirm the removal.

Again, I appreciate your IMMEDIATE resolve of this matter. Debra Johnson, Esq. on behalf of Sheree Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.129.121 (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you reference does not contain any links to facebook. Could you clarify where these links are? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searches with Special:LinkSearch and do not see any links from any article to those FaceBook pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook links aren't normally permitted in Wikipedia articles anyway, because Facebook is not a reliable source. And the content of the article does not appear to include any strong language or graphic images. Are you sure the problem link is from this Wikipedia page, and not some other website? Ka renjc 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But such links would generally be acceptable in the External links section for ther subject's official page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically not, unless the Wikipedia page was specifically about a specific Facebook group or no other official page can be found. Them From Space 23:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. I guess you haven't seen the {{web presence}} template. Dismas|^(talk) 23:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably be TfD'd since most of the external links violate our guidelines. They are all routinely cleaned away and consensus on noticeboards is to never include them. There is a difference between official websites and social networking websites owned by the subject of the article. Official websites are allowed, social networking websites usually aren't unless nothing better can be found. Them From Space 00:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template to indicate foreign language in ref citation[edit]

I need the syntax for indicating that a citation is in a foreign language, such as ref No. 3, here. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add "|language=Hebrew" to the reference. --erachima talk 07:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get a picture I have uploaded to Wikipedia Commons to my article?[edit]

Mariaholmblad (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Mariaholmblad[reply]

Use the same markup that you would use for an image that was uploaded to Wikipedia. When Wikipedia doesn't find it on its own server, it will load the copy from Commons. So it would look something like [[File:imagename.jpg|thumb]] Dismas|^(talk) 10:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like so:

Caption goes here

Dismas|^(talk) 10:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got it working. You're welcome. Dismas|^(talk) 12:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you edit the very first section of an article?[edit]

I can't find an 'edit' option for the very top section of my article (where currently the 'Contents' box and the title of my article is). How do I edit this section? I want to move the 'Contents' box to the second section and have the text ("ThinkYoung is a Brussels-based think tank without political...") right under the top heading of the article, beside the image... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkYoung) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaholmblad (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using the Monobook skin, at the top of the page is a link that says "edit this page"; if you are using the default skin, then the link is also at the top of the page but just says "Edit". These links are part of a series of links at the top of the article, as opposed to in the article text like the side right hand editing links. You can also take the URL of any of those side editing links, paste it into your address bar, then change the number at the end to zero (section=0). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)The contents box is automatically created just above the first section caption, and are thus not visible when editing. Anything written above the first section caption will be placed above the contents box. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Editing the lead section. I removed the initial section heading with the article title.[5] The article title is automatically written at the top and the table of contents is by default automatically written before the first section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a gadget in your preferences that allows you to edit the lead. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me with a picture?[edit]

I would like to post this picture: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Sabaeiche.jpg&filetimestamp=20070519071822 to Germans, but it did not work out.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That image is hosted locally on the German Wikipedia and would need to be separately uploaded if it was to be used here. However, since it's under a free license, it should be uploaded to the Commons rather than here so that all projects have access to it (if the person who uploaded it there had instead posted it at the Commons in the first place, you wouldn't be having this problem). Some standard advice about image use appears below in a template:

If you want to add an existing image to an article, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information.
If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of the wikimedia commons, can I upload this picture there? The German source says it is a free picture. How would I upload it?-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you would right click, choose "Save Picture As", go the the Commons, click the link for upload file, click the link for "It is from another Wikimedia project", then follow the instructions. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you curb the antisemitism?[edit]

You have a problem.

You have people using the Wiki system to systematically exclude anything from a Jewish perspective:

When people can write this: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/13/wikipedias-jewish-problem/

or: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=5&x_outlet=196&x_article=1513 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.224.148 (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a problem.

One can look at almost any subject involving Israel, Jews or the Holocaust and there is a great one sided wall. The other side is not permitted.

The answer is simple: admit where this divergence of opinion and allow published narratives to let intelligent people decide for themselves. Either Deir Yassin was a massacre or battle with 60 Israelis killed and injured. If it was a massacre, it is one of the few massacre where the military unit committing the alleged massacre suffered significant casualties.

Your current system is allows your site to be used as an antisemitic sewer and the time has come to clean it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.169.204 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FrontPage article that you linked to appears be about a content dispute involving User:Cimicifugia and User:Bali ultimate among others. One of our noticeboards, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, is probably a more appropriate place to raise your concerns. Or you could try a relevant WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism or Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint of the above editor is an entirely justified and serious one, and goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is and what it on the other hand should be. It should not be a forum for the propagation of hate-incitement and malicious mythologies. Neither should it be subject to the manias of a large population rewriting history relating to a small and victimized population. This is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should be. However, Wikipedia is set up in such a way that falsifiers, if they act in concert, can blot out the truth and perpetuate falsehoods. As an equal-opportunity forum for subtle and not-so-subtle ranters, by its very nature Wikipedia is controllable by the side of a dispute that has the largest and the most extremist and fanatical following. So when there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, many of whom unfortunately but as is well-known and well-documented are hostile to the very existence of the only Jewish state in the world (and equally horrible to them, the only non-Muslim state in the Middle East), and a large percentage of whom according to regular Pew Global Surveys are antisemitic regarding Jews in general, and over against that only 14 million Jews in the world, who freely encourage amongst themselves and with others the widest range of opinions and in general repudiate extremisms, then it is very unlikely that the Jewish side will be fairly presented in Wikipedia. This is so in the very nature of things. Add to this, of course, that a percentage of non-Muslims too in the world also believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other forgeries and slanders, or perpetuate similar ideas, and they too contribute to Wikipedia. In such a case the balance cannot be fair nor just, and truth will often struggle to be heard. It should not be the case that if it happened to be the case that there were 1.4 billion Jews in the world, in 57 states, and only 14 million Muslims who had only one small state, that the 1.4 billion Jews would swamp Wikipedia with their views of the Muslim minority. It is just as immoral and unjust for the opposite to be the actual case. Truth is not a matter of demography nor who is more extremist, but is just a matter of truth. This shows up in large and small matters in Wikipedia. For example, I sought to add a wee bit of balance to the extremely one-sided article "Israeli West Bank Barrier," which has at its end a section entitled "Apartheid opinions." At present, that section states: "Some opponents of the barrier claim that building and maintaining the wall is a crime of apartheid,[105] isolating Palestinian communities in the West Bank and consolidating the annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements. However, this is disputed by others. [106][107]" That is the whole section, with a link to the equally biased article "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy." Notice that reasons are given for claiming that the barrier is a "crime of apartheid," but none are given by those "who dispute this." They seem speechless. So I have added, numerous times, without removing anything of what is already there, following the already existing statement "However, this is disputed by others" the additional clarification, "who point out the absence of racially discriminatory laws in Israel, the extension of full democracy to Israeli Arabs and the state of belligerency between Israel and the Palestinians, requiring not the intermixture and exploitation of Palestinians but on the contrary the strict separation of populations ensured by the security fence." I cite suitable references here. Some balance is thereby restored. Every time I add this, however, within a few minutes the additional words are removed, indicating a concerted practically round-the-clock surveillance of the site and determined slanting of its content, regardless of balance or facts. It is only a small matter, but highly indicative of the problem. I have encountered the same issue in other articles. It is general to Wikipedia. Pleas to rectify this specific "revert war" would fail to get to the root of the problem. The problem is the open invitation to mob-rule, hate incitement and bias in Wikipedia itself, by its own refusal to monitor its pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.224.148 (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take issue with a page's stance on a matter, the correct response is not to rage against the heavens. There are no "heavens" on Wikipedia to rage against. Just editors and readers. They, and by extension you, are our page monitoring system. --erachima talk 06:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your mockery answers nothing. I am not "raging against the heavens." I was unaware that Wikipedia was "heavens," and did not use the term nor imply it. There are certainly plenty who are neither angels nor righteous in this virtual sphere so it does not deserve the tag. The problem is (to remind you) with Wikipedia as it is currently structured, and your response does not even begin to address the issue. The general problem that has been raised is a serious one and deserves a serious and -- respectful, may I say it -- answer. I made it clear in my original post that I am not taking issue, either, with a given page's "stance on a matter." I find this strongly biased and obvious POV stance far too general in Wikipedia articles to complain about a single egregious (= blatant, obvious, manifest and quite obnoxious) instance. Your comment that "they (the contributors), and by extension "you", are our page monitoring system" avoids my point that precisely THIS DOES NOT WORK equitably or fairly. Get it now? There are too many instances where this is so, and the reason for the imbalance in Wikipedia articles is in its pretense it IS a "heavens" and does not exist in the real world where one side might be very small, and the other massive, one side might refuse any recognition of "two sides," and the other constantly invokes such recognition. As my instance shows, one side too often wishes to obliterate contrary evidence and refuse publication of it, and the other side merely wishes to put its case without suppressing opposing viewpoints. In such a case, where these realities are felt right through the entire website and in thousands of articles and innumerable instances, Wikipedia does not work, and it has no safeguards to make it work. Its present measures are so feeble, and are bound to be so feeble by the very nature of things, as to be laughable.

That is the major complaint. And it is a fundamental one. A basic change in editorial policy and management of the site is needed if Wikipedia is to retain any intellectual credibility as a general encyclopedic resource, aside that is from articles on Mozart or basket-weaving in reference to which there are no dead bodies lying about in the real world.

However, as an example of the major problem, I also refer you to the article cited above in regard to CAMERA, i.e., http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=5&x_outlet=196&x_article=1513. Banning all reference to CAMERA or even editors who contributed to CAMERA not only from contributing to Wikipedia but even from being cited in it was a clearly prejudicial and unfair decision by Wikipedia managers. I notice too that one of the best, most informed, informative and thoroughly researched and well-documented sites on the Holocaust on the internet, //www.holocaustresearchproject.org, is also blocked from being cited in any footnotes in Wikipedia, presumably on the same grounds that it is a site maintained by volunteer researchers. Even so, as in the case of CAMERA, all contributions are carefully vetted by real editors who manage the site and are scholars knowledgeble in the subject (unlike in Wikipedia). So the alleged faults of these websites do not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.224.148 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. And yet we have an article on CAMERA, which includes many links to www.camera.org in its footnotes. Just saying ... Gandalf61 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take reports like this with a pinch of salt. For years Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias favouring Judaism, and now we're told we're anti-Semites. Whilst I don't dispute that improvement can be made, when both sides of an argument accuse you of bias against them you've probably done a reasonable job at finding a middle ground. AJ Cham☻ 16:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This too is a convenient and slippery way of dodging the actual issue. When, on the one hand, one has extremists that include open antisemites promulgating highly biased accounts, elaborating demonizing mythologies in which sloganizing replaces reality, and who seek to insulate these false demonizations by simply eliminating the views of the other side altogether from being published, as I indicated above -- and who even protest that the mere appearance in Wikipedia of facts that favor the other side shows "systemic bias favouring Judaism" -- while on the other hand one has their victims who merely are asking for balanced accounts and only want the opportunity to present the facts as they see them, then the truth is not found mid-way between the two. To suppose that it is, is an illogical as well as immoral position. It is a position which vindicates lies and cripples truth. Besides, between lies and truth the truth is not in the middle; rather it is on one side only: the truth. I will make it very simple for the above complacent defenders of Wikipedia bias, since evidently complicated realities are not their forte. Is the truth of Zionist thinking and goals half-way between the Protocols of the Elders of Zion cited in the Hamas Charter, and the false quotes alleged to be by David Ben-Gurion and others, manufactured by Palestinians and other anti-Zionists, and the actual sayings and writings of the founders of Zionism and the leaders of Israel? Is the truth about Judaism half-way between the description of the Ayatollah Khomeini (or Hassan al-Banna) and that of Maimonides (or Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks)? Or is it simply to be found in the actual Zionist and Rabbinic writings? The Wikipedia defense given here would be of course that it is half-way between the two very contrasting views. And that would be false: it is not half-way, the truth is simply the truth. But such a condemnation of rampant antisemitic mythologies would certainly be protested by antisemites as showing "systemic bias to Judaism." According to the defenders of Wikipedia above, these protests by antisemites at any presentation of Jewish realities are entirely equivalent in truth value to Jewish protests against antisemitic mythologies, and they can even complacently comment that if both sides make complaints, then they've done a reasonable job at finding a middle ground. Can Gandalf and his supporter above see the iniquity in that? Or is it still too complicated? In any case, their responses both rather ostentatiously ignore the points made in the original posts, both the major issues and the minor ones. For example, even in regard to CAMERA, Gandalf skated over the issue in calling attention to a single article, specifically on CAMERA, that does actually mention CAMERA. Wowie. The fact is that CAMERA references are otherwise blocked from Wikipedia, and editors whom Wikipedia maintains are supportive of or participants in CAMERA are also blocked. Gandalf quite obviously refuses to deal with this issue in his answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.224.148 (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has a point. There is a weird battle (even though wikipedia is not supposed to be battleground) between those favoring the Palestinian perspective and others with the Israeli. Nothing can be done (or maybe nothing is being done would be more precise) to stop it unfortunately. The IP probably did not understand the nature of this page and was trying to write a formal complaint or simply vent from what I see. Cut him or her some slack. Short answer: No, but you are more than welcome to try some editing.Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- 122.107.224.148 certainly does not have a point. 122.107.224.148, for the love of puppies, don't expend your energy writing walls of text here. Go to the article where you keep being reverted and engage in discussion on the talk page. You received a welcome message from an experienced editor with links to policies. I left you what I hoped was a helpful message on your talk page here when I reverted you. Did you even read it ? Others have put messages in the edit summaries. You have been warned by an admin twice. Stop complaining, just go to the article talk page and discuss your edit. If you make your case and the material can be made policy compliant you will be able to get support for your edit from other editors.

71.205.169.204 devalues the term antisemitism by throwing it around like candy. I would be annoyed if I hadn't seen this kind of thing so many times and become desensitized to the nonsense. Complaints of bias and bigotry against Wikipedia are commonplace. Here are some troubling ones that spring to mind.

"Constant harassment from a cabal of anti-Chiropractic POV editors who attack everything chiropractic"
"an orchestrated witch-hunt by the pro wrestling Wiki-cabal..."
"Why isn't there a section on Criticism of Evolution ? because Wikipedia is controlled by Nazis"

There certainly is racist bigotry, political/commercial/religious advocacy in Wikipedia in all sorts of areas but confusing racism with content/policy compliance disputes isn't helpful. Didn't this dispute over the NYT come up at ANI a few weeks ago ? I vaguely remember someone talking about 'functional holocaust denial' or something similar. Yes, here and here (which includes the immortal 'I will respond to an assertion that I'm a Holocaust denialist about as soon as I respond to an assertion I fuck pigs') Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean is outed. He, along with a Mr. Shabazz, I now discover by going to the talk page indicated by Sean, are the ones who constantly revert my tiny little addition to the "Israeli West Bank Barrier" because it gives a voice to the pro-Israel view. I have gone to the talk page Sean mentions for the article and will proceed to defend my additions there, as he requests. Let me clarify here that I did not think my contribution to the article constituted anything requiring discussion on a talk page, since it did not remove anything from the article, only added a sentence-clause of balance, and related only to one small item in it. Now, however, going to the talk page indicated, which is my own talk page (I did not even know I had one!), not that of the article in question, I see that all sorts of threats have been made against me by Sean and Mr. Shabazz, including banning me from Wikipedia altogether, because of my daring to contribute at all to the article. Mr. Shabazz also informs me there that not only he has reverted me, but six others have as well. That kind of response bears out the larger problem, just by itself. It seems to me that they are the ones who should be banned. But I did not raise the instance of the article on "Israeli West Bank Barrier" here just because I was concerned about that. Rather, as I made clear in my original comments, it was a current example of a pattern that holds throughout Wikipedia, and is due to structural issues that Wikipedia is not presently able to address. These issues are real, Wikipedia's problem is real, and these matters should be discussed. Sean's further comments on the present talk page, however, certainly show his own bias, bringing up various red herrings left and right regarding other sorts of imbalances unrelated to the topic. It is like saying that claims that Saturn has moons can be dismissed contemptuously because all sorts of people make claims about space, such as that the earth is flat, and they are all nuts. His comments would disallow any recognition of any problems of balance in Wikipedia now or in the future regarding any topic whatsoever. As such, his comments are manifestly only intended to dismiss any consideration of possible built-in antisemitic slanting. It does not constitute a refutation of such charges, merely a dismissal out of hand. It is not so much a contribution to the discussion as a demonstration of the justice of the charge to begin with.

The reason I brought up the issue in this talk page, however, is to find out just how to address myself not to the hollow men of the rank-and-file, who are quite complacent or even supportive of this situation, but rather to the actual managers of Wikipedia who determine policy. How does one reach them? Any advice about that would be appreciated. Thanks.122.107.224.148 (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of horseshit. You didn't know you had a Talk page? You didn't know you had multiple warnings on it? Hello?!? Didn't you notice the bright orange banner across the top of your screen that said you had new messages? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Now we learn that horseshit is, too. An interesting point. Wikipedia guidelines preclude this sort of low and aggressive language in posts, Shabazzz. Nothing that I wrote above in my last post is untrue, and in fact a close reading of my most recent posts will demonstrate my unawareness of the threatening entries on my own talk page until I linked there from Mr. Hoyland's response here. A view of my talk page will reveal no entries at all on it, after years of Wikipedia contributions, so of course I was unaware of it until this singularly abusive response to my tiny little contribution to the "Israeli West Bank Barrier." Obviously, the troops are out and heavily armed just on this frontier. Imagine that: I dared to contribute a pro-Israel view. It is obvious what sort of people are administering that article's content. So the question comes back to the one at the start: Can Wikipedia curb the antisemitism of the site? Not without major reform of its structures, is the answer. So how does one reach the managers of the site, to raise these issues? Any suggestions?122.107.224.148 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSITE OF BOREDOM[edit]

I would like to know how I can find the "OPPOSITE" OF SOME WORDS.

15:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.129.174 (talk)

This page is used to ask questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions, but you might try http://thesaurus.com/ ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or a dictionary. Wiktionary lists "antonyms", for example wikt:black#Antonyms gives "white". TFOWR 15:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Flow (psychology) and {{Mental state}}. According to the mental state diagram, the opposite of boredom is arousal. --Teratornis (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is email from the holder of a photo right not sufficient as permission?[edit]

I have put up a picture up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carlo_Strenger_Tel_Aviv_University_Independence_Day_2007.JPG

The picture was taken by a photographer I know for the public relations department at Tel Aviv University. The head of the photo department has sent an email to Wikipedia giving explicit permission of use (the picture is also on the Tel Aviv University website which is public domain).

Why is there still a note that this is insufficient? Jces (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the note. The email may not specifically allow free use of the photo or the email address may be insufficiently identified. Both issues need to be cleared up with OTRS as the note on the image states. -- kainaw ™ 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) The note says that you should contact VernoWhitney (talk · contribs) who left that latest tag, or someone on this list. Unless someone with a OTRS account happens to pass by, this help desk can't really be of much assistance because ordinary editors can't see the email(s) in question. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

county tax[edit]

I need help to pay my county taxes... (redacted personal information) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.65.69 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot offer legal or financial advice, and certainly none specific to your situation. Most county tax offices have staff to assist people with their specific needs, and it may not be a bad idea to call them directly. But there's nothing for us to do here. Best of luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Dropbox[edit]

I searched through this Help Desk, the reference desk, and village pump, but I couldn't find anyone asking this question. I recently signed up for a Dropbox account which lets me upload files to the internet for syncing between all of my devices (namely, my laptop, my desktop, and my iPhone). I can also share items with other people by giving them a specific link to a file in my dropbox. Is it part of Wikipedia policy to allow links to items in one's Dropbox to serve as references? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely, because reference material needs to have been previously published in reliable sources. Since you've uploaded these files yourself, they are effectively self-published online. If you've written the content of them yourself, they are also original research and not suitable for Wikipedia citations. If they consist of previously published material - a PDF of a newspaper or journal article, for example - then unless you own the copyright you aren't permitted to publish or distribute copies without permission, so a link to them would breach Wikipedia's policies on links to copyright violations. A link to the original article online, or a citation of the hard copy if it's not online, would be the usual way of proceeding. Ka renjc 17:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the specific material I planned to link to consists of nomination forms for listings on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), so it wouldn't be original research. The National Park Service, which oversees the NRHP, has a website on which they are systematically uploading the forms, though it's projected to take several years to get them all up since ther are over 80,000 listings. In the mean time, it is possible to request the documents in a hard copy form (though some have been digitized yet not uploaded, so you may be able to get pdfs as I have). I didn't think about publishing copyright issues, but since they are going to eventually publish the material, would it not be ok for me to fill in the gap until they do so?

There is also some debate over whether or not these documents are public domain or not. Yes, they are under the scope of the NPS, a Federal organization, but in some cases they were written by private historians who in turn submitted them to the NPS. The foggy area is that it isn't known if the original authors gave over their copyright to the NPS. If they did, the documents should be in the public domain as the copyright is held by the government; if they didn't, the document is still under their copyright and thus not public domain. What are your thoughts? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly copyright issues that need to be addressed. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is where our resident copyright experts hang, out, so I hope you will check there. --SPhilbrick T 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a subpage of my userpage[edit]

I recently created a subpage User:Francesco Malipiero/mysandbox/Hamburg Concerto in my userspace, as a first attempt at creating a new article. Now I have made the mistake of creating the page Hamburg Concerto and pasting the content of my subpage in it, instead of (correctly) moving my subpage to the mainspace. Now I would like to delete this subpage, but apparently deleting is only allowed to administrators, even if the page is in a user's namespace. Can I ask an administrator to delete this page, and if so how do I do this? Thanks beforehand. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add the text {{db-u1}} to the top of your subpage. This will add your subpage to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and alert administrators to your request. Intelligentsock 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Too late! ;-) I've deleted it. Intelligentsock's approach is the correct one for future reference. TFOWR 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, since you were the only author there's no need to worry about attribution, so copy-and-paste was fine here. TFOWR 18:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help[edit]

JadeMB (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC) I am baffled by Wikepedia's markup language. I have constructed a page I'd like to put up on the inventor of LASIK surgery, Dr. Gholam Peyman, that is copiously referenced (mostly peer-reviewed articles in top-quality ophthalmology journals, as you would expect). I currently have it laid out in PowerPoint, because that's pretty easy to manipulate, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how to put it up in Wikipedia in a way that conforms to your protocols. If anyone could help me, I'd be very grateful. (Is there anyone who will put this up for a fee?) Thanks for any help you can give me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JadeMB (talk • contribs)

Does Wikipedia:Cheatsheet help? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is currently a draft in you userspace at User:JadeMB/Gholam A. Peyman, MD. For it to appear in mainspace it must be moved there (to Gholam A. Peyman). Before it is moved, it should be cleaned up a little so I suggest that you take a look at WP:MOSBIO and, for citing references, WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE. It would also be a good idea to ask for feed back at the Requests for feedback page. Just of the top of my head, it's a good start, but does read a little like a promotional piece - the lists of inventions and honours could be pared down to just the top 5 or so important ones. – ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

How do you post images on Wikipedia? I found one here for the article on Marina Inoue. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 18:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright status of that image? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I poked around for copyright. All's I got are this, this, and this, but I'm not sure that they're appropriate. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 19:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the owner of the image releases it to public domain or a compatible Creative Commons license, it can't be used on Wikipedia. Lack of a copyright notice isn't sufficient, it must be specifically released. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the ToS page, "Anime Vice grants its users the right to reprint, republish or reuse any content you contribute to the site for non-commercial purposes under the Creative Commons' Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License. By posting content to the site you consent to the granting of this license." Not sure if this is accurate though. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's insufficient — images and other content on Wikipedia must be available for commercial use, so images only available under noncommercial licenses aren't permitted. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we handle a situation where a large number of users are vandalizing articles?[edit]

I would guess a semi protect would work, but how long are the users usually registerd? If they all have the same edits, it may be sock puppetry. Old Al (Talk) 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Metropolitan University edits[edit]

I've had a look around and couldn't quite work out what would be appropriate action here. Special:Contributions/140.97.36.5 keeps occasionally blanking or removing sections of the text which could be seen as negative from the article. There has been a suggestion previously that these edits are coming from within the institution. I noticed this recently and went back through the edit history and replaced what had been removed. A week or so later, this IP has removed them again. Could someone suggest the best course of action here. Thanks KlickingKarl (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a 4im for blanking would be used, as he's done it many times without any warnings. But, a block may have to be for a fairly long amount of time, as his edits are fairly spread out, however that may be a problem for an IP. Hope an admin can help. Old Al (Talk) 18:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've located the IP at the London Metro University, so it may be a bit more difficult. Old Al (Talk) 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some kind of page protection to stop this? I've no real experience of these matters so I don't know if it's appropriate. KlickingKarl (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not protection yet, but do warn the IP. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you change an incorrect redirect?[edit]

The word "subvert" redirects to an article about the group "Venetian Snares". I don't think this is correct, how do you change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggysdaydream (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways. The first is to search for the title "Subvert" which will redirect to the other page, look at the top for "(Redirected from ...)", click the link there, and then edit that page to change where it redirects to. The second way is to go to the page it redirects to however you want, click What links here on the left side of the page, find the redirect in the list, click it, and then edit the page there. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious user page linked in Category:Cancer_treatments[edit]

This appears to be a malicious user who has added the tag "Category:Cancer_treatments" to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Nevard/Shitbox

Please delete. This is quite upsetting for people looking for information regarding their cancer treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.97.10.37 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, the page appears to have been included by accident rather than through any malicious intent. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prevention of inclusion of email addresses on this page?[edit]

Where would I go to suggest and to find out how difficult it would be for this help desk page (and other similar pages) to not allow information to be saved with text which is of the form of an email address?Naraht (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first instinct is that the edit filter would be the only way to catch something like that. But I don't think a filter would be approved for something that is easy enough to blank. TN X Man 19:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

When a new editor makes some good contributions,some of them have a paragraph saying welcome to wikipedia and hope you enjoy wikipedia and hope you stay here.What is this called? How can i add this to a users talk page? Is this available on twinkle?Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several standard welcome templates, for example: {{welcome}}. You can install a gadget like Twinkle (called Friendly) that lets you leave welcome messages automatically. TN X Man 19:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of different welcome templates listed here. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly[edit]

Can someone do something so i have wikipedia:Friendly installed as i don't understand how to do?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try following the instructions on WP:Friendly. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

I the most recent edit on the page: the lady killers (2004 film) vandalism so i know if i can revert it?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page at The Ladykillers (2004 film), click the history tab. You will find this page. The contributions to the page are in chronological order. Click the undo button next to the most recent edit, which is this: (cur | prev) 11:29, 13 July 2010 67.208.244.20 (talk) (20,021 bytes) (undo) (Tag: section blanking). I already undid the vandalism, so you should be able to see my edit as well. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]