Help desk
< May 17	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 19 >

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.

May 18[edit]

Page loading issues?[edit]

Is any one else experiencing really glitchy page loading on here today? I thought it was my Mac until I got to work and now windows is doing the same. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, had multiple problems last few hours.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having issues the last couple days. For me the problem manifests itself by loading the content of an article but not anything above or to the left of it. So the WP logo and everything below and to the right of it is blank. Dismas|^(talk) 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having the same experience with longer pages also cutting off at the bottom, usually in the middle of a template. GB fan (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for 3 or 4 days at least. I have seen talk page threads about it in a few places including here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Question about Suggest a Bot though, as yet, I haven't seen an answer as to what is going on. I find that if I go back to my watchlist and then try loading again speeds things up sometimes. Logging completely off the web and then getting back on also helps though, again, not every time. Hopefully things will get fixed eventually. MarnetteD | Talk 00:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not in the habit of repeatedly adding the same comment to this page. I was simply having page loading problems. I just wanted to explain myself. In case anyone was wondering. LordVetinari (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I see images using firefox 3 in linux?[edit]

The subject line says it all. Firefox deals with images everywhere else but not on wikipedia. I've done a google search, and it seems like this is not an uncommon problem. I have yet to find a solution. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.194.80 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible you have, at some point, inadvertently blocked images from Wikipedia. Have a look in Preferences > Content, and choose "Exceptions" beside "Load images automatically" to see which sites are on your block list. --Kateshortforbob _talk 08:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edit disappears[edit]

Hello,

I am trying to edit the section 'Related and Derivative works' of the 'Sherlock Holmes' page in Wikipedia. I am trying to add information regarding a novel that was recently published. When I save the page, the edit appears but for a minute. When I use a different computer and check in after a few minutes, the edit (new info that was added) seems to disappear without fail.

Kindly help me out here.

Thank you.

Regards,

Radkris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radkris ig (talk • contribs) 08:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book you mention hasn't made enough of an impact to be notable. See: Wikipedia:Notability (books). If and when it warrants inclusion under this policy it will no doubt be added. If we did not do this then the articles would be swamped by derived works of little merit. --Aspro (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words your edits were reverted by another editor for the reasons given by Aspro. —teb728 t c 12:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you can see the revert mentioned (with its reason) in the history of the article. You can get from an article to its history by using the "View history" tab at the top of the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counts from deleted pages[edit]

Resolved

– – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question out of sheer curiosity. If a page is deleted, its edit history vanishes and the majority of us no longer see it, nor is it recorded in our contributions. So if an admin spends an entire day deleted articles and templates and files, how is he or she keeping track of their edit count for all the work they do? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, edit counting is not so important (quality is more important than quantity), but X!'s edit counter shows deleted edits as well for example. Also, deletions by admins are in the logs. Admins can also see Special:DeletedContributions of a user for a handy list similar to Special:Contributions. --KFP (contact | edits) 09:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins keep track of their admin-related actions by including the {{adminstats}} template on their user page; there's one at User:Beeblebrox for example. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm; see Special:Log, e.g. (I'm sure KFP won't mind the example) this. Don't get hung up on edit-counts - it's not the number of edits you make that matters, it's what you do with 'em. An entire featured article can be written in just 1 edit. And for oversighters and 'crats, and suchlike - it might appear they're doing very little, but there's lots of "behind the scenes" stuff going on. Chzz ► 16:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed answers! I'm aware of editcountitis and such, but I really was curious how these top-level editors keep track of their stats, should they want to. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons License[edit]

I am working with images only.The first is a Polar Bear and is under Creative Commons License Deed Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.5)Is this image available for commercial use. It does not say either way.It states for attribution that you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author but does not state what that is.I suppose that means it must be Attributed under the same C C Deed ShareAlike 2.5.Am I correct? I have a second image under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. It is a mountain goat and I have the same question about it. It says the same as the 2.5 above.Please clarify for me. 8095fredvan (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA allows all use. The non-commercial-use variation of the CC licence has "CC-NC" - and we don't use that.

Anything that is "CC-BY-SA" may be used for any purpose, including commercial use, subject to the terms of the licence - which you should read carefully, but the main points are;

You have to "Share Alike" - ie give the same terms when you re-use it, ie stating it is "licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike <whatever version>" and linking to, or showing, the full text of the licence itself.
You have to say who it is "BY" - ie attribute it.

All our images should have 'author' information, and other details, if you click the image. For example, if you go to the article Polar Bear - the first picture, at the top right; if you click on the picture, you'll get to the page File:Polar Bear - Alaska.jpg, which shows it is CC-BY-SA (3.0 in that case), and it shows the author - so, when reusing that, you'd attribute it to "Alan Wilson".

Note the above is a brief summary, trying to answer your question - but it is not authoritative or legal advice - you should read the licence agreement itself.

For more info, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Chzz ► 12:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Logo on "Guru Studio" Page[edit]

To whom it may concern,

Please change the logo of "Guru Studio" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Studio) to the newest one (image address as below): http://media02.linkedin.com/media/p/2/000/09c/1a2/151f3b9.png

Thank you in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.196.195 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that really is the new logo, why is not used on the company's website? – ukexpat (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I changed that last week, and I'm reluctant to change it again at this time, because http://www.gurustudio.com/ (which, for all we know, is the official website) still has the logo we are using. If the website changes, please ask again.

Not done Chzz ► 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the help and response. Guru Studio is building its new website and that's why the current official website is not updated. However, the logo that organization is using for its social media (Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter etc.) has changed. (New logo from Facebook: http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/181975_497437086338_265174501338_6641281_3184664_n.jpg) Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru studio (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but feel free to revert. ajmint (talk•contribs) 20:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Salamis[edit]

When this page is opened, it shows a <!-- tag in the body and nothing else is shown on the page. Not even the wikipedia image Some syntax error might have occurred in the saved text of this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.70.23.45 (talk • contribs) 13:59 (UTC), 18 May 2011

Odd, it looks fine to me. Do you get the same result with a different web browser? doomgaze (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a symptom of the "page timing out" issue mentioned here and on WP:VPT. – ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried clearing the cache? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing the cache worked thanks. But all other pages were opening fine. So never thought this will be a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.70.23.45 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INFORMATION ABOUT MARIO BROS 3[edit]

hi sir i have ordered one mario bros 3 through dh gate.but it says game boy mario bros 3.would i be able to play that game on my nintendo wii.if not then what should i do.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.171.27 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. CaptRik (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review[edit]

Just out of idle curiousity mostly, why does Wikipedia:Editor review/dr.miryalaramesh appear on Category:Wikipedians on Editor review/Backlog but not on the main page? (Wikipedia:Editor review)? Thanks! Also, why won't [[Category:Wikipedians on Editor review/Backlog]] show up when I try to include it in this posting? It just dissapears! Many thanks, 78.26 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second question, it does not appear as formatting it that way makes it function the same way it does on any other page, which is to add the page to said category. To make it appear as you would like it to, add a colon before the word category, which would format it like so: Category:Wikipedians on Editor review/Backlog. doomgaze (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the first question: it was removed from the main page because that editor has so few edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an authoritative opinion[edit]

Please ignore this message. The answer has been posted on my talk page. I am not deleting the question from here lest that look like vandalism, but I am collapsing it.

Extended content

Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a question on the verifiability talk page. It triggered a discussion that runs to 11 pages of printout. This includes two opposite interpretation of a guideline. How do I get an authoritative opinion? I want to avoid contention. Having read the discussion of the appeal from the WK Trustees for comment on why new editors leave, I am inclined to post some general observations there, that regrettably are consonant with the experiences reported by the contributors to that discussion, and withdraw. However, I want to see whether problems I perceive are remediable, hence this enquiry. I have posted more finely tuned question I want resolved on my talk page User talk:Michael P. Barnett#Can a citation be required in a lede?. Is this a matter I can follow up and, if so, how? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last step of this AFD[edit]

I always botch this part up. Can someone please fix? Thank you. --Endlessdan (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done here. If you enable the Twinkle gadget in your preferences it will automate all the steps for creating an Afd... – ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second the Twinkle suggestion. Really useful gadget, makes a number of tedious actions so quick and simple. doomgaze (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the page on me go?[edit]

Hi, There was a page on me and it disappeared. Why? All of the information was true and confirmed. Thank you, Gail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.109.192 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell us what the name of the page was, we can see what we can find out. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the article did not demonstrate why you are notable.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

game of bike[edit]

Hi i was wondering what i have to do next in order to publish.. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manunitedrob (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:SYMUD, but to be frank, in its current form it will last about 2 minutes in mainspace. You need to provide references from reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject and, if it is notable, it needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. – ukexpat (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the template to notify an editor that you sent them e-mail?[edit]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

{{You've got mail}} – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yet again, ukexpat. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

error on your page divorce the United States[edit]

In the table divorce rate by state there is an error – The page indicates that the rates are per 100,000 persons but this is incorrect. Typically statistics are given in a rate per thousand persons.See the PDF file at the link below from the CDC website. If the data were per 100,000 persons, that would mean in Alabama in 2002 the rate given is 5.4 which would translate into 54 divorces per every million persons, which clearly can't be correct. However, based on the CDC data and statistics, the rate of 5.4 per 1000 persons would translate into 54,000 divorces per 1 million people – which clearly would be a better estimate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States#endnote_Div1

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce_rates_90_95_99-09.pdf

I tried to change it one time myself with the editor changed it back – not sure the process but it was frustrating because I could not contact the person edited it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.195.241 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting this and trying to fix it. I have fixed the article [1] with an edit summary explaining the edit. I guess your fix was [2]. If a change has no edit summary explaining it and it was made by a new or unregistered editor then other editors are more likely to suspect it is vandalism and should be reverted. You were absolutely correct and definitely not a vandal but unfortunately there are vandals who change facts for fun and editors who are quick to revert suspected vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Using talk pages for how to discuss with other editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Nice catch!Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD question[edit]

I just nominated an article for deletion, and I'd forgotten what a tortured process it is. Still, after finally finding the instructions (too many deletion policy articles), I managed to do everything until I got to the end and wanted to notify the creator of the article. It said: "Use {{subst:AfD-notice|article name|AfD discussion title}}." But it gave no indication of what to put in the "AfD discussion title". I tried a bunch of different permutations, but none worked. What exactly goes in there?

My second problem was Step III (notifying users who "monitor AfD discussion"). It said to open up the "articles for deletion log" page and add something to it, but that's the same page I added the entry in the first place. I didn't get it and didn't do it. What am I supposed to do with Step III (I don't remember what I've done with Step III in the past - Wikidementia)?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regular nominations, the "AfD discussion title" parameter is the same as the article name and thus optional. In mass (group) nominations, "AfD discussion title" is the name of the AfD discussion.
You did Step III correctly—adding {{subst:afd3|pg=NominationName}} to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 18. Goodvac (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Goodvac. Two points. First, wouldn't it be a good idea for the instructions to explain that the second parameter is optional? Second, does the fact I did Step III (w/o knowing it) mean that the "OR" just before Step II relates to Step III as well? I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland - off with Step III! --Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, just use Twinkle. – ukexpat (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Installing Twinkle has been on my list for some time, but I haven't gotten around to it. I assume it works with FF 4. In any event, I don't want to install it until someone fixes the current response time issues as I don't feel like injecting a new variable into my editing. Of course, none of that addresses the confusing AfD instructions (at least in my view).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Beatty[edit]

Make a Ryan Beatty page!!! He's amazing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.126.201 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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 Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article, but you will need to create an account to use it. if you don't wish to do so, you can submit a proposal for an article at Articles for Creation. Goodvac (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Assuming I'm looking at the same Ryan Beatty (see here), it doesn't look like he's notable enough yet to justify an article. He's kind of a recent phenomenon, fueled by the Internet, particularly YouTube.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]