Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 March 22

Help desk
< March 21	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 22

Renaming an Article

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I took a picture here on commons commons:File:Association of Exempt Firemen Building.jpg which shows Ass'n, or association, and the article lists it as Assembly here Assembly_of_Exempt_Firemen_Building. How can I rename the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theornamentalist (talk • contribs) 03:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

To rename an article, it must be moved. Dismas|^(talk) 03:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC

never saw that there... Thank you Theornamentalist (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Page View Statistics NOT WORKING Why??

What is wrong with the page view statistics button??--Oracleofottawa (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It often disappears into thin air without warning. Check back later. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Saved edit to non-existent article

I am a new user and yesterday I experimented with my first article in the Sandbox then pushed the Save button because I thought it was ready. (It wasn't, in terms of formatting. . . but that is a different problem). I now know this was the wrong thing to do, but I don't know how to un-do it. The article did not exist before, so this was not really "an edit". When I tried to start over with "creating an article", I was told no article existed so I could go ahead, but the name of my article appeared with the word "Editing" in the title, so I could not post it. I could not change this title. It appeared automatically. I have searched but my "edit" has not become part of Wikipedia. Please advise! Karth47 (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD it. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Karth47. I'm not quite sure what happened with that edit, but, for whatever reason, nothing was saved on Wikipedia - you have no contributions, other than asking your question here. I'm sorry, I think you've lost that one.

I suggest that you create a user space draft - follow that link, and you can create a page in your user area, where you can practice and get the hang of editing pages, without affecting live articles. You could even write an article there, and ask people to check it over. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  10:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

why dont you ask the admin who deleted it to userfy it. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Karth47 shows the only saved edit by your account is the post here. As an administrator I can see the account has not edited any page that was later deleted. If you saved anything at Wikipedia:Sandbox or elsewhere then you must have been logged out at the time. The top of the edit window always says "Editing" followed by the page name no matter whether the page exists or not. When you are in the edit window you cannot change the name of the edited page. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(Yes, I did check with an admin that there were no deleted contribs on the account; I was just trying to keep my reply simple  Chzz  ►  06:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Category

Hi

I want to add a company name in Category:Companies based in Abu Dhabi, how can I do it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comma10 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to add "[[Category:Companies based in Abu Dhabi]]" to the article for the company in question. Category tags are routinely placed at the bottom of an article. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 07:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that assumes that the company already has an article here. If it doesn't, you should first check to see if it's notable enough for an article by going to WP:CORP. If it meets the requirements, then you can write a neutral and reliably sourced article about it. Dismas|^(talk) 10:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding Images

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In the middle of my article I want to add an image for some reason it comes below the text I want the logo parallel to the text on the right, how?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comma10 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a flower

It would help if you gave us the name of the article. I imagine the most likely problem is, you have not used the 'thumb' option, which specifies that a file should be a 'thumbnail' - in a box, with a caption, which is the normal style in articles. For example, [[file:Begonia_×_tuberhybrida_by_David_Besa.jpg|thumb|This is a flower]] results in the picture shown here, and the text will flow around it.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.  Chzz  ►  08:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

>> Done thanks alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comma10 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

closing user account, removing user name

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

pls advise how could i close my account "Ece Ego" from the WP and remove my user name? Thx, rgds, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecce Ego (talk • contribs) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Your account is called Ecce Ego with two 'c'. Accounts can be renamed but not deleted. See Wikipedia:Right to vanish. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As you only have six edits, including your edit to this page to ask to close your account, it's probably just easier to stop using this account (and you can even scramble the password to make sure you can't log back in again). Bencherlite^Talk 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

all right, thank you *ecce => *ego* (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Entry not showing up in search results of search engine

Hi,

I created an entry for Teachercare earlier this month. When I do a search on the internet using Google or Bing, the entry does not come up at all. How do I ensure my entry comes up in search results with Google, Bing or any other search engine.

Tdhebert (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)— Tdhebert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We have no control over search engines. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict>They take time, the search engines. They can be very slow learners:). Be patient. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

TeacherCare is both an orphan and without categories. That makes it hard for both readers and search engines to find the article. Follow the links to see what you can do, but please think of Wikipedia readers and not search engine ranking. My link here may be enough for search engines to list it within a few days. Wikipedia has no direct control over them. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the "article" reads more like an advertisement; and the main page link is not working (for me). The assertion of notability is weak to non-existent, and the article makes me suspect you work for or own the company. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. The website is also dead for me currently. The Google cache of it looks like some of the worst keyword stuffing I have seen. I guess you are the webmaster considering your interest in search engine placement. Do you really think it helps to repeat each keyword six times in a row? I hope search engines are smarter than that. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation of Personal Experience

Let's say you're starting a page about someone whose name appears in a number of Wikipedia articles but who doesn't have his own page yet (name appears in red}. Also, let's say this person is someone you grew up with, is related to you, and about whom you have knowledge from personal experience as a child, and later, as an adult. Does this information need to be cited, and if so, how would one go about doing it (preferably without revealing one's name)? Should one simply use PN for "personal knowledge," as we're not really talking about "personal knowledge management" or similar articles in Wikipedia FAQs? I should also mention that though I know the person in question I intend to keep the article neutral, simply sticking to facts.

14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taoskier (talk • contribs)

No WAY. Don't even THINK about it. You have a conflict of interest, and we do not publish original research, and just because there are redlinks does NOT mean it is notable. Unless you can find other sources, maintain a neutral point of view and prove that he is notable, youe aricle will be speedily deleted in no time. ` Kayau Voting IS evil

(edit conflict) The key criterion for information on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Unsupported personal experience cannot be verified, so it cannot be used on its own to add material to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. Citations must relate to reliable, third-party published sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Unreferenced information may be removed by any other editor at any time, and the risk of this increases in the biographies of living persons, in which accuracy and neutrality are particularly important. Also, as a friend of the subject you are strongly discouraged from writing about him, because of a potential conflict of interest. If you feel you really can write a strictly neutral article that satisfies our criteria on notability, and can muster sufficient citations to support it without drawing on personal experience, it's best to use the Wikipedia:Article wizard and create the article in your user space first, then seek feedback on it at WP:RFF before it goes live. Karenjc 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject IS notable, no question about it. Furthermore, as a former journalist, I know how to maintain a neutral point of view. There are plenty of sources in which this subject is mentioned. However, finding and citing those articles would probably take more time than I have available for this project. Perhaps Wikipedia should consider changing its policy on original research. As long as what one says about a person is true there is no problem with libel. I can see where one might have a problem with verifiability. However, unless a written source is generally acknowledged as a fair and accurate source, one still has a problem with verifiability. Just because a "fact" has been published either on the Internet or on paper does not at all guarantee accuracy. In some cases, original research, or OR in Wiki jargon, could be far more accurate than published information.

Taoskier (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend you request this article be created rather than creating it yourself, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that as encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, whereas journals, newspapers etc where journalists usually work are secondary sources. It's perfectly OK for a secondary source to publish original research, that's what they do, but it is not OK for an encyclopedia to do so. – ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Some comments on the above (sorry about the length, but I think the questioner's good faith warrants a full explanation):

• "Don't even THINK about (writing on a subject where you have a conflict of interest)."
  • Note the difference between policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. Conflict of interest is a guideline, which means it carries less force than a policy. Thus there is no absolute rule against editing articles where you have a conflict of interest. Rather, the guideline informs the potentially conflicted editor of pitfalls to avoid. Failing to avoid these pitfalls will probably result in your work getting deleted. If you are willing to risk your time being wasted, then ignore all rules may apply. Just be aware that you would have to know a lot about Wikipedia's rules to navigate the pitfalls successfully. A rough rule of thumb might be to have 5000 edits before attempting anything this tricky, but it's different for everybody.
• "There are plenty of sources in which this subject is mentioned. However, finding and citing those articles would probably take more time than I have available for this project."
  • That is why Wikipedia has 48,313,461 registered user accounts - so you don't have to do everything by yourself. Instead you can quickly write down what you recall about these sources, and make your knowledge available to other users who do have the time and motivation to dig them up. We have WikiProjects to facilitate this type of collaborative editing. Lots of people enjoy digging up sources when they know what to look for. But only you may be able to tell them what to look for, given your personal knowledge of the subject. The most important thing you bring to the table, from Wikipedia's point of view, is not your knowledge of the subject, but your knowledge of the sources about the subject. Even approximate knowledge is better than nothing, to let our fact-checkers narrow their search.
• "The subject IS notable, no question about it."
  • Unfortunately on Wikipedia there usually are questions about notability, and the burden of proof is on the contributor to demonstrate notability by citing reliable published sources. Wikipedia is not a repository of personal knowledge; it is rather an aggregation and superior organization of what has already been published elsewhere.
• "I know how to maintain a neutral point of view."
  • That is excellent. Few people come to Wikipedia with a journalist's background, and grasping WP:NPOV is a considerable hurdle for many. That is one less thing to trip you up here.
• "I can see where one might have a problem with verifiability."
  • Don't take the mistrust personally. The problem on Wikipedia is that we generally do not ask contributors to present credentials or prove their identity. As a journalist you put your name on your work, and your publisher staked its reputation on your work. The people you worked with could see who you are. On Wikipedia we don't have that. Instead, all we do is present other people's published work (in our own words), so its verifiability does not rest with the contributor. Read WP:V for the full explanation.
• "Perhaps Wikipedia should consider changing its policy on original research."
  • On Wikipedia we question everything - repeatedly. See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. Wikipedia in its current state is the result of a complex evolution that has been going on since Wikipedia started in 2001. Wikipedia is not yet perfect, but it is pretty good, and the only changes with a chance are those which would really make the site better overall. That is not the same as changes which would cater to the needs of particular people. There are thousands of other wikis, with different rules than Wikipedia. For example, see Citizendium and Wikinfo which do allow original research. For some reason, Wikipedia is more popular than any other wiki at the moment. The rules may have something to do with that, or maybe Wikipedia filled its market niche first and built unstoppable momentum. In any case, lots of people who edit on Wikipedia also edit on other wikis. This might even be partly the intent of What Wikipedia is not - someone prone to seeing ulterior motives might suspect Jimmy Wales had a hand in excluding some content from Wikipedia in part to promote his own for-profit Wikia. I don't actually believe that - it's too simplistic for starters - but the Wikimedia Foundation goes out of its way to enable other people to set up their competitors to Wikipedia by giving away the MediaWiki software. So before trying to turn the battleship here, look into the other options. For example, a growing number of City wikis have a much broader notion of "notability" for subjects particular to their geographic regions and take a looser approach to things like original research, in favor of building content as fast as possible. Wikipedia can afford to be more selective because it is the 800 pound gorilla, the big leagues of wiki editing.

--Teratornis (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I might add that Wikipedia does accept original work in the form of media files such as photographs. That's not a general-purpose way to circumvent the no original research policy, but in some cases it can almost be. You can upload some types of original work in photographic form that you might not be able to verify from a reliable published source. For example, a photograph of a building might directly show some facts about the building that haven't appeared explicitly in printed text form. In that case the photographic evidence provides the verifiability. Since most media files by other people are under copyright, Wikipedia actually invites original work from media creators. See Commons:COM:EIC#Copyright, however, for information about the copyright nightmare one has to negotiate to do this. --Teratornis (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, no aspersions are cast on you personally regarding original research/personal experience/own knowledge. But we have everything from the guy who insists that Colonel Sanders is still alive and protecting the US from aliens [1] to people edit warring over how many people attended a wrestling match. The only common ground available is WP:V - that it must have appeared in some other reliable source.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Short comment - when I said 'it' I didn't just refer to CoI, but also the others (and I'd like to say, I'd stress OR. I hate unreferenced facts.) Kayau Voting IS evil 11:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I think this user is the perfect Wikinewsian. He can maintain an NPOV, an is experienced in journalism. Since Wikinews is happy to accept original research, you simply need to learn some wiki markup, and you'll be an excellent Wikinewsian in no time, I think. Consider joining Wikinews! Kayau Voting IS evil 14:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Contributing an article

I have self-published thirty volumes of poetry and stories by a late woman writer. Because I have no idea where her work will be read after the volumes were distributed, I would like to be able to put a brief biography of her in Wikipedia to satisfy any readers who may want to know more about her.

I would compose it in MSWord, ready to be copied or transferred into the system.

I've looked through the FAQs for a clue on how to begin, but am not sure which options to use.

There is only one image, a color photo taken of her in 1985, which could be included.

Any help here will be appreciated.

16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)71.202.204.24 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can show evidence that this lady is notable in Wikipedia standards (read WP:N for more information, but basically the world must already have taken some notice of her), any article you wrote is likely to be deleted, I'm afraid. Also, you will need to create an account before you can create new articles, but that only takes a few minutes. Also, be aware that Wikipedia can't be used for advertising. Anything you said would have to adhere to a neutral point of view, and you must be prepared for other people to edit the text.

Having said all that, you will probably find the Wikipedia:Article wizard the best way to start a new article,as it gives information about the policy and style guides, as well as practical instructions. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Composing an article in Microsoft Word may not be the best approach. See Help:Editing and WP:LAYOUT for information about how we edit and lay out articles on Wikipedia. Converting a document from Word to wikitext might take so much time that it wipes out any time saved by editing in Word. Also note that starting a new article from scratch is often the worst way to get started editing on Wikipedia. There are literally dozens of problems to avoid that the new editor knows nothing about, and failing to avoid them often results in the article getting deleted. A more reliable approach is to start by making small edits to existing articles while reading the friendly manuals. Wikipedia is unlike anything most people have used before, and it takes a lot of getting used to. If you want more specific advice, you might tell us the name of this writer, so we might tell you how to find other more experienced Wikipedia editors who might help with an article about her, if she meets our notability requirements. --Teratornis (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The photograph might be problematic, depending on who owns the copyright to it. 1985 is too recent for the photograph to have automatically entered the public domain. Who was the photographer? Has the photograph been published? In what country was it taken or published? Can you get permission from the copyright owner to release the photo under a free content license such as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}? --Teratornis (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Trouble to login into my Wikipedia account - the account does not exist

I have tried to login into my account.

When I do that, a message says: "There is no user by the name "XXXX"".

I know my account was blocked (after warnings). But I am unable to login the account. Can anyone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.73.38 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't help unless you tell us the user name in question. – ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you got Caps Lock on? Usernames are case sensitive for example if I try to log in under "Jeffrey mall" (Mall with a small "m") it will tell me there is no user by this name. Being blocked doesn't prevent you from logging in but only restricts your ability to edit. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You can see the registered user names at Special:ListUsers. Are you sure the account is here at the English Wikipedia? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at other user's edits

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that I can see my own edits by clicking 'My contributions' at the top of any WP page when I'm signed in, but how do I see the list of other user's edits? Is it just not possible? I can see their user and talk pages but that's it. It's just that I'm kinda nosy sometimes but also just want to see what kind of stuff people are editing. Is it not possible just for privacy measures? It'd just be interesting for me personally. Chevymontecarlo. 20:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to Special:Contributions/USERNAME, or click "user contributions" under "toolbox" when on any of the user's userspace pages. Xenon54 / talk / 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, :Just replace the name at the end of the URL. For example, you can see my contribs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NeilN --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you forget how the link looks, go to any user page and look in the toolbox (on the left side of the page in the default skin) for a "User contributions" link for that user. Another method is to look at the history of any page; the list of contributors has a "contribs" link for each one. See Help:Contributions. Being able to track the edit histories of other users is fundamental to a wiki; without this ability, a wiki would be helpless against spam and vandalism. Edit histories let us distinguish between positive and negative contributors. --Teratornis (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Chevymontecarlo. 06:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit of curiosity

Why are some bits of blatant vandalism tagged as "removal of interwiki link" without saying the word "tag" before the tag? Could anybody give me a bit of background on this? 2D Backfire Master ^{talk, guestbook} 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please link to an example of what you mean. --Teratornis (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:Tags does not write "Tag:" before "Removal of interwiki link", for example in this page history which includes other entries saying "Tag: repeating characters", "Tag: blanking", "Tag: section blanking". I don't know whether the difference is by coincidence or deliberate design of whoever chose the messages, maybe different people. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)