Help desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

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 8

Vandalism Warning

So this may be a stupid question/in the wrong place, and if it is, I apologize, but I looked on Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism and Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace and couldn't find an answer, so I figured I'd ask here. What is the general rule on old warnings of vandalism, when it comes to escalating warnings? I'm assuming you don't just count the number of Vandalism warnings on the user's talk page and add one, because I've seen plenty of situations where a user will have ~10 warnings, spread out over a long period of time, and I've only been a registered user for 4 days. I've pretty much just been using my judgment on vandalism warnings so far, for example, going back to the low warnings if they haven't been warned in months, but if the previous warning happened on May 31 and it's now June 8, I'll usually just go up from there. Am I wrong in doing this? Is there an "expiration date," so to speak, on warnings? I haven't received any complaints yet, but I just wanted to make sure I'm not going to be going against policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstbll (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how much good faith you assume. For insane cases of vandalism, start from uw-vandalism4im. And sign your posts with ~~~~ --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the quick response. And FWIW, I know I'm supposed to sign my posts, but then I forget almost every single damn I edit a page and get really annoyed with myself. Bleh. Bstbll (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{[ec}}Other than the super insane disgusting edits (don't want to put the examples I have in mind as per WP:BEANS), what the boundary for the stuff that counts as insane, really (while keeping within the bounds of the aforementioned guideline)? Also, don't worry Bst, I do that half the time as well. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information can be found at WP:CVU.--The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template Error

Hi. Does anyone recognize the template used in this edit?. There appears to be a problem with the template. It is not properly adding </nowiki> after {{cite web}}. Besides, it would be better off using {{template|cite web}} to render the template instead of the no wiki tags. Thanks.--v/r - T P 03:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text that omitted the closing nowiki tag appears after and outside the template ending <div> tag and appears below the template's graphic borders, such that all indications are that it was tailored text added by the person who left the template and is not part of it at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It's Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no defination

Tea money, used all the time in Asia, you need a defination on this word, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.228.188 (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that they want us to write an article on tea money. Either that, or provide a definition. For that, the OP should see Wiktionary. Although, there is no definition for the phrase there either. Dismas|^(talk) 05:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed at Tea brick. I've added a redirect from Tea money to the relevant section. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Artists who performed on Rockpalast

The Rockpalast article is mainly composed of a "selected list of performers" section, and this is also the part that gets user input at all. By now it has grown to a disproportionate part of the article, and I am considering to fix that by making a new category, something like "Artists who performed on Rockpalast".

However, there aren't any categories in a similar vein (e.g. "Artists who performed on David Letterman"). So my question is, should I start a category like this? Or is there perhaps a better way to do something about the "selected list of performers" section?

Thanks! --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such a category would probably be deleted very quickly for breaching the guideline against categorising performers by performance (WP:OC#PERF). Bencherlite ^Talk 11:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to have asked then. Any other solution how i can better present the list of performers? --Eddyspeeder (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse the section in which the offending information is held? Or just delete the list altogether. I'm not convinced that on its own the list provides much useful additional information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories not showing up

Resolved

Why isn't the category being applied to Givers? The template has it in the includeonly, but when it didn't show up I added it manually and it is still not applied. —Akrabbim^talk 11:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category was there as soon as you added the deletion template, but it is a hidden category. You have to put a tick in your preferences to see those - on the "Appearance" tab, fourth checkbox in the "Advanced" section. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, thanks. This must be a new thing since the last time I was active up here. —Akrabbim^talk 13:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge users request

Hello, I am the owner of two accounts, "Mad griffith" and "Niccolo.mineo". I would like to merge them with the "Niccolo.mineo" name. I subscribed today as "Niccolo.mineo" because I couldn't find the password for the "Mad griffith" account. Can you help me please?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.213.70 (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but accounts cannot be merged, because the edits made under that account must be attributable to that account. You can place Template:Former account on the userpage of the account, for which the password has been lost in order to link it to your other account. Additionally, you can place Template:User previous account on the userpage of your new account. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awards in lead

I seem to recall viewing a page that says not to list awards in the lead sentence. Like "X is an Emmy award winning actor"....like for WP:UNDUE reasons. Does anyone know where this page is, or did I dream it? CTJF83 12:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea either, but I think you can actually list the most prominent awards, just not list all of them. Can't rightly see any reason why winning an Emmy for instance should not be mentioned (though not in the first sentence probably). Oops. My bad, you said 'lead sentence', heh. Sorry.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

;)

I'll see if other's know what I'm talking about. CTJF83 13:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that these are responsive but for what it's worth, I did a search of the Wikipedia namespace of "award winning" and found Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and Wikipedia:Red flags of non-notability.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AIL (I knew the redirect I created would come in handy one day!). – ukexpat (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AWESOME!! Thanks, you rock! Thanks also, Obsidian and Fuhghettaboutit. CTJF83 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has created an article about himself on his userpage

I'm not sure what to make of this. User:Jodywhitesides is a userpage, but the user seems to have created an article about himself as a musician on that page. He looks non-notable to me. Is it OK to create a quasi-Wikipedia article about oneself on one's userpage, one that would not pass muster if it was in article space? --Viennese Waltz 13:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just brought to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jodywhitesides...looks like borderline WP:FAKEARTICLE CTJF83 13:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. --Viennese Waltz 13:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing discussion content

Is it possible to remove/amend content on the discussion page attached to a wiki page? The content is unfounded and misleading and I think it is in the readers interest to remove/update.

Bones2608 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussions are old enough (i.e. 'stale') or are far too lengthy, you can archive the inactive parts of it. See Help:Archiving a talk page. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are NOT permitted to do is to change the wording of another contributor's comments on the talk page, as you have done today. I will revert those changes. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course permitted to reply to the other user's comments (and include references to any evidence which you believe relevant) if you wish to clarify the situation. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also restored a bit more of Bones2608's comments to the revised talk page and restored one section which had previously been improperly deleted by an IP editor. The page is too short to archive, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilt container to store material

Rebuilt container I need containers: 2.40 x 3m with doors on both long ends of the container to store materail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.152.4 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 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. TN X Man 14:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

Hello,

For some reason when i added a page, there was nowhere to put a headline/title for the artcile. I saved it but its still not showing up in a search. I'm obviously doing something wrong....help?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayesha87 (talk • contribs)

You created it on your userpage, the page where you are supposed to tell other editors about who you are and what you are hoping to accomplish here. I've moved it to Dixon Hall, the subject of the draft article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

name changes

when I signed up to Wikipedia I did not realize that my username was going to be my display name. It now shows up weird as Sabinewilhelm. I tried contacting various bureaucrats to change this, but never got a response back. How can I change this to Sabine Wilhelm?

thank you, Sabine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinewilhelm (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Changing username. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice on your userpage that you seem to be preparing an article about yourself. This is strongly discouraged here; I suggest you read Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. doomgaze (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bell (Disambiguation Page) & Sarah Palin

Somebody has written in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_(disambiguation): In the Sound and Music Section {Bell, what Paul Revere used to warn the British troops that they would "Not take our arms"} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.93.46 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for catching that. TN X Man 16:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copy/paste equations

Hello,

I am a wikipedia user and before every time I would copy a mathematical formula, I could past it in word and it would assume it as an equation. Now if I copy it is an image. Why did you change this? Is is possible to put it back again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.180.23.212 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably due to the markup being changed from HTML to TeX (see Help:Math#TeX vs HTML). Choosing between HTML and TeX markup is (unfortunately) always kind of choosing copy-and-pasteability over readability or vice versa. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you register an account you will be able to control the display of formulae via your preferences (on the second tab). You will have to experiment, because I don't know which option is best for pasting to Word. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need help moving a completed article

User:Quantify Stress/Plant stress measurement

I have edited the article, Plant stress measurement, and I believe it is now ready to be displayed. I have made more than ten edits, and my account is more than four days old. There is no move button, and th directions to request a move are difficut to follow.

Could someone please help,Quantify Stress (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would do it for you, but at the moment the tone of the article isn't quite right. It reads more like an academic paper than an encyclopedia article -- encyclopedia articles don't have headings like "What is plant stress, and why is it measured?" and "Choosing the best chlorophyll fluorescence protocol and parameter". So I would suggest that you do some more work on the tone before it is moved, otherwise it will surely be tagged with issues tags. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is "Plant stress measurement"

The question below is a general question, and the answer is provided just below it. I guess I could say overview, if that helps.

Plant stress is measured by Photosynthesis systems, chlorophyll fluorescence, and chlorophyll content meters, not just chlorophyll fluorescence.

Thanks,Quantify Stress (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the section headings that are the problem, the tone of the whole thing needs to be reviewed. – ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding it to WP:AFC when you're ready, so the people there can review it and move it for you. Quasihuman | Talk 21:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ukexpat and Quasihuman, but for a general answer to your original question see Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page. —teb728 t c 22:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entry re Edna Savage

I tried to correct the now out of date link to website listed as a primary reference. something went astray. Link should be website ednasavagememorial.webs.com

steve oxbrow, author. The entry is a precis of my site which you are still welcome to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.164.34 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the missing </ref> tag. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOW SORTED THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.164.34 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for policy re ALL CAPS

Resolved

I might be imagining it but I seem to remember a policy that said if we are referencing a source, say using {{cite web}}, whose title is all in capitals we should format them in the standard way, e.g. instead of "KITTEN FOUND UNHARMED" we should use "Kitten found unharmed". Anyone know what I'm talking about? doomgaze (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLCAPS (particularly note 1), perhaps? Another example of Wikipedia:IFYOUTYPEAPHRASEINCAPITALSSOMEONEWILLMAKEAREDIRECTTOANAPPROPRIATEPAGETOPROVIDEANANSWER. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha brilliant, nice redirect there. I didn't think to look in that section, cheers. doomgaze (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note one from WP:ALLCAPS does provide the answer, especially if you click and view the example on the bottom; however, notice that it states to change from all caps to start case. Your example should read "Kitten Found Unharmed." Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, all is clear now. doomgaze (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palin, Revere

I'm sure that you've heard this previously - but, even though I realize Wiki is a 'self-edited' site, you're NOT doing yourself, or this site any help by being listed as 'unconsciously editable.' RE: Palin fans trying to revise Revere history. This WILL come to a head. I already have come clients who will NOT allow any information - ANY - from Wiki: which makes you totally spurious. If Wiki becomes something that CAN NOT BE BELIEVED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES - traffic will minimize: thus revenue.

You should look to put a process in place that will present any spurious posts as doubtful. I realize that many of the posts look to having content verified, but for those that don't they shouldn't be allowed to post WITHOUT WIKI STRONGLY MENTIONING THAT THE CONTENT HAS TO BE VERIFIED.

Or else you'll become useless - and only add to the clutter of faux-info that's already on the net. Realizing that accuracy is NOT your forté, revenue is - and if you become a source that can not be relied upon to be truthful - even in presenting unverified source infromation - you'll become useless.

Just my thoughts...

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.180.149 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to contact Wikipeda, please use the "Contact Wikipedia" option on your left. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is entirely free; it does not generate revenue, other than through donations to the charity, Wikimedia Foundation, which supplies the servers.

There is a disclaimer and the bottom of each and every page, Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which very clearly announces that "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY".

I'm sorry, but I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what Wikipedia is; please look at WP:PILLAR. Chzz ► 00:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really do yourself a disservice by posting diatribes which include such poor information that it is evident to everyone you haven't a clue about what you're talking about. If you want to make a good point about anything then you need to know of what you speak or your point gets discounted. Since the thrust of your post is about how Wikipedia is all about making money, when Wikipedia is, in fact, a non-profit organization, with no advertisements, operating on a shoestring budget and gets its money from donations, your argument is seen as risible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And do take a good look at everyone answering questions here, or the thousands of people writing the articles themselves. All of them are unpaid volunteers (except for a very few Wikimedia Foundation employees who deal with the organizational and technical aspects of the project, rarely with content at all). We are not a group of faceless editors/executives in an office somewhere determining what should be and what shouldn't be in articles, we're ordinary people like you who donate part of our time contributing to free world knowledge. We are not obligated to do anything for anyone at all, really.

We are not employees nor public servants. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization whose projects (including the Wikipedias) are completely free. There is ZERO advertisement on all wikipedia pages. Please read what Chzz linked earlier and realize the enormity of your misconceptions about Wikipedia.

There are certain policies that ensure verifiability, but they are not always followed. And some people do use Wikipedia for unethical purposes like personal promotion. These are all forbidden under policy, but being a volunteer-driven organization we can not always keep track of all of them. Just because they exist doesn't mean we condone them, in fact a good number of volunteers dedicate themselves to removing such inappropriate edits as well as vandalism and whatnot. In such cases, unverified information can be challenged and removed. Rather than scream at us for not catering to your demands, why don't you go ahead and fix it yourself? Or try contacting the editors making those edits/raising the issues in the talk page of Paul Revere.

Also may we ask, what information exactly in the said article is incorrect? -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]