Help desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

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.

January 17

"Who are you to say that the author released this under CC?"

If I have an area of expertise in Wikipedia, it's not image permissions. So apologies if this is question seems silly. Commons has a template, "Template:No permission since", that's attached to files there when the uploaders have labeled them CC or PD but without adequate evidence that they (the uploaders) have the right to say this. (Typically the matter is then fixed via OTRS.) Is there a corresponding template here for the same doubts over files uploaded to Wikipedia (and not to Commons), and if so what is it? -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about {{Pufc}} or {{PD-US-suspect}}? Would either of them fit? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The former is far wider in application than what I'd been looking for but reminds me of the regular procedure here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would use {{subst:npd}} (which substs to {{di-no permission}}). —teb728 t c 06:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's just what I'd been looking for. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in the global blackout banner

How can I edit the banner? Right now it says "less then" instead of "less than", which is quite embarrassing. --Schwallex (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to see or find it. Where is it visible? Яehevkor ✉ 01:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The banner typo has been fixed and the banner is now switched off. You can see the banners at Special:NoticeTemplate. Goodvac (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA blackout

Resolved

I haven't been editing Wikipedia in a while, but with the news popping up on my newsfeed, I couldn't help but come back and see what Wikipedians are saying about the SOPA blackout. Did the Wikipedia community decide by consensus on whether it should shut down on Wednesday, or did this decision come from the WMF? Aren't people concerned that the move would contradict our behavioral and content policies, which requires us to respect the viewpoints of others? Where can I see ongoing discussion about this issue? Ragettho (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a community decision. See Wikipedia:SOPA initiative. — Edokter (talk) — 02:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly "a community decision" when only a few hundred contributors voted out of thousands whom didn't know about the discussion! Bidgee (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When there were thousands who, Bidgee. --FormerIP (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia only has under thousands contributors? Bidgee (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the amount of active contributors is rather low. The amount of very active editors (more than 100 edits per month) for en.wp is around 500 people and the total 'active' users (1 edit per month ) some 35000 users. http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/ So I think that or 3 days, that it is actually a pretty decent representation. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/. I get 35000 editors with 5+ edits per month, and 3500 with 100+. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right page for a debate about the SOPA initiative. fredgandt 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get so uptight about my questions... I was only asking you to point me to ongoing discussions that cover the topics I'm interested in. Having that debate on this page would be bad. Really bad. Ragettho (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at your talk page. fredgandt 12:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour black out is not enough

Better make it a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.241.197.165 (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, this is not the place for SOPA discussions. Try WP:SOPA RudolfRed (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do i add [by who?] to uncited parts of an article

Any help ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.131.136 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fredgandt 04:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Fred's response was that helpful. What you should do is edit the appropriate part of the article and add "{{By whom}}" immediately after the text that you consider is in need of citation. Where Fred's answer is helpful, is that it identifies several alternative templates that might also serve a similar purpose, but it does (surprisingly) leave out "{{Citation needed}}". Astronaut (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I've just fixed that seemingly obvious omission. Astronaut (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred's answer was the last waking thing he did yesterday (see edit summary). He was hoping that someone else could fill in the gaps, and they did (eventually). fredgandt 13:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venezia Giulia Police Force

Dear Sir I believe there is an anomaly in respect to the identity of Colonel Gerald Richardson. I can verify that Colonel Richardson was in fact administering the Venezia Giulia Police Force (VGPF) in the period stated and was the brainchild of the so called 'Nucleo Mobile' (NM), which was in effect a mobile police task force for Trieste in 1945-1954. The anomaly exists when you automatically click onto the reference described as 'Colonel Gerald Richardson, a former Scotland yard officer', the system takes you to a site describing Superintendent Gerald 'Gerry' Richardson (GC) (1932-1971)who was murdered in the course of his duties in the Lancashire Constabulary. The error is in the fact that Superintendent Gerald Richardson would have been 15 years old when he was appointed as administrator for the VGPF and therefore could not have been the same individual. There is also uncertainty as to the appointment date since the evidence suggests the police force was formed in 1947. I base this information on notes I gathered from my father Mr. G. Cova (1913-1995)who served as section leader of the NM under Colonel Richardson between 1947 and 1954 and developed a close working relationship and admiration for the Colonel, but obviously he would have much older than 15 years of age. The VGPF adopted the style of police uniform attributed to the typical 'London Bobby' navy blue/black outfit complete with Rounded Helmet and Acme Thunder police whistle (I have some photographs). No doubt Superintendent Gerald Richardson existed and was awarded the Gorge Cross medal but I would like to correct the inference between the two individuals and learn more about the Administrator of the VGPF and former Scotland yard officer.Hope you can clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.205.201.43 (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article so that it no longer links to the wrong Gerald Richardson. Note that it is a redlink because at the moment there is no article about the Venezia Giulia Police Force colonel. – ukexpat (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia and Wikipedia

Is there any anyone on Wikipedia with connections to someone from Wikia.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.86.13 (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales is a co-founder or founder and contributor to both sites. He's contactable at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I'm sure we could be more helpful if you tell us what you're trying to do... Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School project related Question - How should I go about this?

I apologize for the great length of the forgoing. Thanks to anyone who can help with this.

I am a college student and I am currently involved in an independent study course in Theatre in which I am contributing to theatre articles on Wikipedia. My instructor for this independent study course, who is also the instructor of my "Theatre History II" course, has suggested a kind of collaboration between the two courses in which I, as part of my independent study course, would act as a mediator for my "Theatre History II" classmates in the creation and editing of an article on Spanish Golden Age Theatre.

As I understand it, the normal method of using Wikipedia as a teaching tool, involves having the students in a particular class each make contributions separately under their own user names or through separate "IP contributions". Because this course is a Theatre History course, however, it would be potentially unfair to require students to have any familiarity with the 'content creation side' of Wikipedia. While many instances of 'using Wikipedia in the classroom' focus, to a significant extent, on familiarizing students with 'web 2.0' style collaborations and contemporary user interfaces of such collaborations, that would really be beyond the scope of a theatre history course. Instead, my instructor suggested the collaboration between myself, as part of my independent study course, and my classmates in "Theatre History II", as a way of expressing a different but similar project that he standardly assigns in "Theatre History II".

The project normally involves students 'rewriting' one of the chapters in our theatre history textbook to incorporate information or viewpoints that our textbook may have left out or covered in a biased way. It's a way of getting students to think critically about theatre history rather than relying too heavily on whatever information is presented in the most convenient sources (for example our text book). As a way of making this project more collaborative, my instructor suggested that the class could work together to contribute a Wikipedia article on the chapter that we're 'rewriting', specifically 'Spanish Golden Age Theatre', which doesn't currently have a Wikipedia article. This would also serve as a way to encourage the students in the class to use our best critical thinking in deciding how to write about "Spanish Golden Age Theatre", because we would know that whatever we write would be visible to a worldwide audience.

The problem with this plan, briefly mentioned earlier, is that it wouldn't be fair to expect students in a theatre history course to be familiar with the process of creating and editing Wikipedia articles. For this reason, and because of the independent study course I'm taking, which involves me contributing to Wikipedia's theatre articles, my instructor approached me to ask if I could serve as a mediator for my "Theatre History II" classmates in the creation and editing of an article on Spanish Golden Age Theatre. This way he wouldn't have to ask each student to either create their own user account or contribute separate "IP contributions", which, as I explained earlier, would be outside of the scope of a theatre history course.

As I understand Wikipedia's policies with regard to editing, this project, depending on how I go about it, could potentially violate (or at least bend) policies such as not sharing an account between multiple 'real world' persons or the policy against sock-puppetry. Specifically, we're probably going to break the class up into smaller groups and have each group write one of the sections (or the opening) of the article, with each member of each group having a specific task, such as finding reliable sources on their section or isolating the key ideas (into usable sentences) that explain their section's topic. After each group turns in their completed section, we would essentially have a solid encyclopedic article on Spanish Golden Age Theatre. The issue of potential Wikipedia policy violation comes up when we decide how to go about contributing that article to Wikipedia.

One solution would involve me taking all of our sections, combining them into one text file, coping and pasting that text into Wikipedia's article editing interface, adding appropriate Wikipedia specific formatting, and submitting it under my own account. The question with this solution is whether or not it violates Wikipedia's policy against sharing an account. I would be using my account as a vehicle for contributions written by others. In a way, that's the definition of sharing a user account. As a counterpoint, I wouldn't be sharing any account information with my classmates, so we really wouldn't be sharing the account in any long term sort of way; It would simply be a single instance of me facilitating their contribution. I don't favor this solution simply because, the edits marked as my contributions should be written by me. I think that's very essential to the purpose of the policy, and even a single instance of facilitating another person's contributions would be a violation of that.

The other solution would involve me creating the article, as a stub, under my own user account. Then I would take all of our sections and combine them into one text file, copy and paste that text into Wikipedia's article editing interface, add appropriate Wikipedia specific formatting, view what the page would look like using the "show preview" button to make sure it reflects the article that my class wrote together, and finally copy and paste the text in the article editing interface into an email to my instructor who would then copy and paste it into Wikipedia's article editing interface and submit it as an "IP contribution". This would avoid the issue of sharing an account, because I would only be adding my own writing under my own user account, rather than anyone else's writing. As far as I know, there isn't an equivalent principle for "IP contributions", because you can't assume that any given IP doesn't represent a network, such as a school library, that many different potential "IP contributors" would have access to. We would, however, have to make sure that each student agreed to license their work on our shared contribution under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL compatible license so that my instructor would be entitled to license the whole contribution under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL as per Wikipedia's terms of use. (Note the paragraph beginning "If you want to incorporate text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others...".)

The question for this solution, which is the solution that I favor, is whether or not it violates Wikipedia policies against sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry. It's not necessarily sock-puppetry, as I understand it, for a registered user to make some contributions under "IP contributions" rather than under their user account. Depending on how it's done, or what sort of contribution is being made, however, it could potentially be sock-puppetry. In this instance, I wouldn't even be submitting the contribution; my instructor would be. The question remains, however, or whether or not our individual decisions to contribute to "Spanish Golden Age of Theatre" are so connected to the other's decision to contribute to that (potential) article that we ought to be treated as a single user.

I would conclude that we should be treated as a single user for our 'separate' contributions to that article. Under this solution we would be two or more persons who meet in the 'real world' and decide together to contribute to an article. Not that such a 'real world' agreement would be in violation of Wikipedia policies. It simply warrants that certain precautions be taken to prevent any other potential contributors to "Spanish Golden Age Theatre" from accidentally assessing myself (under my own user account) and my instructor (under an "IP contribution") as genuinely disparate contributors. For example, if someone proposed that the article be deleted because they argue that it lacks relevance, a potential argument in the deletion debate might be that after it was created, within a matter of a few days, a completely separate "IP contributor" expanded it to a full length article. Obviously, if I were to make such an argument, it would be a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy and of sound ethics in general. But even if someone else makes the same argument, simply for lack of knowledge of our connection, it would skew the deletion debate unfairly in favor of not deleting the article.

My proposal, then, is to use the second solution that I described, while clearly marking the nature of my connection to the "IP contributor" on both contributions' edit summaries and in any 'talk page' interaction that I might engage in on the article's talk page. Would this proposal be in line with Wikipedia policy (or at least the spirit of the relevant policies)?James Fahringer (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You (sing.) can create a draftpage at User:James Fahringer/Spanish Golden Age Theatre, having others create individual accounts, logging in (edit)~~seperately~~ separately, and adding sourced content. Ask everyone to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. The article need not 'go live' until it's ready, although deletion through Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion remain possible even after years go by if there aren't many references or the article does not reflect that the subject is notable to be covered by a stand-alone article. If the article is not a WP:Hoax, is not an WP:Attack page, is WP:Notable, WP:Verifiable, and uses multiple WP:Independent WP:Reliable sources, your (pl.) article looks like it would fill a need no one else has gotten to yet. A deletion discussion might teach them more. Groups could be divided by subtopic or reference. You're right about all the hurdles you bring up. Good luck. Dru of Id (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dru of Id provides one possible solution, but I think James wants to avoid requiring the Theatre II class having to learn to use Wikipedia directly. James, I don't think you need to worry about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry when creating an article. They're really not relevant considerations in content creation. The relevant consideration is attribution. You propose having your teacher submit an edit from an IP address to avoid other students' work being inappropriately attributed to your account. I think that works, but I also think you could submit the edit from your own account, so long as you acknowledge the class in the edit summary. That's similar to the process of copying content from one Wikipedia article to another, described at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia – you use the edit summary to acknowledge the original authors of the text, thus complying with CC-BY-SA.

If "Spanish Golden Age Theatre" is the subject of a chapter of a textbook, I'd be surprised if the article were nominated for deletion, especially if you or your classmates find additional sources. Worst case scenario would be someone suggesting it should be merged into a related article.

You might want to check out Wikipedia:School and university projects, and add {{Educational assignment}} to the talk page of the article.

I think this sounds like a very promising project. Best of luck! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. When I read the response by Dru of Id (you also has my thanks, Dru of Id, for responding so quickly), I wasn't sure if I hadn't made it clear that we wanted to avoid having my classmates directly learn to use Wikipedia (seeing as how I'm the only one in a course that requires using Wikipedia), or if his alternative suggestion was meant to be read as containing an implication (by it's nature as a new alternative) that my proposal (the old alternative) would be out of line with policy.

I think I'm going to go with my proposal, even though it's a little more complicated. I'm glad that the simpler solution involving the edit summary would work, because that makes potential future collaborations with people outside of Wikipedia easier to attribute correctly. But for this edit, there's potential to create confusion with regard to how the contribution is licensed, because I generally release my contributions into the public domain, but in this instance, I wouldn't be releasing the contribution into the public domain because it's not legally mine to release. I know the clause "unless otherwise noted" is in the public domain notice for a reason, but if someone overlooked the edit summary note that my contribution to "Spanish Golden Age Theatre" represents the efforts of my entire class, and therefore isn't public domain, and then later sees my public domain notice (and potentially doesn't notice a list of exceptions that I place below it) they'd think that the contribution was public domain. At some point, I might have to add something within one of my contribution in such a way that I couldn't avoid the need to make such a note. But as long as I can avoid it, even if it's a little more difficult and even considering that most people probably don't pay attention to licensing issues, I'd rather avoid any potential confusion with regard to licensing.

As a side question, should I add {{Educational assignment}} to the articles that I edit as part of my independent study course? What about the articles that I only clean up a little bit or add sources to?James Fahringer (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't attribute in your summary, perhaps you (pl.) can turn in what you come up with together and you (sing.) can show how you changed it to avoid plagiarism concerns (the information and sources would be the same/similar). I would use the template on articles you start, significantly improve, or rescue from deletion. Minor edits are, well, minor. You can include a comment in your edit summary, disclosure on your user page would let anyone interested see it, and your contribution page shows your logged in edits. Dru of Id (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:SUP. – ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout complaint

i donated to Wikipedia but now I read you will intentionally blackout your site on Wednesday. As a paying user, I object to this. I recommend you alter your planned actions or you will lose future donations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.83.218 (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that Wikipedia should base its decisions on financial considerations alone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't beg for them. But if you are going to ask, then your donors are going to have expectations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.83.218 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A donor is not a paying user. You've given a gift, not a payment in exchange for a service. You can learn why the community supported this action by clicking the button in the banner atop this page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begging? Were you forced to donate, or did you do so through your own free will? Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that the bill(s) being protested might lead to you waking up one day and finding WP gone without warning and without a short and definite endpoint. Might be worthwhile alerting people to that problem and maybe some will take a moment to complain to those who could make that possibly happen. DMacks (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to change information in "Spoken Articles" tag in file upload?

I accidentally put the file name instead of the article title in the title spot of the "spoken articles" tag on the file upload's comments section. However, I can't find a way to change it. How can I resolve the issue? () Thank you. Rabiddog51sb (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the file page and click "Edit" at the top, and it should be clear how to make the correction. Or post again here and I'll do it for you. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) I've done it with this edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article for creation

I made Editing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Master Konstantin Kaysharov (new section) and i'm not sure that if i don't click save (because i don't believe it's ready to be published) but i just leave the page will it be saved as draft document somewhere or it will be lost? and if it will be saved where could I find it so I could work on it some more? Thank you in advanced for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstantin Kaysharov (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Konstantin Kaysharov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

By all means save the page. Pages at "Articles for creation" are draft articles which are not yet part of the encyclopedia. If you close the browser window without saving the text then it will be lost. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that the current draft is way too promotional in tone and you will need to find much better, third party, reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And please also read the guidelines on conflict of interest and WP:autobiography: writing Wikipedia articles about yourself is not forbidden, but it is strongly discouraged. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand all of the above, but the thing is that even if the Username is Konstantin Kaysharov, he didn't write the article but his team(me and other members) and I would like to know the criteria under which got the conclusion that it's a promoting material. --Konstantin Kaysharov (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)— Konstantin Kaysharov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This username, according to the e-mail they sent me, is: 1) an impersonation of a living person; 2) an account used by more than one person; and 3) an account used by persons associated with Konstantin Kaysharov to write articles promotional of him and his claims (which would explain why the deleted content was so shamelessly spammy). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like help with my biography please

I am a published poet. Many people, over the years, have said to me that I ought to have my biography on Wikipedia. I am registered blind and use magnification software/equipment. I find it extremely difficult navigating around your site using this. Is there is a chance that one of your experienced volunteer members might be interested in helping me out? If this is possible, it would be much appreciated. Thank you for your time in answering this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partake444 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, please read WP:CREATIVE the relevant guidelines on notability. If you think that you meet those guidelines, then WP:Requested articles is probably the place to ask for help. Also, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for additional guidance. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job Wikipedia!!!!

Was very excited to hear you guys are going to shut down in protest of the SOPA bill. As a long-time Wikipedia user, I applaud the guts it took to make this decision. Nice job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.23.217 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible illogical confusion over my intended (frequently used) user name.

Hello,

I intended to create an account using my personal pseudonym/username, millgate.

This was rejected as being too similar to another - apparently 'miligate'

Further checking showed only one incident of the use of the name 'miligate' and that, many years ago.

Can you please determine if this 'block' against me is spurious and, if as I assume, it is merely an old accidental typo ... can the block be cleaned up and removed, please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.62.43 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a block against you, just a protection by the system. You can go here and request an account be made for you. — Bility (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking off notations from Wiki at top of a page.

After editing the Vivid Racing page, how or when do the two notations at the top get taken off? One is about the page being an orphan and the other is about getting more links into it also.Betty Merm (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:WhatLinksHere/Vivid Racing indicates there are no incoming links from other articles, it's a dead end. You should find appropriate articles that would benefit from a link to that article, this should give you something to start with. As for the other tags the wikify tag is probably safe to remove (although some minor issues remain), the advert and conflict of interest tag should probably be discussed on the talk page. Яehevkor ✉ 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been deleted as unambiguous advertising. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout

Thank you! I applaud Wikipedia for the SOPA protest blackout. If only others like Twitter and Google had the guts to put their actions where their mouths are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.126.246 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad preview of a picture

Going to the page: File:Sykes-Picot.svg the default preview (in 533*600 pixels) does not render (only grey). Clicking on the links to view the SVG and PNGs results in viewing the proper image. How do we get the preview to display correctly?

Thanks! Viceroyvic (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Viceroyvic[reply]

I am not a svg expert, but I suspect that the file has been improperly formatted and will have to be fixed and reuploaded. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

using wikipedia in other languages

I've been able to <read> wikipedia sites in other languages-- how do i change to a font so that i can <type in> searches in another language? 67.87.24.51 (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't search for foreign language Wikipedia articles in the English Wikipedia search box, if that is what you are asking about. But you may be able to search in Google or some other search engine. If you are asking about typing non-English character in the Google (or other) search box, ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. —teb728 t c 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to enter text in another character set (e.g. for Chinese characters or a language such as ქართული) you will probably have to configure your computer to support text entry in these languages. This will depend on the operating system you have and the language/character set you want to use. You may be able configure this in Windows from the Control Panel under "Regional and Language Options" or something similar (depending on which version of Windows), but you should consult manuals or help files for your system. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of some one elses editing

Can I delete some one elses editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CKruserose (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On most pages you are physically able to. Whether you should is another matter which depends on where it is and why you want to delete it. In articles you could delete content that is unencyclopedic or unsourced or is unambiguous vandalism (but not that you simply disagree with). When you do delete, you should explain the deletion in an edit summary or in a note on the article talk page. In talk pages (except your own user talk page) you should almost never delete someone else’s post. Is that what you want to know? —teb728 t c 19:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit the article you can change the current state of the article; the previous edits will remain in the history unless the revisions are deleted by an administrator (which would still be visible to administrators) or is 'oversited' (not visible to administrators but only used in severe cases.) RJFJR (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My competitors created a wikipedia page about me with false information

My competitors created a wikipedia page about me with false information. I changed it but I am afreid they will chnage it back. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomerkamil (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "me"? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radial engine image

Hi,

I have updated the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_engine and added to Wikimedia the animation:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radial_engine_timing.gif

When shown in the Wiki page the animation does not play. How can I fix this? I suspect it is related to the resolution of the original gif file.

Thank you,

Dan --Stoianovici (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Very, very big
frame

Unfortunately, this is a known bug with the MediaWiki image resize function. Note how if I display it as a frame it will work. On the other hand, very nice job creating it! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have commented out the full size image. At least in Firefox 7, it makes the Help Desk page very, very slow to load. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, FireFox 8 at least loads the rest of the page while waiting for that monster animation to load. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to convert to and re-upload as .ogg if possible. fredgandt 23:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint against the SOPA protest?

Where in wikipedia do I go to complain about the silly SOPA protest that wikipedia wants to carry out?58.6.44.60 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action would be the place. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why no banner

Hi, I don't have this mysterious black banner that is the talk of the town right now. Is it because I'm in Australia, so I won't get the blackout?? I thought it was worldwide. IBE (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the banner was implemented quickly by re-enabling the fundraising banners. If you disabled those in your preferences you might not see the new banner unless you log out. The banner leads to this page; as explained there, the blackout will be worldwide. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or look for and delete an en.wikipedia.org cookie called centralnotice_fundraising. You may see the banner at other projects, for example simple:. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally archived news articles

In sourcing an article, I recently paid to receive a copy of a 25-year-old article from San Jose Mercury News. For citation with the article per WP:CITE#Newspaper articles, I noted the source, the date, the author, etc... but for my own edification, I placed a copy of the purchased article into an archive I created at photobucket. I have no doubt that a library somewhere likely has a microfische copy of the original newspaper, but it is not available online unless one pays. What is the policy toward linking the citation to my personal archive of the article I purchased? Or as unlikley as it is, should I simply wait and present the archive link to anyone who might chalange the information? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The personal archive is technically a copyright violation; and as such, we can't permit a link to it. There is nothing wrong with a reference to a print publication; and there is not and never will be a requirement that such a reference be backed up with a weblink of some kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Orange Mike says. However, you could provide a convenience link to where someone could obtain the article online if they are willing to pay and provide that it's for pay, i.e., add to the citation this URL in the format |url=URL address|format=payment required.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

How do you make your own page help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwell970 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Your first article. (tip: save it somewhere more than an hour before the blackout) ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 23:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a welcome template to your talk page, which contains a large number of links to various information pages around Wikipedia. fredgandt 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMER is a great place for beginners. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRC channel links

Hi. I have never participated in wiki IRC before, but before Wikipedia combusts, I would like a list of relevant IRC channels, direct link only that would be accessible via a single click from my browser without having to circumvent its settings to access. Don't link me to the IRC-freenode site, but to the page where I can join in by typing in a nickname. I would like links including those for the helpdesk, reference desk, admin, new users, and anywhere where I can discuss with possibly confused readers and other long-time editors who may want to discuss this blackout (and the future of Wikipedia). Many thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 23:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the kind of page you're looking for? It's the live chat link at the top of this page. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a channel for admins (I believe it's restricted to admins and other high-level users). - Purplewowies (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a list of WP IRC channels: Wikipedia:IRC#List of useful channels. The "connect" in superscript is the direct link to the channels. You can get other relevant ones from there. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]