Help desk
< June 25	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 27 >

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.

June 26[edit]

Original Wikipedia[edit]

What happened to the original articles that were in existence before November 29, 2001? I was talking with some Wikipedians today at the NYC Wiknic about the old days, and I realized I couldn't remember my first contributions. I couldn't even say whether Wikipedia was online before the 9/11 incident.

Is there an Original Wikipedia somewhere, and is there a way to look at old contribs? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way of having an "Original Wikipedia" because it is impossible to decide what "original" is. It could technically be the first version of every new article. It is possible to look at old versions of a page by pressing the view history button next to the edit tab. Here is a link to the first valid New York City page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, here is a link to your very first edit ever. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ed. Do you mean the late 2000 Nupedia archives when the site was in its uber stages? Calmer Waters 04:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm referring to a dim memory of the changeover from the original Wikipedia software to a "new database schema" with the prospect that the edit history of some articles would be lost after the changeover. I'm getting old, so I wonder if I remember this right. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found this [1] :) Not pre-November 2001, but pretty close. How that for a flashback? Calmer Waters 05:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! And I found my first edit (I knew it wasn't to Creationism).

I like the motto, "Be in charge and be humble." It reminds me of the Unification Thought ideal of leadership: love your partner, care for your partner, wield authority. The trick is to be sure that the authority one wield's is actually for the benefit of one's partner. It's so easy to fool (a) oneself, (b) one's partner, or (c) onlookers by falsely claiming that one governs for the sake of the governed.

Perhaps if all are equally powerful, false leaders (i.e., dictators) won't be tolerated. This would be a Good Thing.

Sigh, I forgot the "be humble" part, but I'm on the comeback trail now, boys and girls! --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Check out this one from July 2001 [2]. Only 7,000 articles and that weird banner at the top. Calmer Waters 05:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know about the History of Wikipedia article. If not, then maybe the article or its talk page could provide something useful. --Teratornis (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Wikipedia#Hardware and software mentions the various database rewrites. The MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia now is not as old as Wikipedia itself, so things could have gotten lost in the early database migrations. --Teratornis (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with new Performing arts of Goa navbox[edit]

I tried to create a new navbox Template:Performing_arts_of_Goa, but it isn'e working. Please can someone correct the problem and tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks The Discoverer (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. I fixed it.. stupid square bracket mistake in wikilinks The Discoverer (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you don't need my help. Thanks anyway, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist security flaw?[edit]

If one IP address makes two or more edits to the same article over a short time, then my watchlist shows only the last of these edits, and the "diff" link also shows only the last edit. Thus a vandal or otherwise malicious user could potentially "cover up" their "bad" edits by immediately adding a separate "good" edit to the same article (for example correcting punctuation), and people with that article on their watchlist will see only the "good" edit. They will of course see the "bad" edit(s) as well if they also check the article's history, but how many people check history if they think the watchlist has told them everything? Silas S. Brown (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see your point, but checking the diff also shows the userid/IP of the previous editor as well, so when you check the diff you can see that (in your example) the same IP address would have also made a previous edit. Personally speaking, under such circumstances (which can happen with registered users as well as IP addresses) I always check history, wp:agf notwithstanding. a_man_alone (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can go into your preferences --> watchlist --> advanced options and enable Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent. This will show all edits made to a watched page regardless of the period of time between edits or whether they were made consecutively by one user. Calmer Waters 09:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could enable something like popups. Hover over the 'hist' link in your watchlist and you can see if there are other edits (whether by IP or registered editor) since the last 'good' version. Astronaut (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The preference works great. I hope more people are aware of this. Silas S. Brown (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My P.hd reserch about donagracia mendes[edit]

Hello! I alredy published my P.hd reserch about donagracia mendes- nassi in Bar-Illan university Israel! Please help me to let readers to know about that fact of information!

Thanks Dr. Tzvi Schaick tiberias, Israel [email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.80.86 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to publicise your PhD research, nor is Wikipedia the place to host your original research, so we cannot "let readers to know about that fact of information" (sic). However, you should probably tell your supervisors at the university that you have published. That said, I think some websites could benefit from your expertise in the subject. This includes Wikipedia's Gracia Mendes Nasi article, if you can supply references that meet our requirements for reliable sources and no original research (ie. rather than referencing your own paper, use the original sources). Astronaut (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undo page move[edit]

Signalling (telecommunications) was recently moved to Signaling_(telecommunications) by User:Johnuniq. This page move had previously been suggested on the talk page and I opposed per WP:ENGVAR. The actual move was performed without any discussion. How should I undo the move? Thanks! GyroMagician (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was originally at the single el spelling and was at that spelling for about four years until first moved on January 21, 2006 to the double el, here so the ENGVAR issue is not clear. You can make a formal request for a community discussion of a move by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves (which is always better than getting into a move war).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The article started off in 2002 as Signaling (telecommunication) (one l). Then 4 years later in 2006 it was moved to Signalling (telecommunication) (2 lls) with an edit summary of "more neutral title; signalling is an acceptable spelling in both BrE and AmE." It then sat at that name for 4 years when it was moved back to the 1 l version to make the name consistent with the spelling in the article. Then it sat that way until yesterday when it was moved to 2 lls again with an edit summary of "over redirect: Total spelling check (cluster 3). Please look into double redirects. ~~~~" Today User:Johnuniq moved it back to the spelling that it has had most of the time it has been an article since 2002. So per WP:ENGVAR it should be at the name that the first major editor used. I think having it at the name with 1 l for the first 4 years qualifies as that being the name it should stay at. GB fan (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for clarifying. I must admit I hadn't looked back that far into the history - turns out it is...complicated. The issue came to my attention at the beginning of this year, and I hoped at least for a discussion before a move. I won't get into an edit war, and while I could go through the formal RfC, life's too short, I (and everyone else) could spend the time more productively. GyroMagician (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for tool to fill out citation templates[edit]

In order to avoid having to manually fill out citation templates completely by hand, I've been using a tool at diberri.dyndns.org for the past year or two. Unfortunately, the web server appears to be down.[3] It was down the last time I tried using it (a couple weeks ago) so it might be gone permenently. Although it was far from perfect, it would attempt to extract information from a URL and attempt to auto-fill the citation for me. Can anyone recommend another tool for me to use? I am aware of http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php but this one doesn't seem too try to auto-fill in any of the fields other than access date. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this do what you want? TN X Man 15:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately not. I just ran it against the article I'm working on and it didn't really do much.[4] I'm looking for a tool where I can give it a URL and it can create a citation template filling in as many fields (title, publisher, access date, etc.) as possible. For example, something like this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For google books you can use just the url with this tool. Not sure about others but check out Wikipedia:Citation tools.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Departed 2006 film[edit]

The Departed (2006 film)I didn't understand some of the incidents in The Departed Film, so can someone please answer my Questions about The Departed Film?

1. When Sullivan told Costello that Queenan & the Undercover Cop are inside a building, Costello sent his henchmen to the same building.

2. When Costello sent his henchmen to the same building, did Costello tell his henchmen to kill Queenan?

3. When Costello sent his henchmen to the same building, did Costello tell his henchmen to kill the Undercover Cop?

4. When Sullivan told Costello that Queenan & the Undercover Cop are inside a building, was Sullivan hoping for Queenan to get killed?

5. When Sullivan told Costello that Queenan & the Undercover Cop are inside a building, was Sullivan hoping for the Undercover Cop to get killed?

6. When Sullivan killed Costello, did Sullivan decide to be a Good Cop? (76.195.163.217 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Have you tried the Humanities section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have told many other people on Wikipedia today, this is definitely not the place to ask such questions. You must search them yourself or, better yet, watch the movie in its entirety to answer your questions. As this may seem as absolutely no help to you, as said above by Fuhghettaboutit/ForgetAboutIt, you may want to try the Humanites desk, or maybe the village pump, or even better, Yahoo! Answers, where this discussion can be off of Wikipedia, because such questions clog the help desks for other Wikipedian users. Please do not take this as an insult, or be discouraged to come back to Wikipedia. Virtually everyone who owns or is in possession of a computer, laptop, or other electronic item that has access to internet (except vandals and those banned from Wikipedia) are free to research, edit, and share Wikipedia among other fellow Wikipedian users, administrators, and bureaucrats. And if you decide to come back, you can create an account, which conceals your IP address, all edits go under your contributions, invitations to Wikievents and Wiknics, and more benefits, etc. Thank you for being part of the Wikipedia community and participating in a help desk discussion. Again, you are free to come back at any time, or better yet, create an account. Thanks again, sorry for any typos! A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about toolserver.org's webchecklinks[edit]

I ran toolserver.org's webchecklinks against September 11 attacks and it found several URLs that are now dead links.[5] For some of them, it says that "WebCite archive avalible". Does anyone know what "WebCite archive avalible" means? Where can I find this archive? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's http://webcitation.org/ In the article look in the references for "Archived from the original on..." (probably easiest to just use ctrl+f and search for "archive") and that will be a link to the WebCite archive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dead links I'm looking for don't have "Archived from the original on...". See [this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#cite_note-11]. References 12-15 are cites to reports issued by the National Transportation Safety Board which apparently are no longer available on their web site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, when you paste the urls (I checked 12 & 13) into WebCite's search it says that it was never archived. So I'm not sure what's going on. It may be that the webchecklinks is wrong. Knowing what queries it makes to determine its positive result for archiving would help.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I've found alternative links. 12 is here~~ ... I see you've already found alternate links.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case Sensitive search on Wikipedia?[edit]

Resolved

I'm working to make sure that mentions of fraternities and sororites fulfill WP:NCCORP by deleting the use of INC and incorporated from the mention in other articles. I'm also running into a lot of situations where MOS:CAPS applies because the word fraternity or sorority is capitalized after the name of the fraternity or sorority. I'd like to also look for those separately. Is there any way that I can look for capitalized instances of Fraternity on Wikipedia or "Alpha Phi Omega Fraternity" without "Alpha Phi Omega fraternity"?Naraht (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is possible with the MediaWiki software. However, although Google searches are also case insensitive, there is apparently a tool to take Google results and filter it for case (which I've never used). See here. So if this filter works, you can then restrict the results to Wikipedia using a limiter like site:en.wikipedia.org--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I figured out how to use it. This search appears to provide exactly what you're after. Give it some time as it is much slower than Google itself. Also, it appears that it will only provide the results in snippets of the first forty-nine Google hits it checks, i.e., it filters the first 49 results, gives you an output which may be just a few hits, and then you have to hit "next" to have it filter the next 49 Google hits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the number of entries output on the page is fixed rather than working from a fixed number of entries in Google. It feels a little kludgy to use, but certainly does what I want. Thank you very much!!Naraht (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it's working!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan status[edit]

Can an editor please review and remove the tags to "CSPWC's Royal Collection Project"? There are three articles that link back to this page: 1) The Arts and Letters Club 2) Canadian Society of Painters in Water Colour 3) Royal Librarian. Help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Artisforme (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not really much, he? on the other hand: focussing on other probelms the articles as. mabdul 17:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eggplants[edit]

Can you safely freeze an eggolant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.34.45 (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Miscellaneous section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. TN X Man 18:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this question doesn't belong here. Secondly, its completely random. But you can go here for answers. Third, you can attempt the experiment yourself, as a science project or other experiment. Fourth, such questions do not belong here. They belong in the reference or humanitarian desk. Thanks A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]