Help desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 5 >

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 4

Ventro-ventral should be renamed

The page titled Ventro-ventral redirects to Missionary position. I would like to change the title "Ventro-ventral" to "Ventro-ventral copulation". This change is appropriate because ventro-ventral means face-to-face and does not in itself a sex position. For example, see Dynamics of a relationship: rhesus mother-infant ventro-ventral contact at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4203804 And see Ventro-ventral Thoracopagus at http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/health/specimens/gross-specimens/fetuses/ventro-ventra-thoracopagus/index.html

Can the title of the Ventro-ventral page be changed to Ventro-ventral copulation? If so, can you please tell me how to do that?

Thanks, DPS145192 (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so on your behalf - it is the move function once you are autoconfirmed. ~QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_· The Wiki Puzzle Piece Award

The relevant manual pages are WP:MOVE, WP:REDIRECT, and WP:AUTOCONFIRM. --Teratornis (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

have photos etc to contribute for Steve Fossett bio re the search

I was the mentioned Public Information Officer - Maj (now Lt Col) Ryan - for the entire Fossett search.

I have photos that I could release to the Public Domain and add to the entry, but don't have a clue if they are wanted or how to do that.

If anybody would like to help, I'd appreciate it.

Lt Col Cynthia S. Ryan (email address redacted to prevent spam) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.39.176 (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having possession of photos is not as relevant to their copyright status as having created them. Did you create these photos? If not, do you have permission in writing from the creators to redistribute them freely? (Or are the photos in the public domain for another reason such as having been created by an employee of the US Federal government in the course of his or her duties?) As to whether the photos would be useful on Wikimedia Foundation projects, see Commons:Commons:Project scope. If you give us more details about what the photos depict and how they were taken (from the ground? from the air?), we can guess whether they would be relevant to an encyclopedia article. Without seeing them, I would guess they probably are relevant, given your position. Are the photos already available online somewhere? How many photos are you talking about? If the number is large, it is possible to arrange for a bulk donation to be handled automatically. Several institutions have donated large numbers of photos this way. For details about how to upload photos manually, see Commons:Commons:First steps. The best place to upload public domain photos is Wikimedia Commons, so all the WMF project sites can use them. You have to create an account on Commons to upload files there. You can also upload files to Flickr and license them freely over there. That makes them somewhat easy for experienced users to then upload them to Commons. We have bot programs to help with that. Some people find it easier to upload files to Flickr, I guess, because Flickr has far more photos than Commons. About a thousand times more. --Teratornis (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Coleman

I am aware that Gary Coleman recently passed away, but I only wanted to include an appearance he made on the TV show "Martin." He played an inmate released on parole named "MadDog No Good." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.111.226 (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the page is protected, you can make a request on the article talk page. -Reconsider ! 06:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But without a reliable published source that says that he did, that information should not be included in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't disagree with you

Can this sentence means "I did not express my opinion" or "I hold a neutral wiew"?--刻意(Kèyì) 06:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this question is a question about language usage, please ask it on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. But I can try to answer. The sentence "I didn't disagree with you" could mean either of the two sentences you mention, or neither, but it would depend on the context. Many speakers of English (or presumably, of any language) may say something that is not literally what they mean, or which does not cover all the possibilities. Precise speaking is actually a rare skill, which is part of what makes understanding sometimes difficult between strangers. Only by getting to know someone can you master their idiolect. Anyway, when someone says "I didn't disagree with you" they may or may not have expressed their opinion. If my opinion agrees with your opinion, then I can express my opinion without disagreeing with you. If I hold a neutral view, and I do not disagree with you, then you must hold a neutral view too. Since disagreement can make some people uncomfortable, they may be purposely vague about it. Politicians must also be masters of purposeful vagueness. They use glittering generalities to stir positive emotions, but try to avoid specific details that would give people something to object to. --Teratornis (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also replied to this question on here, on your English-language Wikipedia talk page. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I resize an image?

Currently I have an image with the source looking like this: [[File:Crosby Opera House. (Before 1871), by Zimmerman, Charles A., 1844-1909.png]] The problem is that the image is too big, and I would like to know how to make it smaller; and also, I would like to wrap it around a box too. I don't know how to do that either. Minima c (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the image: File:Crosby Opera House. (Before 1871), by Zimmerman, Charles A., 1844-1909.png. And how do you mean, "Make it smaller"? Do you want to display the image as a thumbnail? In that case, you would use something like [[File:Crosby Opera House. (Before 1871), by Zimmerman, Charles A., 1844-1909.png|thumb|right|caption]]. Dismas|^(talk) 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read all about it at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial -- John of Reading (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Garrett (Controversy section)

Dear Sir/madam

A suer created a page for Maltese artist Thea Garrett. Noe there is a section which is called Controversy section. There are very sensitive details there and for the sake of this Maltese artist which i own her website , it would be fair on her since this case is in court, to delete this section from her page. It is extremley important to do so since its harming her alot.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Mrs. Falzon (her mother) has already sent you an e-mail and you sent her a ticket number (#2010060210014317)

regards Mark Soler Marksoler (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BLPN is a more suitable place to address these concerns. -Reconsider ! 11:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a control issue. Marksoler (talk · contribs) has already been warned at 07:19 UTC about removal of reliably sourced material from this article, yet at 11:00 UTC he has removed the section again. WP:BLP does not mean that we do not report on issues which portray the subject of the BLP in a negative light. It means that we have to be sure to be able to verify what is said, and that it is sourced from reliable sources. The Times of Malta meets this policy easily. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in red

Some words are in red because the words don't have a page.should i keep them red or remove the [[ ]] around them?Gobbleswoggler (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. According to WP:RED, some links should left red to indicate that articles can and should be written about the subject. However, redlinks in lists (such as List of radio stations in Africa) should be avoided. TN X Man 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threats on my user page

I have reverted a users vandalism and now I have received a threatening on my user talk page. I am a bit upset about this and i want someone to ban this user. If someone looks on my history page and compares the last two revisions you can see the message. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted them (and given them a warning). Another editor, an admin, has also blocked the user responsible. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've blocked the user for 31 hours. Usually, vandalism like this can be ignored or (if persistent) reported to WP:AIV. TN X Man 15:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

linking to sub heading

I want to add some content to an article that links to Architectural drawing, but particularly to the sub-sub-sections on "Floor plan" and "Elevation". Usually to do that I would write: Architectural drawing#Floor plan|Architectural drawing enclosed in double brackets and that would link to the particular section. But that does not seem to work in this case. What do I need to do to get the links to work? 173.52.182.160 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural drawing seems to work for me. Where does the link you entered take you? TN X Man 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did not work when I tried previewing the added content, but perhaps it was just a momentary glitch in the system and I will try again. Thanks. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to use square brackets (i.e [[]]) and not regular brackets (()) or {{}}. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating an article

An article of interest to me was deleted in 2008. It has indisputably become more notable since 2008, appearing in multiple news sources. What is the proceedure for beginning the article again? Is it acceptable to just create it? SmokingNewton (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually. It's been two years and if there is significant coverage, there shouldn't be a problem. To which article were you referring? TN X Man 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a contraversial one: Andrew Schlafly, creator of Conservapedia. He's General Council of AAPS and leading their claim that Obama's healthcare is unconstitutional. He's also leading a committee to recall a senator, and he's been on the Colbert Report. Back in 2008, his notability was purely through Conservapedia and his communications with Lenski. Right now, I think his notability is established. And I think I'm a good candidate to write the initial article neutrally, fairly & with good referencing. SmokingNewton (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would certainly read through Talk:Andrew Schlafly as the article has been discussed and examined several times. However, the most recent discussion appears to have been several months ago. If any of those editors are still active, you may want to drop them a note so they can help with the article. TN X Man 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I have requested to be an administrator but no-one has opposed,supported or being neutral yet. Can someone look into this and let me know. Cheers,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see one comment so far (in the oppose section). You've done everything correctly to list the RfA, so now you just have to wait. TN X Man 17:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for comments in an RfA will probably make a few people question you. Just wait, and good luck. SmokingNewton (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uploading a new corporate logo to a company's existing article/page

Please help! I have been trying to figure out how to change my company's logo on our Wiki since it has been updated. I am a new user, i.e., I have a login but have not made any contributions yet.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlabinger (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be able to upload images until your account is autoconfirmed, which happens automatically when your account is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits. Your account is old enough, so go make more edits to anywhere on Wikipedia (including Wikipedia:Sandbox), and then you will be able to update the image. Once that happens, you will see a link that says "Upload a new version of this file" on the image page that you can use. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To upload an image (i.e. your logo), your account must be autoconfirmed, that is active for four days and made at least ten edits. Alternatively, you could post a request on the article's talk page asking another editor to upload the image for you. Finally, I would definitely encourage you to read our info on conflict of interest. While you've certainly not done anything improper, it's good to be aware that Wikipedia discourages people from editing where they have a conflict of interest. TN X Man 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I have a question regarding this, can you upload an image if you are a Confirmed user? wiooiw (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Confirmed users are the same as autoconfirmed users, but have been exempted from the normal waiting period. TN X Man 17:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No COI, I promise. I just do not yet have the rights to upload the company's new logo, and it needs to be done for branding purposes. Thanks so much for your help!Dlabinger (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have a de facto COI as it is the article about your company (note that it is not your company's page). So long as you take heed of the advice at WP:COI, you shouldn't have a problem. – ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:COM:CB#Trademarks to learn how to tell whether the logo meets the threshold of originality which would make it by default under someone's copyright. If the logo is copyrighted, then either the copyright owner must state in writing that they release the logo under a free license (see Commons:COM:OTRS), or you would have to claim a fair use rationale for it on Wikipedia. Also, if by "our Wiki" you refer to an article about the company on Wikipedia, the latter is how we like to refer to it, since Wikipedia is not Wiki. For more about the wonders of copyright law and licensing on the Wikimedia Foundation projects, see the links under Commons:COM:EIC#Copyright. If you unify your account with Special:MergeAccount, you can upload new files on Wikimedia Commons without needing to wait for autoconfirmation there. However, Commons does not accept fair use files. --Teratornis (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

templates with a number of red links

I have a question here, whether Wikipedia discourages a template with red links in majority?

I created a template to replace Template:Jiangxi which is largely redundant with Template:County-level divisions of Jiangxi. But my edit was reverted and I was told to create more articles before changing back to my version. However, I find it frequent templates with many red links on wiki, such as Template:Driving licences in Africa. Thanks.--Symane TALK 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at Wikipedia:Red link is that red links are generally not included in navigational boxes. They're not forbidden, but the reason they're not meant to be used is because navigational boxes are for finding existing articles. By the way, {{Driving licences in Africa}} may have a lot of red links but it's not used on any articles. --Mysdaao ^talk 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guideline. The key thing with redlinks in templates is their relevance. There's nothing wrong with a template having lots of redlinks as long as those redlinks are to articles which should be created and are going to be encyclopedic - see {{Dutch Windmills}} for an example of this. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that {{Colleges_and_universities_in_Maryland}} is a good example, it has two redlinks, these are for the two out of the sixteen community colleges that don't have articles yet. There is just as much likelihood of those two being good articles as the other fourteen.

Creating a red link basically amounts to telling other people to do some work for you. That's forgivable if the person who creates a red link is very new to Wikipedia and hasn't mastered the details of creating articles that stick. In that case, the new user should also list the article(s) at Wikipedia:Requested articles. For experienced users, who know perfectly well how to create new articles, why not just go ahead and create the needed articles? If the topics are clearly notable, stubs will do, and if notability is not so clear, then it only takes a few minutes to Google up some sources to establish notability. If a few minutes' searching does not turn up any reliable sources, then maybe the topic is not actually notable and we shouldn't have a red link to it. The only way to be sure we should have a red link to a topic is to do the same sort of preliminary work that you would have to do to write a start-class article. So why not just start the article? --Teratornis (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a related observation, it's odd how obviously needed articles like Wind power in Japan can remain as red links for years, while every day Wikipedia deletes hundreds if not thousands of new articles on other topics for a variety of reasons. Large numbers of people approach Wikipedia with preconceived ideas about what they want to do, instead of looking around for what needs doing. If only we could somehow redirect the efforts of our aspiring article creators away from their pre-existing interests to Wikipedia's interests. --Teratornis (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that mass creation of stubs is to be encouraged. We had huge numbers of almost useless stubs created to "blue-up" lists of rivers and all they do is discourage creation of decent articles. Rmhermen (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in full agreement with you there, Rmhermn. Had that problem with some Friesland windmills. It's not that the material isn't available there, just that it's almost exclusively in Dutch so article creation will be as and when I get round to it. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Can an administrator ban this account : 94.11.243.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism issues should really be reported at WP:AIV. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've granted the IPs request for a Wikibreak. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User account redirect to article page OK?

I've never run on to this before, but is this okay? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that redirect should be nuked. It looks like he wrote the article on his user page, and moved it to mainspace, thus creating the automatic redirect. Arakunem^Talk 19:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is, but I'm not 100% sure what is going on here. I'll copy your post over to WP:AN where more other admins will see it. Hopefully a more experienced admin than I am will be able to deal with this. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that it isn't okay, as it is both confusing and misleading (as it makes it look like Wiki Rticles is Doug Davis, unless he actually is him). In addition, WP:CNR states that the general consensus is that newly created cross-namespace redirects should be deleted. Anyway, I decided to go for it and removed the redirect from the userpage. I doubt it was done on purpose anyway - it's just the result of the article being moved. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same on the talkpage after seeing what you'd done on the user. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see it as a problem. I'm not inclined to revert, but I believe many editors redirect their userpages to bizarre places and I know of an admin whose userpgae redirects to a category. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuperHamster, I assume you realize that page is an essay, no more than a list of arguments proffered by various people? I don't know how the user who wrote that essay gets to decide what is "general consensus". Personally, I believe userspace to X-space redirects are fine, but articlespace to userspace should be deleted. But I digress. ~~More importantly, I have prodded the article because the sources provided are forums, fansites and YouTube -- hardly reliable enough to satisfy the notability guideline.~~ Xenon54 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A moot point. As I was posting that Guy deleted the article because of both A7 and an expired prod, even though the prod was only a few minutes old at that point. I'm not going to ask; it probably was an appropriate A7. Xenon54 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know it's an essay - I don't consider all essays to be complete trash, though. Not all essays are just biased and opinionated pages of content that should not be taken seriously. Perhaps it may be me over-trusting the essay, but I took it that it was right regarding what the established consensus is, based on the outcome of past discussions. In addition, if you actually look at the discussions that the statement is sourced to, you'll see that consensus was to delete cross-namespace redirects. But nonetheless, when I go to a userpage, I typically want to see a page that tells me about the user, if anything - I don't want to be redirected to an article when that's not what I want to see. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I see these I just tag them for G6 speedily deletion as housekeeping. Never been a problem. – ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the user's talk page should not be a redirect anywhere. That is was in this case, I feel, reinforces that it was not intentional, but an artifact of the page move. Arakunem^Talk 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, though (and I make no implication here, just the observation), that the user blanked the talk page, which only had a couple of deletion warnings on it, right after the redirect was removed. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

report abuse, IP issue

Hello someone in NZ has copied your website design for an anti abortion website. It gives the impression that it is a wikipedia page. http://www.exposingalranz.org.nz/index.php?title=Abortion_Law_Reform_Association_of_New_Zealand There have already been disputes with the person running this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.41.47 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This website appears to indeed be running on the same software that all the Wikimedia sites use, known as MediaWiki. It's a free software package that's distributed by MediaWiki.org and is one of the most popular Wiki software packages available and is fairly widely used. Thanks for taking the time to let us know about this though. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, it appears they are using the wiki software (which is completely OK) for their website. You can learn more about MediaWiki, which is what Wikipedia uses, in our article on the subject. Furthermore, content is allowed to be copied from Wikipedia, as long as the copier properly cites Wikipedia as the source. TN X Man 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how do i extend the width of a section. The line only goes halfway across the page

how do i extend the width of a section. The line only goes halfway across the page22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there an image above the line which is impinging on the section header? If so, adding the template {{clear}} below the last part of the section above should take care of it. It would help to provide a tailored response if you told us the name of the article and which section header you are seeing this in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below the Sports Car & nascar Results section is the Indy 500 results section and the line only goes halfway across the page causing the images in that section to stack. Same with the see also section

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

By process of elimination, it appears to be something with the {{multiple image}} template(s). I thought at first it was the HTML tables (which I replaced with wikitables) but that's not it. If you remove the two templates and hit preview, everything looks fine, but I don't know what's wrong exactly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely distorted now so would you please undo the changes you made. Thank you68.5.39.2 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken a crack at it using some {{FixBunching}} templates and moving the images around a little. It looks better, but not perfect. – ukexpat (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you have just reverted... – ukexpat (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed the problem by by changing the multiple image template to a gallery. I did this for the first template use as an example. For some reason I was reverted where I did it, but the same idea was used by the creator to fix the second use of the template. I'm a bit confused by this but looks like matters are okay now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]