Help desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

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.

August 6

Internet Explorer and Firefox

Internet Explorer 9 and Firefox 5 renders the same Wikipedia page differently. Do you notice the difference? Marthelati (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I added the thumbnail and right align parameters to your filename because it was WAY too big otherwise. Anyone may click the image to see the fullsize version. --Jayron32 05:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All browsers render pages differently; thats sorta how HTML is supposed to work; the data is going to be handled by an uncountable number of combinations of CPUs, browsers, monitors, cell phones, tablets, etc, so the HTML is designed to be readible and workable in all of those formats; the rendering is handled at the client end (i.e. on YOUR computer). The difference in this case is very subtle, it looks to be mainly a slight difference in font size causes different word wraps. Pay it no mind, it isn't an error or a problem, this is how the internet works. --Jayron32 05:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to pay it some mind. The "Search" text in the search box is gray in IE, but solid black in Firefox. Marthelati (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more direct. Are you implying that one of the search boxes doesn't work? Or that you don't think there should be pre-filled gray text in a working box? Or something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the pre-filled text "Search". Marthelati (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that you don't think the pre-filled text should be gray in Internet Explorer then this is common at many sites for text that automatically disappears when something is typed. It is called a textbox watermark. See for example http://v4.dotnettutorials.com/controls/ajax-textbox-watermark-control-tutorial-in-asp-net-using-c/ which says: "The AJAX Textbox Watermark Control is a simple control that allows greyed out text to be displayed over an empty Textbox. It is a very popular control on web forms helping to show people what to place in Textboxes without using Labels. It is a very simple setup, but it makes a site look more professional." PrimeHunter (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This time the difference is no longer subtle. The "Password blank" message in Firefox is notably larger than IE's. (IE is in normal font, while Firefox is in large font) Marthelati (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (Resign: Marthelati (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

So what's your point? Different browsers render pages differently; that's how the internet works. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug submitted on MediaZilla as bug #30265 Marthelati (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As we keep telling you, this is normal all over the Internet for browsers with different web browser engines. Please stop reporting these differences when both versions are perfectly readable. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add new article

how do I move an article from my user account to main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campionplatt (talk • contribs) 03:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:How to move a page for the short version and Wikipedia:Moving a page for the long version, though Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft is probably more what you need. As an aside, I would NOT move the text currently in your user account to the main namespace; it would pretty much get deleted instantly for this reason. Also see Wikipedia:Notability, which is VERY relevent here. --Jayron32 03:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wikipedia so slow?

I have a large number of edits to do, but I am giving up and going to bed. Every time I hit save, it says "waiting for en.wikipedia.org" and that message stays up for 55 seconds. Did someone forget to feed the squirrels who run in the treadmill which powers the servers? Is there a virus, or is the system broken down? A world class computer project would not have such a delay for every edit. I have a broadband connection, but I might as well have a 300 baud modem (I had one once, and I think things went faster than with the present system.)Edison (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a problem at your end, and not Wikipedia. I, for one, am not having any troubles you are describing, so it doesn't sound like a Wikipedia problem at all. You may want to contact your ISP if this sort of thing continues. --Jayron32 04:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wikipedia actually uses Red pandas for the treadmills, since the feed is cheaper. I have a pathetic connection from a pathetic ISP, but I'm not getting more than a second or two delay. It might just be on your end. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we used Wikipedians who are enslaved by Jimbo Wales to power it? :P Anyway, I think its more because of all the edits being made at once causing the lag. I mean, I live in Florida, where the enwiki server(s) are supposedly located, and I get a bit of lag. And I have a connection to the internet that is 1.6 MB/s max, according to Steam. You read right, I said MB instead of Mb. LikeLakers2 (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell am I banned in IRC???

The first time I tried I got a message Steven_Zhang kicked Surajt88. The second time I got this: #wikipedia-en-help Cannot join channel (+b) - you are banned. I have received some pretty insulting remarks there in the past, but this is a bit off the limit. Suraj T 04:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked Steven Zhang on his talk page? --Jayron32 04:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia proper, unfortunately and stupidly enough, has no control over its IRC channels. I've alerted Steven to this thread. That being said, the reason he gave leads me to believe that the boot itself was good, although you might be caught in it for the wrong reason. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an op in the channel, I have been dealing with a banned user, Thepoliticalmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been abusing the webchat connection and evading their K-line. Due to the account name (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Surasaman) as well as the IP range looking similar, and this user trolling in IRC a lot, I jumped the gun and placed a ban. I have lifted it pending information from a checkuser. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask him yet as his talk page notified he's offline. Anyway the problem I had is being discussed here. I'll proceed to ask him now. Thanks for the prompt response. Suraj T 05:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed with Steven Zhang regarding this issue here. Thanks for the response. Suraj T 05:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for placing the kick ban were 1) Almost identical username to previous usernames TPM used on wiki in previous accounts, and their email and b) Similar IP range in the web chat when both TPM and and the above user entered the channel. As TPM edited from the UK, it appears at times they have used open proxies to conceal their IP through web chat, and this was the reason for my pre-emptive ban. I unreservedly apologise and of course have lifted the ban. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Steven Zhang. Suraj T 06:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help finding anything on vixon Ayala

--184.223.130.200 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, this page is for questions related to the use of Wikipedia, not general knowledge questions. Try using the search box at the top of every page to find the information you're looking for or check out the Reference Desk. Good luck. RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hello, Please help to correct the erroneous information that is being broadcast on my Wikipedia page, under the actress Michele Santopietro. It states that I was born on a date that is not correct. Thank you so much for removing it.

Sincerely, Michele Santopietro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santopietro7 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information was removed from Michele Santopietro. GB fan please review my editing 11:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santopietro7, thanks for letting us know. If you have further concerns, the information in WP:FEFS might be helpful. Cheers, Chzz ► 13:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language redirects

Is it allowed to create foreign language redirects? What I think of is for example redirecting Erdbeben, which is the German word for earthquake, to the article Earthquake. I looked at WP:RDR but did not find a specific answer. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think generally not. The point of a redirect is for plausible search items that someone might enter, and while it is conceivable someone may forget they are at the English Wikipedia and type in a word in another language, I would expect that to be rare, and a mistake. If it were allowed, it would open the floodgates to hundreds of millions of possibilities (3.7 million x number of languages). A possible exception might occur whether the English language word is very close to the foreign word, and both are used commonly. --SPhilbrick T 12:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense overrules any policy here. If a foreign word was used a little in the English-speaking world, then this might be appropriate - after all, redirects are cheap. For example, I have seen the word Gedankenexperiment used in Western literature, so it is reasonable to consider someone might search on it.

However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is the English Wikipedia, so adding redirects from every word, in every language, would be highly disruptive; it would flood searches with terms that were mostly unhelpful.

In the specific case of Erdbeben, I cannot imagine a Western non-specialist publication using the term without explaining it, so I think it an unlikely search-term. It probably would not be deleted if made - Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#When should we delete a redirect? is quite easy-going. But, I don't recommend making it (unless you really do think English-speakers would be searching for it).

There is a semi-related discussion, which contains further comments on the topic, and links to others, here. Chzz ► 13:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I routinely come across and do some foreign language redirects myself to biological taxa. Even in countries like ours where English is also one of the official languages, common names for animals and plants in other countries generally do not coincide with American common names. Especially if the taxa are not native to majority English-speaking countries, the local common names (which could also be in English) would then actually have wider usage. Local academic papers are also more likely to use local common names than foreign ones for native or naturalized species. Examples include Nangka, Gumamela, Hagonoy, Siriguelas, Kalabasa, Makopa, Ilang-ilang, etc. But yeah... that's a different matter than 'earthquake' though.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about thevenin theorem

why the value of thevenin voltage is zero in case there is no independent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.101.227 (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Thevenin's theorem and if you still have questions, ask again at the Reference desk. This page is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 14:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belly amphora and wierd title

Actually trying to edit an article about Physics I got waylaid checking other articles for information and ended up in Archaic Greece! So, this is how I ended up at Andokides and Andokides painter and, finally, Belly Amphora by the Andokides Painter (Munich 2301).
As this was a link at the bottom of the AP article I was just going to decaps it when I realized it was a WP article, so can some more expert eyes give their opinion, or do something. Firstly, I doubt that the title is a proper wiki title, what with catalogue no. and all, I was going to pagemove to a decappsed version but figured that this title is a no-no. Also it is totally unreffed (added tag) and about 4 times longer than the article on the actual potter, Andokides. And, is it notable? I mean does Wikipedia have articles on this sort of thing, it's not the Venus de Milo or anything. Feedback? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't unique. One of the others in Category:Individual ancient Greek vases is Oinochoe by the Shuvalov Painter (Berlin F2414). And the German version of the category not only has those two but 5 or 6 others that are almost that bad. And going from the German to the Greek on one of those articles leads to *quite* a few works of art with that sort of denotative description in parentheses.( el:Κατηγορία:Εθνικό_Αρχαιολογικό_Μουσείο for example.) I'd drop a question on WP:Art and let them know including the fact that it needs references, but I would definitely *not* support either changing the case or deleting it.Naraht (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the case change is obvious, amphora and painter to conform to MoS, I was wondering about the cat ref in the title, appears bizarre to me. And as for other stuff exists, this is no justification for keeping it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Belly Amphora.

In the same way, we have an article called Love Me Do. We don't call it Love Me Do by The Beatles (Parlophone R4949). We only add disambiguations where necessary, and I don't know of another "Belly Amphora".

It is, of course, unreferenced and probably original research. Chzz ► 17:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't like the new title. A "belly amphora" is any amphora having this shape (see eg [1]). The Wikipedia article is about a specific example. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I just wanted to throw some light on it, should be "Belly amphora" btw, but thanks at least for doing something. So is it OR, does it deserve to stay? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free

Can I upload media that I created myself and is free content or public domain to Wikipedia and use {{Non-free use rationale}} to fool other that they are non-free? Marthelati (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Resign: Marthelati (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this would be possible, as such media would be likely to fail WP:NFC Policy 1.. Furthermore I guess this could get you blocked as a preventive measure (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Blocks should be preventative). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Marthelati: More to the point, see WP:POINT. We're here to build a good encyclopedia, not try to pull tricks or "fool people" into thinking anything. If you do not share the goals that Wikipedia has set out, this is not the place for you. --Jayron32 16:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Marthelati: An additional comment: You say "...that I created myself and is free content...". Unless you do explicitly release that media under a free license, it is in fact NOT free content, as you hold the copyright for it. You could of course add your own non-free media to an article on Wikipedia, if you can demonstrate it satisfies Wikipedias Non-free content policy (see WP:NFC#Policy). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is true. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images, which says, "All user-created images must be licensed under a free license, such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license, or released into the public domain, which removes all copyright and licensing restrictions." —Bkell (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I said above is true. Wikipedia cannot force anybody to release their own content under a free license. If I create an image and choose, not to release it under a free license, I can still use it if it satisfies Wikipedias non-free content policy. Of course Wikipedia encourages users to create free content, as we want to build a free encyclopedia. If I choose not to do this, then it will not count as "user-created image", although (technically) it is. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange interpretation of the phrase "user-created image". If you are interpreting "user-created image" to mean "a freely-licensed image created by a Wikipedia user", then that sentence from the image use policy is meaningless. —Bkell (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense of Wikipedia, a "user-created image" is always released under a free license. An image that I create myself, however, is not necessarily a "user-created image". Note that "user-created image" in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the term is not identical to the inherent meaning of the term. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if that's the case, then that sentence from the image use policy is meaningless. Why does the image use policy say, "All user-created images must be licensed under a free license…"? If the phrase "user-created image" is to be interpreted to mean a freely-licensed image, then all that sentence says is, "All freely-licensed images must be licensed under a free license," so what's the point? —Bkell (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the word must. All images which I create myself AND release under a free license are (by the definition) user created images. However, how would Wikipedia force me to release my images under a free license? If I choose indeed not to do this, it is no longer a "user-created image", but I am still able to use my own image under WP:NFC, provided I am able to include a valid rationale. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly Wikipedia cannot force you to release your image under a free license. However, Wikipedia can refuse to accept contributions from you that are not freely licensed. I think that is what the sentence from the image use policy is saying. Your interpretation of the phrase "user-created image" makes the sentence from the image use policy nonsensical (or at best tautological), so it is difficult for me to accept that interpretation as valid. Can you point me to a page explaining that the phrase "user-created image" means what you say it means? Otherwise I am strongly inclined to interpret "user-created image" to mean "an image created by a user", which is clearly what the words themselves are saying, and which would make this sentence I've quoted from the image use policy meaningful. —Bkell (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Wikipedia refuse my contribution, if I can provide a valid rationale? Per the phrase "Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images. All user-created images must be licensed under a free license." at WP:IUP#User-created images, a user created image is one that the user uploaded himself under a free license. That means, Wikipedia prohibits users to upload their own images under any other than a free license, but that does not prohibit one to use ones own images in accordance with WP:NFC. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#"All user-created images must be licensed under a free license", which seems to be a more appropriate venue and where it will hopefully draw discussion from a wider group of contributors. —Bkell (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish to release the full resolution/high quality image to the public, a possible workaround is to upload a lower resolution/lower quality/portion image of it and release it for free. That way you still retain copyright to the larger original image.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love this idea - yes of course you could offer your pictures under a non free license, there is a lot of support in a section of users for non free pictures being better than nothing/completely acceptable - (although this is against the foundations objective as regards commons compatible files) and what have you lost if the picture is deleted, nothing. As Obsidian soul also suggests - release in as a thumbnail. - this will not devalue your image and yet promote it through non free use and high profile viewing figures via wikipeidia, this may also result in increasing the copyright value and profile of your pictures. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exact copying from Government forms OK?

Let's say that the US Federal Government puts out a new 1040-Q tax form to be used only by people for whom both parents have worked as Clowns in the United States. The Instructions sheet for the 1040-Q lists in bulletpoint fashion, what must be true for those filing a 1040-Q form. Is it OK to copy that information directly to IRS tax forms or must some effort be made to rephrase? Similarly if there is prose description of why those people should fill out a 1040-Q form, would that be acceptible to include? I'm trying to get a limit on how much text (if phrased appropriately for the article) can be copied. I know that there aren't copyright issues, but how much text would be reasonable? I guess if it is *huge* it could go to Wikisource, right?Naraht (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a form of quotation, WP:QUOTEFARM applies. The 'reasonable amount' would be, whatever helped understanding for the topic - and would be somewhat dependent on the non-copied content (ie, in proportion) - for example, in almost all cases, the lyrics of a song or words of a poem are not considered acceptable but, in a long article which analyses each line, it can be - e.g. I think Kubla Khan is OK.

Most important is, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

From the sounds of your question, it'd be very excessive to quote the whole thing; instead, we should describe the tax, with reference to independent sources. "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." - WP:PSTS. HTH, Chzz ► 17:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about content that might well be violative of WP:NOT#HOWTO, since we are not interested in hosting a tax manual in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, tax manuals were the first thing that I thought of. The *real* reason I asked the question is at Social security number, the last part of Structure on the effects of SSN randomization appears to be identical (other than shifting from bullets to numbers) to the words in the referenced page on socialsecurity.gov. It is about 6-7 lines all told. Keep as it is, or do we need to rephrase/reduce?Naraht (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's public-domain text, so no problem there. I don't think it's particularly excessive, in that case; it could be re-worded. One thing needs fixing - the tense; it says, SSN randomization will affect, It will eliminate - but apparently has already happened, back in June. Chzz ► 18:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locating records from Moryn, Poland

Moryn is in Gryfino county and so are Cedynia, Chojna and Mieszk0wice. I am looking for records of the Church of the Holy Spirit in Moryn or if there is a church in the other villages what are the names? The dates are from 1830 to 1874. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.152.172 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Humanities reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.^Avic _ennasis @ 21:06, 6 Av 5771 / 6 August 2011 (UTC)

posting box

i cannot find a posting box to ask a question on the referencedesk./216.31.235.194 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC){also,iforget correct terms to describe things,ie.posying box}[reply]

Do you mean the page Wikipedia:Reference desk? You have to click on one of the blue links in the box underneath the phrase "For information on any topic, choose a category for your question:". Then you will arrive at a "Desk" similar in appearance to this one. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i want to make my artcle permanent

i edited a topic and now i dont want anyone to change it or edit it, how can i do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by الحقيقة و معي الله (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you can't. All articles in Wikipedia are available for others to edit. Some are protected but they are still available to edit by asking for changes on the article's talk page. GB fan please review my editing 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

publishing a specialized resume

Hi all,

I was wondering if it's possible to publish a spicialized resume or curriculum vitae about myself.

I am a scientist dealing with atmospheric chemistry and climate change. I would like to put attention on the different steps I had to go trough to get a global knowledge for understanding the main phenomena behind atmospheric chemistry. It is not possible to get formation on that matter in only one institute, but it is necessary to know how several research worldwide groups work on the subject. I studied and worked in Italy, Switzerland, USA and Belgium to learn and get my knowledge on the matter.

I am a clear example of multitask and interdisciplinary scientist who wants to explore all sides of environmental physical-chemistry. With my ever increasing knowledge in experimental work, satellite remote sensing, general modeling and European Policies for air pollution, I’m contributing to the international scientific literature in these fields.

My determination in the achievement of goals could be taken as a precious example for most of people working in scientific fields.Karafede (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can publish all of that, just not at Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more information. You should also read Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for ways to get your CV published outside of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 21:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not here at Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Dismas|^(talk) 21:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, please read What Wikipedia is not. You could always check monster.com. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]