Help desk
< November 12	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 14 >

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.

November 13

Weird Layout

Hey,

For some reason, about two days ago, right in the middle of going from one article to the other, wikipedia suddenly changed its layout format, reverting to what looks to be an older and less well organized layout (and less professional looking: No breaks between sections, no borders or frames, no images, and all in a single column).

Is there something wrong with the site?

Matthew Bailey ^{[details removed]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew R Bailey (talk • contribs) 06:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. Try to clear your entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with a page I started.

Help is needed for the layout for the article/page Thomas Joseph Simpson. I have all the information and photos but my is problem is technical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasJosephSimpson.D.S.M (talk • contribs) 07:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it says on your talk page, the article Thomas Joseph Simpson is liable to be subjected to speedy deletion under criterion A7, "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject.". You need to read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, and those specifically for biographies, and you would need to provide reliable sources to support the content. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is your technical problem? Unless you tell us what you think the problem is, we can't help you. —teb728 t c 10:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably also need to read the guideline on autobiographies. --ColinFine (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is unlikely the article's 90 year old subject as his other online mentions are by a relative (still COI). I have edited the article and put the (unavailable to me) RS on the talk page. Subject may meet WP:SOLDIER #5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or... As the UK copyright goes to 50 years (?), WP accesses the content at Wikipedia:London Gazette Index/19/1945#August, which should have the award listing near the end of the 14th pages, but they shut down my browser. The award citation would need to be cited or reproduced in full to demonstate the subject pivotal role. Subject's copy is a primary source, but if WP:N is met...? Dru of Id (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a citation and reference for the DSM, he was one of a number of men on various ships all awarded decorations (DSO, DSC, DSM and MiD) under the same citation. I suspect he does not meet Soldier#5 as it was not really an individual award for some action but a more general award. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PP

Where is a good wrapup on the Public Policy Initiative? Wonder how much it cost, how much "helper" time spent (in addition to students themselves), and what the results were. Was it a success (yes/no/why/how)? What worked well or bad and what do we learn from it. Was public policy a good uni subject or a bad one (for this approach) and how would things look if generalized to other fields (science, literature, history)?

Are there some good talk threads or posts on this? Here or at Meta?

Thanx...71.246.144.154 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

~~Template:Dyoh~~ CTJF83 16:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question refers to http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative. I haven't followed it but you can try looking at the links there. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Prime CTJF83 17:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You Never Can Tell (C'est La Vie)"

I always thought that the best version was by Chely Wright but today November 14, 2011 I heard a version played on our local Community Radio Station and believe me nothing beats this version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.135.40 (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question?--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 13:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rate this page."

I think Wikipedia is great. Occasionally it gets a few things wrong. Who doesn't. What I want to know is when was the "Rate this page" item added. I refer to Wiki for things I know nothing about. To find out. Why is there not a box which says "I know nothing about this subject." (Or a little or a lot".) Which is why I look things up. Come on Wiki., finish the job. Otherwise the Rating has no value at all. If you rely on machines all the time U will get misleading answers. Please please make it right. Then it will have some value. I have asked several times and don't even get a reply. You want the thing to work. We all want the thing to work. What is the problem? I wouldn't dare correct an article. I just swear at it.

Please Please make the Rating Box relevant.

Yours faithfully. D.T.Rowe.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.208.45 (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Rate this page" feature went live on September 22 last year, though to start with it was only shown on a small number of articles. It was extended to cover all articles in June/July this year. You can read more at Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool, and make comments via the talk/discussion page there. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hands Resist Him

I own the copyright to the image 'the hands resist him' I normally get requests by many people asking to for permission to use the image so I really need to add this information to the page, can I do that? according to repsonse I got below you can add it to the 'files page' is that correct? if so how do I do it?

Regards

Darren

You cannot place the copyright info in the article; you can place it on the file's page, I believe (though I don't usually edit in the File: namespace); my advice would be to ask on the Help desk, however, to make sure. Sorry I can't be of more assistance. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hands_Resist_Him — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaracenXavier (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Interesting question. I can see why you want to add the information, but I can't think of anywhere where it would be appropriate in Wikipedia. Information in articles should always be supported by published references in reliable sources. The copyright information in the "file" that Salvio is referring to is that in File:Handsresisthim.jpg, which is the copyright information for the image as used in Wikipedia: in this case, that the original is copyright, and an image is being used under a fair use rationale.

I can think of a couple of things you could do.

If you have your own website, which has a section about the painting, I think it would be appropriate to add an "External link" to it in the main article - with text to make it clear that this is the website of the owner of the copyright, not some random website that somebody has written about it (which would not be appropriate).
If you were willing to donate the copyright under a license acceptable to Wikipedia, you could follow the procedure in WP:DCM: this would involve your executing an irrevocable license to use the image for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, so it would be quite understandable if you did not wish to do this.

Perhaps other editors will have further suggestions. --ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixbunching

I've added an image to a section of Philander C. Knox, but due to some sort of problem (presumably a bunching error) it's appearing three sections below where it should. I attempted to use the {{fixbunching}} template, but upon preview I found that it no longer exists; it was deleted at TFD some months ago. How do I get the image (his house, not him with three other men) to display in the "Early life, education, and marriage" section instead of in the "U.S. Senator" section? Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't want to display the house image before an image which was placed earlier in the source code. I moved down the other image.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to get around the lack of the fixbunching template without moving images? Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bunch#Example 4 works for me in a preview test of the former article version. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{stack begin}} and {{stack end}} around the infobox and image also works for me. It probably has less risk of other editors breaking the code. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste

I want to split out Terminology_of_homosexuality#Slang_or_pejorative_terms to List of LGBT slurs in a similar that we have List of ethnic slurs. The proper way is to copy and paste it with a summary of "merged from Terminology_of_homosexuality#Slang_or_pejorative_terms", right? Been a while since I've done it. CTJF83 21:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a merge, it's a split. See Wikipedia:Splitting. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, CTJF83 22:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find cite error in article

In the article Dr. Mustafa A.G. Abushagur, there is a "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content;" message in large red font at the top. I have been unable to find any with missing text in the article, so I am unable to correct this citation error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumiea (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Goodvac (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do now

I noticed some serious factual errors in the article entitled "soldering" so I spend considerable time revising the text and submitted an update. The next day, all my changes were reversed by an editor. Since then, I've been in discussions with two editors trying to get the revisions done with no success. I've posted numerous comments on the soldering discussion page with occasional replies, but I still don't know how to get permission to make the changes. I believe the accuracy of my changes are accepted (and if not, I'd be happy to provide references). I just need an editor to review my changes and tell me what changes I can make and which are rejected and why. How do I do this?

I must say that this has been a time-consuming and frustrating process and it discourages people from trying to improve the quality of wikipedia. Thanks. Ebnpebnp (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you're doing the right thing: arguing the case on the talk page: please see WP:DR. I know little about the matters you're discussing, but it is clear to me that what you call "serious factual errors", some others do not regard as errors, or else do not regard as serious. Given that this disagreement exists, it is not surprising that the process of reaching consensus is taking some work. (I also notice that you appear to have put somebody's back up by referring to a US organisation as "the final standards authority": I see that you've subsequently looked for some European standards, but it may be, for example, that terminology actually is different in the UK from the US, or that the formal definitions are the same, but people are less careful about how they use them in the UK. This may not be the case, I'm just throwing out suggestions). Certainly Crispmuncher invited you to quote the AWS's view as one view, rather than as an authoritative statement. --ColinFine (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Yes, it is possible that EU, China, India, Russia, or even New Zealand have different terminology and I'm completely willing to add the phrase "In the U.S. . . ." But what I'm wondering is how do I get things going - its been 14 days since I last heard from the editor - should I wait longer, and how long should I wait?. I'm waiting for someone to say "yes we'll accept #1 and #3, but not #2 because . . ." Ebnpebnp (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've waited 14 days for a reply, I think it is reasonable for you to go ahead and edit the article. Take note of the other editors' concerns as far as you can, and make sure you give a useful edit comment (which should probably refer to the Talk page discussion directly). It may be that another editor will emerge from the woodwork and revert your edit, but given that you have engaged with them on the talk page, they should really continue the discussion there if they still have concerns. --ColinFine (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Rate this page."

What do I have to do to get a reply. Only wanted to improve the "Rate this page". As it stands it is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.208.45 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John of Reading has replied at your first post at #"Rate this page."

You can edit an existing section with the "[edit]" link to the right of the section heading. You can choose to ignore the feature if you don't find it useful. Logged in users have an option to disable it at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering where they can mark "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]