Help desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

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 14

Getting article TO my sandbox, Cardiac catheterization

I thought I could get a copy of the article I want to edit ONTO my sandbox so I could polish it there. Is that not how this works? This is a class assignment and I'm not very techno-savy. Thanks! Old Barnes nurse (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, once the article is already in the article space (i.e. "live"), you just go and make changes to it you need to. You should read Wikipedia:Be bold for more information. I think it will steer you in the right direction. The sandbox is for starting new articles which don't already exist at Wikipedia. If all you want to do is fix an existing article that already exists at Wikipedia, just go fix it... --Jayron32 01:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Jayron said. In addition, if you're planning on working on the article for a little while and don't want anyone to interrupt that process, you can put the {{inuse}} template at the top of the article and hit save. Then make whatever edits you'd like to. When you're done with the work, you then remove the template so that other people know that you're no longer busy working on it. I've also put a welcome message on your talk page which has links to a number of other helpful pages on Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 01:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About your messages to me

To whom it may concern: I have received several messages from Wikipedia regarding my editing entries. Even though my edits state the truth, you have apparently decided to take the "Republican position" on the truth; this is not good, as the Conservative Right Wing and Tea Party factions have a "love/hate" relationship with the truth: they love to hate it because it doesn't support their idiocy. Also the Republican Party thinks that, not only are they entitled to their own opinions, they're entitled to their own facts. This type of thinking is (or should be) well below Wikipedia's standards. If Wikipedia doesn't support the truth, please respond by telling me so, so that I can adjust my expectations appropriately. Oh, and another thing: you keep on saying to quote a reliable source for the truth; I actually did that three times, only to have you delete it anyway. Now, if you investigate all changes made, you're checking to see if the editor is correct. So, why would I need to quote a reliable source when, 1) you're just going to delete it anyway, and, 2) you're too lazy to see if it's the truth in the first place. Regarding your "disruptive editing" claim: complete bullshit...again, if you don't put a premium on the truth, you have no business being an online encyclopedia... Finally, if you don't like people editing your articles, why do you allow people outside of your editorial board to do it in the first place? Come on, guys...less stupidity and more intelligence, please. Wikipedia users deserve no less than the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.145.42 (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the way you interpreted the warnings on your page. They were automated templates, and I believe that some of your edits were treated in a way that they shouldn't have been. Your introduction of information to Bruce Babbitt for example was not vandalism; however, I also agree with the editor in that the introduced information wasn't pertinent to the article. Now, I have zero knowledge about Bruce Babbitt, but you didn't include anything to prove why the information you provided was important. In addition, you didn't include information that verified the information as true. One important policy of Wikipedia is that verifiability is more important than truth. You may know that something is true with complete certainty, but if it cannot be verified then we cannot include it. This is because nobody has any way of knowing how correct another editor is. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for raising your concerns. I have gone back through some of your previous edits, and reviewed the message left on your talk page. Perhaps what people are referring to is the lack of sources in what appears to be original research, along with issues relating to notoriety and relevance, you can read more about this in our Manual of Style|.

I agree that the message left on your page may have been a to aggressive where a mere reminded may have sufficed. The idea behind citing reliable sources is so other users and visitors can check that the material is factual. This is highly important in an open wiki such as this, where anyone can edit content, whilst you have good intentions, it remains a disappointing fact that many people visit this wiki with the intention to alter, or insert factually incorrect information. The warning was placed on your talk page by a user, you are free to contact that user via their talk page, or you may remove it if you feel so inclined.

The official line on why to cite sources is as follows... "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable other editors and readers to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia and showing that the material is not original research. You also help readers find additional information on the subject; and you avoid committing plagiarism (by giving credit to the source of your words or ideas)."

You might want to take a look at Citing Sources and No Original Research.

We encourage people to edit, but it can take a bit of getting used to and it is in no way an easy task. I would strongly enourage you to keep editing, remembering to cite as you go. There is also your sandbox where you can test edits and features before placing them into an article.Mr.weedle (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly translated synopsis

I've been deleting a poorly translated synopsis for awhile now, giving anyone a chance to write one in their own words instead of plagiarizing it. One user keeps restoring it, even after I said that taking a foreign language synopsis and using an online translator to convert said synopsis in English and pasting it here is a no-no. Isn't plagiarism and using copyvio material against the rules? The article in question is Abismo de pasión. Platinum Star (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the plot synopsis is a translation copyvio, you should blank the section with the {{copyvio}} template (filling in the URL of the source in the template and adding </div> at the end of the section so that the whole bottom of the article isn't blanked) and then follow the instructions to list the article at WP:CP and notify the editor who added the copyvio. No one is allowed to remove the template until the article has been reviewed by one of the volunteers at WP:CP. Deor (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. It was taken from Televisa's official website. A few things aren't found in the synopsis, but everything was translated word-for-word. Platinum Star (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I blank the translated synopsis and replace it with the tag below this sentence "If a text page is a likely copyright violation, replace the text with the following:"? Platinum Star (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as I said, put </div> after the blanked content; otherwise the template will hide everything in the article below the point at which it's placed. The rest of the instructions are found at the lower right corner of the box that the template displays. (When you copy and paste the specified template into the WP:CP page for the day, you should probably add a sentence, after the template and before the tildes for your signature, that explains that the English text is a machine translation of the Spanish source you've identified.) Deor (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything taken care of. All i have to do is report said problem here. Platinum Star (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

volunteer

How do i become a Volunteer for Wikipedia and I want to contribute regularly to wikipedia by cash? my e=mail id is [deleted] and my mobile no is [deleted]. kindly reply at the earliest. Name-T S S N MANJUNATHA RAO E MAIL- [deleted] mobile-[deleted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.145.1 (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have paid contributors. Ruslik_Zero 16:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to sign up to volunteer, but there are advantages to having an account. WP:ACCOUNT Then, find an article that you want to contribute to and be bold and start editing. There's a tutorial at WP:T to help you get started. If you want to give money to Wikipedia, you need to give to it's parent, the Wikimedia Foundation. Follow the link "Donate to Wikipedia" on the left of the screen or at WP:DONATE RudolfRed (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sunsanahut (film)

Hello, this article on a Pakistani film which is expected to be released in 2012 was recently added. Is it ok please? I hope that it doesnt constitute a sort of pre-film advertisement or anything? Wasnt sure what to do and thus asking here. Would be grateful for feedback/guidance, thanks. Khani100 (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100[reply]

The first major issue I can see is that the article is sourced only to forums, which seem to be primary sources. To establish notability of the subject, you need to show coverage from reliable third party sources otherwise the article could be deleted. See WP:Notability Яehevkor ✉ 11:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks User:Rehevkor! Khani100 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100[reply]

Rugby Union Caps

When editing rugby union profiles, should the club caps/points shown be for domestic league competitions only? Or should domestic and international cups be taken into account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueFergie (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If {{Infobox rugby biography}} doesn't answer it then you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV gatekeeping

Hello. I have a question about editors' 'cartels'. The article Theism is being watched by a number of secular humanists/atheists who are collaborating as 'gatekeepers' and preventing the article from receiving a balanced treatment. I have posted a lot of information on the article's talk page explaining why the current article doesn't accord with currently accepted definitions as taught in universities around the world. The Encyclopedia Britannica and other authorities similarly present a different definition to that being currently presented in this article. The 'cartel' of 'gatekeepers' includes User:Dougweller, User:Mann jess and User:JimWae. Several months ago I tried putting some POV templates at the top of the article but was prevented from doing so by these editors who share an antipathy to theism (the belief that God exists) and do not want people to be educated in the accepted standard current definition. For what it's worth I am an internationally recognized religious studies scholar who has been invited to speak both by UNESCO and the IAHR (International Association for the History of Religions) about my work (I actually specialize in Indian religions). All I would like to do is convey the classical definiton of theism as found in the standard sources. At present there is no mention whatsoever in the main body of the article of the classical definition of theism that one finds in Britannica, Oxford Reference etc. If I attempt to edit the article I will be 'shouted down' by those editors who are watching the article to make sure it retains the cast that it currently has. Any suggestions? 81.106.127.14 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a Reliable Source for your contributions, and an encyclopida does not fit. You can also try dispute resolution. RudolfRed (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are more reliable sources than the Encyclopedia Britannica or Oxford University Press are there? 81.106.127.14 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, a secondary source is preferred. There is discussion of this in WP:RS in the section Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. (WP:RS is out guideline on Reliable Sources.) I think that would be clearer than I could make it. RJFJR (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a Section

I want to be sure that I am not causing any problems to when deleting a section. I am quite new to editing Wikipedia and its policies, and I glanced at 'Wikipedia:Blanking sections violates many policies' and now am not certain how to go about removing a section. There are two sections that I would like to delete concerning the article 'Primacy of the Bishop of Rome'.

1. The first section is 'Opposition arguments from orthodox doctrine' which has already been copied and moved to a separate article 'Eastern Orthodox opposition to the doctrine of Papal Primacy', which is referenced under 'Opposition to the doctrine->Orthodox view'. I want to remove that section since it is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRose 00 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. I started a talk page to delete a few other sections. It seemed that everyone who replied were fine with the change. Is it possible to put up a poll or note on the sections to get the reader's options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertRose 00 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's agreement onthe talk pages, and the article looks as though it is overdivided into sections. I assumeyou wouldn't be 'blanking sections' so much as simplifying the section structure of the article...can't see a problemTheLongTone (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

int:pipe-separator

Why {{int:pipe-separator}} give | on fr.wikipedia.org and {{int:dot-separator}} give only <dot-separator> ? What s wrong with fr ?--Pixeltoo (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia has defined dot-separator at MediaWiki:Dot-separator. The French Wikipedia has no page at fr:MediaWiki:Dot-separator. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does now. Pixeltoo: You really need to ask these questions on the French Wikipedia. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick answer. Could you please list me all this "separators" existing in the namespace MediaWiki ? --Pixeltoo (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean anything with "separator" in the name? A title search on separator [1] only finds MediaWiki:Pipe-separator and MediaWiki:Dot-separator with pages in the English Wikipedia. There are MediaWiki defaults at MediaWiki:colon-separator (click View source since colon is not rendered), MediaWiki:comma-separator, MediaWiki:semicolon-separator and a few others. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros

What is the point of having numerous fact checking and verification sites if none of them can answer a simple question; “Did George Soros donate $5,000,000,000 to the DNC in 2008?” I have wasted an hour searching all the sites, including this one, with endless variations of this question, with NO answers?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.24.64 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accorinding to one of the reference in George Soros, he gave 5 million in 2003 to help defeat George Bush. After that, he started his own group, so it seems unlikely he would give 1000x that amount in 2008 to the DNC. This question belongs on the reference desk RudolfRed (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia comes up with a weird blue color.

Everything under the text is showing up as a weird light blue color (hex code #A8D7F9) instead of white. I checked for viruses twice, checked the source code, nothing, checked for trouble shooting, nothing, checked around for all kinds of things and I'm finding nothing. I also changed my Chrome theme a few times to see if that was it and nothing.

I'm on Windows 7 and I use Chrome. I recently updated it yesterday, that didn't change anything. It doesn't do that on IE, but I don't use IE for anything other than a web browser to download Chrome.

It's light enough to be able to be read through, but dark enough to make it an exercise in annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.215.194 (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known bug in Google Chrome when you view Wikipedia with zoom level below 100%. You can reset to 100% with Ctrl+0 or change up and down with Ctrl++ and Ctrl+-.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect help

I redirected Chetty v Naidoo. Do I need to do something with the Talk page? I've read WP:REDIRECT, but it's not clear to me whether I have to change the class= info or do something else or do nothing (nothing seems unlikely to me). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you mean by if you “need to do something with the Talk page”, but I would think you would redirect it to the page that you redirected it to. As for your other question, I'm not sure what you mean by “class= info”. 71.146.17.18 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any explicit guideline on this, but the last bullet point at Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages seems to imply that talk pages of redirected pages should never be redirected themselves and instead the class parameter of the WikiProject template (if it exists) on the talk page should be changed to Redirect (although the few templates I checked do not have this parameter). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for the TB, Toshio. Second, although User:Ukexpat did not respond here, he edited the Talk page to change the class parameters to redirect (it talks about that in the guideline). As far as I can tell, the only effect that has is to add Category:Redirect-Class legal articles to the Talk page. I'm not quite sure what that does or why this is what should be done; the guideline doesn't say - just says to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]