Help desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 12

Chemspider, pubchem, CAS. Are they reliable sources?

Of course, MoS doesn't give much (any) info about this. But I would like to know whether they are reliable sources from which information can be obtained. I mean, like the IUPAC name, melting point, BP, etc. Note that Wpedia worships them all, still there are plenty of compound which needs citations for IUPAC names and synonyms.

Also suppose that I found a missing or incorrect Chemspider ID or likewise things of Pubchem and CAS, shall I change it correctly. There is Chembot, so is it needed to add a reference to the chemspider itself for citing its own ID for a compound.Vanischenu m^Talk 00:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pubchem is run by NIH / NCBI and is definitely a reliable source, the same as their other databases like pubmed and omim. I have never used chemspider but given that it's owned by Royal Society of Chemistry I would say it's a reliable source. CAS is part of the American Chemical Society and are responsible for assigning CAS registry numbers which I've used in the past as part of my job, so it's definitely a reliable source as well. You could ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as well if you're still not sure. It's always possible that there could be missing or incorrect information here on Wikipedia and if you come across it you should try to correct it or leave a note on the talk page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind reply. Now I can give citation for those IUPAC names and synonyms. But I still doesn't understand why there are hidden categories named Chemical pages needing a CAS Registry Number and Chemical pages needing a ChemSpiderID. Shall I put the IDs myself? Or will it be done by ChemBot?Vanischenu m^Talk 10:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think those categories are automatically created if the ids are missing from the infobox. I found this project page, they might be able to give you more information on adding the IDs and what the ChemBot is doing at the moment. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had read this earlier, but at that time, I failed to understand. Now I read it carefully and I got it almost right. Thank you so much. So it is our duty to change the information to correct value while the Bot verifies it. But along with this the article also says that the Bot will try to add, update and/or check as a number of other identifiers (InChI, InChIKey) by comparison of the data with the ChemSpider website. I am a little confused at that pointVanischenu m^Talk 22:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Boeing 777 (or other commercial aircraft for that matter)

Lots of technical data which interests me, but no mention of passenger comfort.

What is the noise level in the passnger cabin at cruise as compared to other equivalent aircraft? The quietest aircraft I ever flew on was an Airbus A340, the 777 was distinctly louder.

How about cabin altitude during cruise? What's typical, is it adjustable?

And also relative humidity? Do I arrive parched and dehydrated? Especially on a long flight.

Compare these critical passenger comfort factors, if possible.

Respectfully, Frank............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.25.148 (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. RudolfRed (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're asking for improvements to particular articles. The best place to ask this is in the article's talk page Talk:Boeing 777, or (since you're talking about a class of article) at WP:WikiProject Aircraft. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lexisnexis a valid source to use to make an edit on a page?

Mattsky (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lexis/Nexis covers a lot of territory. Can you be more specific about what you're planning to cite to verify what content?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Wikipedia's use of sources depends on the author, the article, where the article is published, how it is archived, what encyclopaedia article the source is being used for, and what claim the source supports. Lexisnexis is a search system for a variety of publications containing a wide variety of articles. See The Reliable Sources Noticeboard and ask a specific question regarding a specific source in a specific article for a specific claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, LexisNexis itself isn't a good source, because search tools aren't the type of sources that we use to write an encyclopedia. However, many of the periodicals that LexisNexis indexes are very good sources; I'm not familiar with it enough to be sure, but I'd expect that there are not-so-good sources also included. Please be careful and use sources wisely — that's the biggest and most important part. Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delays in updated posts/publishing

I've noticed the past 2 days updates to articles can take over an hour to be incorporated into Wikipedia. I find this troubling at best, mostly a nuisance, and warily a step toward censorship.

Why have updates that I and other editors been delayed in the system??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 03:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a technical issue I'm unaware of, any update you make will take effect immediately. It could be some reverted your edit, or your cache needs to be refreshed. CTJF83 03:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have edited some portal pages which are transcluded in other pages. In such cases it sometimes takes time before the other pages are updated. You can purge them to force an update. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still noticing a lag in posts including the 'current events' page. In the years I've edited here I've never had any such issues before, just outta the blue this past week. I post and it's not listed or reflected in the article or history sometimes for over an hour. This can be very irritating if one wants to do a revision soon after a post. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

today I noticed other editor responses on talk pages lagging for long intervals. In my experience this is new and undesired to Wikipedia. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retreiving a draft article

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and started working on an article yesterday but it was not ready for review so I did not publish it but saved the draft (I thought?) and now I cant find it. Any tips on how to retrieve my article?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarajp (talk • contribs) 05:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you create it with your current account? Because it isn't showing up in your contributions to Wikipedia. Perhaps you forgot to save it. If you did, your work is probably lost, and will need to be recreated. If that is the case, please be sure to use the "save page" button to save it. If you use the "show preview" button, the file will not be saved until you press the "save page" button. --Jayron32 05:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to work on a draft article is in your userspace. We have an Article wizard that can help you start a draft (when you save using this program, select the option to save in a user sandbox space). We also have guidance at Wikipedia:Your first article. Ka renjc 05:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add a page about my company?

We are trying to create a page for our company, while being as neutral and factually correct as possible. We see plenty examples of other companies that have done this on Wikipedia, such as SugarCRM, Guidewire, Accenture, IBM, and Adobe. In the absence of any externally published information about our company (we are relatively new), what do we have to do to publish a page about our company without it getting flagged for deletion? It is not at all our intent to use it for marketing purposes, it is just to provide a quick and informational summary about our company on the very effective database that is Wikipedia. We welcome any suggestions and tips! Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBaoTech (talk • contribs) 05:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, make sure your company meets the guidelines for being notable. Then, find some reliable sources. You can then request an article at WP:REQ, in your request explain why you think the company is notable and provide the reliable sources you found. You can also write it yourself, but this is not recommended due to the conflict of interest. RudolfRed (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) After you read the page on our conflict of interest policy, you can go to WP:AFC. Here you can write a page, and someone else will review it and either decide that it's good or point out problems before it becomes an article. Please be careful to provide citations to multiple reliable sources when writing the article. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is something you have incorrect. IBM did not add the article about IBM to Wikipedia, any more than George Washington wrote the article about George Washington. People wholly unconnected to IBM (and those other companies) have added those articles. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Companys and their employees are not supposed to have any control at all over Wikipedia articles about them. That's because Wikipedia's interest is in publishing works which are neutral and based on independent, reliable sources. If there are no independent reliable sources on your newly created company, there won't be any article at Wikipedia until such sources exist. Furthermore, no one associated with your company should be creating or editing any article about your company. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. --Jayron32 05:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - "In the absence of any externally published information about our company (we are relatively new), what do we have to do to publish a page about our company without it getting flagged for deletion?"

Answer - Without such sources an article cannot be written. Comparing yourself to the likes of IBM is useless - IBM is over 100 years old, the books, chapters and articles that have been written about it (by outsiders) can fill a substantial library. Roger (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One additional problem: If the name of the company is EBaoTech, that username is not allowed. If you want to continue to edit on Wikipedia, follow the advice here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

additional mathematics

I am a grade 10 learner.I have just recently heard about additional maths and its many benefits.I do very well at core math.so I wanted to know if I would cope with additional math if I took it in the middel of grade 1093.186.16.243 (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the page for asking about how to use or edit Wikipedia. You might ask at the Reference Desk, but I doubt that anybody here can give you better advice than the people at your school, since they are the people who know you and your capabilities, and the syllabus of the courses. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Ladd Betts Article

In your history about Edward Ladd Betts you refer to the fact that he married the daughter of Sir Samuel Morton Peto. This is incorrect.

He married the SISTER of Sir Samuel Morton Peto and NOT his daughter.

I am his great grandson and have all the family information. There are several sites which refer to the fact that he married Samuel Morton Peto's daughter - obviously all copying each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.225.118.168 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which page are you referring to? Edward Betts has not been edited since April and says "In 1843, Betts married the sister of another railway contractor, Samuel Morton Peto. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can identify the place where this mistake appears (and it's on Wikipedia) you can change it to say it was the sister and copy the source and formatting I just added to the main article on Edward Betts, verifying that fact. I cannot find where the actual mistake appears.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub RAF West Kirby

I made an expansion to this stub, as per your request. But I now need to correct a couple of minor typos and slightly improve grammar by making paragraphs. But I can not now find the "edit" bar in order to get back into the text of the article to enable me to do so? The only edit bars I can see are for REFERENCES and EXTERNAL SOURCES but no edit click on bar appears at the top to enable me to get into the text. Is there some fault on your software? Yours etc. Daviddru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddru (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the left-most tab attached to the upper right with the Search box and the magnifying glass. Dru of Id (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page, above the article's title, there should be a link for (aptly enough) "edit" right next the the "read tab". The editing tabs that appear in the side of articles are for section editing but there isn't one by default for the first section (though this can be turned on in preferences). You can also click on one of the side links and then change the end of the url in your address bar to section=0 to edit the first section, or you can take out the section extension entirely from the url and that is the same url as provided when you click on the main edit button. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:non-free content review

This was recently nominated for deletion, although tagging it as "historical" was the main purpose. There were concerns of very low traffic of this page, and people used it as an excuse to propose mergers. Nevertheless, I believe that it could be useful as an alternative to deletion or as a pre-deletion. I don't want it to become historical... yet. I want this page to be more useful than it is now, but I don't know where else to turn. I have yet to find an idea about what to do with this page about non-free image reviews. People say that it is redundant to WP:FFD and WP:PUF. I don't know what to say, but I'm torn. --George Ho (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to make the page historical was a community decision that was achieved through a discussion leading to consensus. As such, you would be operating in opposition to the community if you were to continue using it. The proper way to handle this is to bring your case in favor of it before Deletion Review. I haven't looked at the deletion discussion myself, but you should make sure you can address the issue(s) centrally underlying the decision to delete prior to filing with Deletion Review as a single voice of opposition isn't enough to overturn a community decision unless there is a solid basis to the argument. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. I'm not nominating it for deletion. Actually, to what page must I turn to make this page stronger and busier? --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it hasn't been tagged as historical yet, it looks to me like the result of the Deletion Discussion was that the page should be made a historical page. Historical pages are not intended to be made stronger and busier. If you want to contest the decision to make the page historical then I think the place to go is Deletion Review. Deletion Review is a place to discuss the reversing or modifying of decisions made during a Deletion discussion. Alternately, you can try to re-propose its use or re-promote it by following the steps outlines here. -Thibbs (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox issues

On my user page, my committed identity template overlaps my user language template. I've tried adding <br>, but it didn't seem to do anything. How would I push the babel template down?—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what effect you're going for, but it will appear below the "girfriendwish" template if you add {{-}} immediately above the committed identity template. Let us know if that solved the problem. -Thibbs (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I just noticed that I forgot the word overlaps, so the problem wasn't clear. I'm currently testing that {{-}} out.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up simply placing the committed identity template at the bottom of my page, as it made things much easier, and it looks better anyways.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literature reference incorrect in literature list

In Osmotic power there is an error regarding 2 references 12 and 14 to one of my publications. I read : 12 (Brauns, E. “Toward a worldwide sustainable and simultaneous large-scale production of renewable energy and potable water trough salinity gradient power by combining reversed electrodialysis and solar power?” Environmental Process and Technology. Jan 2007. 312-323.) 14 (Brauns, E. “Toward a worldwide sustainable and simultaneous large-scale production of renewable energy and potable water through salinity gradient power by combining reversed electrodialysis and solar power?.” Environmental Process and Technology. Jan 2007. 312-323.)

The Journal "Environmental Process and Technology" referenced to and the year is however not correct. The correct Journal is "Desalination" and so the correct reference is :

Brauns, E. “Towards a worldwide sustainable and simultaneous large-scale production of renewable energy and potable water trough salinity gradient power by combining reversed electrodialysis and solar power?” Desalination 219 (2008) 312-323

Please correct this in ref 12 and 14

regards

Etienne Brauns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.191.242 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it [1]? (My computer is on pdf strike). Dru of Id (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the content on the google search

I've updated some information for my page (Children's Museum of Houston), but when you Google it, the snippet in the Google box on the right has the old information presented (taken from Wikipedia). How can I update that to show the new information I've put in? Is this more of a Google issue than a Wikipedia issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.252.66 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Google usually takes a few days to update information based on Wikipedia; but if they don't update it, we as Wikipedia editors can't do anything about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Google shows the article is the least of your concerns. First, I have removed the advertising puff which you added (assuming you are User:CMHouston). Secondly, it is not "your" page (see WP:OWN). If you are that user, you should not be editing this article at all (see WP:COI), and your username is possibly contrary to Wikipedia's username policy. Finally, the article has no independent references at all, and thus does not establish that the subject is notable .(I am not saying that it is not notable, but that the article does not demonstrate that it is.) I have tagged the article for these issues.

My advice to you is to read the links I have given, and then start looking for independent reliable sources that discuss the museum, and post them on the article's talk page, so that somebody other than you can add them to the article, and thus take it out of the liable-to-be-deleted realm. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Children's Museum of Houston did have a reference from the Chronicle of Philanthropy and I just added another from Parents. It appears to be notable with references from national publications. 72Dino (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the path name of an article on Wikipedia

Hi,

I know how to edit an article on Wikipedia but I don't know how I change the path name of an article. The issue is with this article: St Francis D'Assisi High school. As you may notice, I'd like for the word "school" at the end of the path name to be uppercased to "School" thereby making it St Francis D'Assisi High School but I'm not too sure how to go about doing that. The reason I want this done is on Facebook it shows the school lower-cased which kinda looks ugly. Can you advise me on this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.8.11 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOVE. Because you're not using a registered account, you can't move pages. However, please note that the article is currently at Saint Francis D'Assisi High School — someone appears already to have moved it. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also note that Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia— such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center.--ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in discussions

Hi there, I have been a member for some time now and I am starting to learn a fair bit of policies, etc. I see that there are lots of discussions that you can take part in. Are there any places where I may help out? Zaminamina (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed. Wikipedia only exists because of editors who are willing to participate and form community-based decisions. If you are interested in helping by building new articles then one good place to start is by joining a WikiProject. These smaller groups will be able to help you direct your focus at the areas they need the most help with. If the WikiProject covers a topic that you are familiar with or interested in then this can be an extremely satisfying way to help. There are hundreds of WikiProjects and a list of them can be found here. If you'd rather operate independently, you might be interested in visiting Wikipedia:Requested articles to find a list of all articles that have been requested by others. If you are more interested in helping by discussing policy, guidelines, and by participating in community decisions, you might start at Wikipedia:Requests or Wikipedia:Village pump. These just scratch the surface. There are hundreds of ways in which a motivated editor can make himself invaluable to the community. Thanks for your enthusiasm, and I hope you discover a stimulating area in which to help us! -Thibbs (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting problem

hello,

please someone fix the sorting in the second column here? Thanks.--GoP _T ^C _N 17:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Inelegant perhaps, but done. -Thibbs (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, GoP has asked an elegant question. Still there is no use for sorting because everthing gets disordered on clicking it. GoP asked for sorting the second column and that is not yet possible. I think we cannot sort tables in that way. I suppose that the question is to make each section sortable, but the headers should not get away along with the sorting. ...sorry that I cannot explain this correctly but I hope you understand this. Just click on the sorting button, see what happens. mwHelp and wHelp does not show this. Something is said in the Table help page but I don't understand it.Vanischenu m^Talk 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? It works for me now. If you don't mind, would you try clearing your cache and then verifying that the sorting is still broken? -Thibbs (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work form me. Here is a simplified version of the table.

Alphabets
First three
A
B
C
y Last three
X
Y
Z

Clicking on the sort button will make everything in disorder. I do not know whether this is a problem of my browserVanischenu m^Talk 20:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me they sort to:

First three
A
B
C
X
Y
y Last three
Z

Is that the same order that you see when you click the sort button? -Thibbs (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they sort to me in the same way. But I think that GoP has asked us to make it sortable to

First three
C
B
A
y Last three
Z
Y
X

OR

y Last three
Z
Y
X
First three
C
B
A

Please not that each entry that you have bolded in that page was supposed to be the heading of its followings. So what I mean is that, those bolded items should not be dispatched from its followers while sorting. Rather it should stay along with its sub-entries in such a way that the sorting applies to the sub-entries' local alphabetic order. To make the point simple, here in this table, C should not come along with Z, X or Y., and should stay under the heading First three.Vanischenu m^Talk 22:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you need then are multiple tables. If you don't want the non-bolded sub-entries sorted together with each other then they must appear in different tables. The multiple tables can be positioned so that they touch and the collection of tables can be surrounded by a frame so that the whole thing looks like a single table, and the surrounding frame can possibly even be a table itself so that clumps of figures can be sorted as a unit, but due to the way the coding for tables works what you are interested in will require multiple tables. -Thibbs (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if it works good (and does not get separated) for all screen revolutions, Wiki skins and mobile phones. Also, if its construction takes extra effort, then the necessity for such a sorting in that article should be discussed. The table should not be affected when further entries are added.Vanischenu m^Talk 23:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that GoP's problem related to the fact that the sorting produced 1, 10, 100, 2, 23, 3, 5, 9 instead of 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 23, 100. If that was GoP's problem then I've fixed it. The table now sorts pseudo-numerically instead of alphabetically. If GoP's problem related to the mingled sub-entries then the best solution I can think of is to use multiple tables. I think at this point we need to hear from GoP. For all we know his question may already be answered. -Thibbs (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 09:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You're very welcome. So that's solved the issue, has it? -Thibbs (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you guys. Sorry for having an unwanted extension of this discussion. I hope I shouldn't have been that much foolish. Thank you Thibbs for your kind approach.Vanischenu m^Talk 17:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh that's quite alright. You were just looking at the question from a different angle. You did bring up a good point that the table code needs work. I made a few experiments yesterday to try to get a parent table to sort sub-tables and had very little luck. The fact that the tables alpha-sort numbers is also quite silly. The solution I introduced into the article is a cheap workaround where the table sorts on an invisible string that I defined. It looks like it's sorting the table entries, but it isn't really. It would be good if someone could fix that aspect of the tables. Anyway thanks for giving the matter your attention. -Thibbs (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IDEA - Accelerate the learning process...

When reading an article, it would be very convenient if I could simply hover my cursor over any of the blue links and be provided with a 2 or 3 sentence definition/summary of the term. Now if I'm reading, and my understanding of the topic at hand is dependent upon some other term highlighted in blue, I'm forced to click away and then come back. I could learn much faster if there was some page action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have something like that, although you need an account for it: Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Wizard Help

Hi! I have tried to upload a small j.peg of a logo on the page Astro Studios. I believe because I haven't edited enough I am not an entrusted editor and able to download this. Can someone else upload it for me? Pretty Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.214.146 (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place your request at the page for upload requests. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searching a page (ctrl f) can't find terms that are hyperlinked

Why doesn't firefox search/find words on your wiki pages that are hyperlinks? This seems like a huge miss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.191.60 (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. We have nothing to do with how Firefox functions. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to Orangemike's response, many people here do in fact have a significant interest in faults you may encounter when browsing Wikipedia in Firefox. Which version of Firefox are you using? Does this happen on one page or many different pages? Do you have "match case" ticked? Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the fact that the targets of wikilinks are unsearchable, this is due to the layout guideline. You can get around this by clicking the "edit" tab at the top and then using your ctrl-f search function to find a string in the wikicode. -Thibbs (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you talking about the Find feature not searching the displayed text of links? For example, if you look at this page and search for "due to the layout", it says that it doesn't exist, even though it quite obviously exists in what Thibbs just wrote. Is that what you're talking about? I've long been annoyed by this fact, as it gets in my way a lot, and I don't know why it works that way. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl+F in my Firefox 12.0 finds "due to the layout" in the post by Thibbs, and all other displayed link texts I have tested. Can you answer the questions from Jarry1250? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is logic allowed?

If there is a source for (A imply B) and for (B imply C), by pure logic this imply that (A imply C) .

Is the statement that (A imply C), considered original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.241.242 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how clear cut it is. The source for "A implies B" might have a different definition of B than the source for "B implies C" does. Or maybe the sources are simplifying and there are some unusual cases where A does not imply C. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the conclusion that A implies C is entirely obvious then its fine. However if it is not the only possible conclusion, and it is original thought not found in reliable sources, then it is WP:OR and should not be included. If someone has challenged the inclusion in this type of a circumstance claiming its OR, it probably is. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, it may constitute synthesis and original research. We are constructing a fully-sourced reference work, not a syllogism. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this (CT examination imply xray ionizing radiation dose is absorbed by patients) and (xray ionizing radiaton dose absorbtion by people imply adverse effects). Conclusion (CT examination imply adverse effects) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.241.242 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find plenty of sources that discuss concerns about radiation exposure and CT scans, for instance [2], just off the top of a google search. Better to find some sources and not need to worry about anyone thinking its OR. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot of research about cognitive decline due to CT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.241.242 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this question belongs at the Help Desk. RudolfRed (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike's nailed it. What 79.181.241.242 has described is exactly what is meant by synthesis. Interestingly, there used to be an exception for simple logical deductions, but that hasn't been in effect since 2009. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it's really just another example of WP:V trumping WP:TRUTH. In actual practice, I'm sure it goes on all the time and there's probably little harm in it, but in a content dispute the person engaging in synthesis will lose the argument (ignoring IAR, etc.). Incidentally, RudolfRed is right. The underlying issue should be taken up at WT:NOR or dropped. -Thibbs (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This should not be treated that way. You must see that second case is depends on the quantity absorbed. Also adverse effects means having a visible adverse effect. 75 glasses of water is poisonous but this does not imply water is poisonous. You must verify that the second statement given is always correct. If it's true for every case, then of cource A⇒C. Otherwise not.Vanischenu m^Talk 21:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

79.181.241.242's language suggest English is not his or her first language. "Imply" is used in a special way in Boolean algebra. "A implies B" means that every single time A is true, B is true. If you test an integrated circuit that is supposed to carry out the logic "A implies B", and on one test out of 1 million, it gives the result "B is false" when A is true, you discard the integrated circuit. So 79's example "in CT examination imply xray ionizing radiation dose is absorbed by patients" that meets the boolean algebra definition of "imply". But the example "xray ionizing radiaton dose absorbtion by people imply adverse effects" does not meet the Boolean algebra definition of "imply". Perhaps the CT examination reveals that a bullet has passed through the patient's heart, there is no thoracic surgeon in the local hospital, and moving the patient to a better hospital is impossible due to a blizzard. That patient isn't going to suffer any adverse effect from ionizing radiation, because that patient is going to die from cardiac trauma before the ionizing radiation can have any effect. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

been hackedsorry name is dion berriman

sum one has been in my computer 4 along time thay have put lies about me all over face book and this site i nead it removed asap face book name also that and frank furt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.179.146 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can only help with questions about the workings of Wikipedia. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 19:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are spelling and typing your name correctly, I can't find anything about you on Wikipedia. The first page of Google about "Dion Berriman" seems to be apparently tame information about a painter in Australia. If someone is posting lies about you, they are not doing a very good job of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also if your account here has been compromised, then please refer to WP:GOTHACKED to get a new account, and make sure to report the incident to an admin. -Thibbs (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setting a link from Wikipedia article to Wikimedia to do a search against all categories?

Would be grateful for help. Have explored the help files for linking between wiki products but don't seem to have found what I want (particularly Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons for searches). I have resolved my problem (temporarily?) by setting a URL link to the precise search, but presume that there must be code to do this more easily i.e. code which sets up a search and is not a particular single category link? I have read up on categories and galleries but these do not seem to meet what I need as where particular images may be is basically where someone has chosen to put them and thus there is no particular single category which pulls the images down. Thus the type of link I have built in is Wikimedia Commons for Gloucestershire nature reserve images or Wikimedia Commons for Badgeworth Buttercup images. Thank you. Sjeans (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For linking to a specific page or category you can use [[commons:]] links (see Help:Interwiki linking#Interwiki linking from and within Wikimedia). Also, to "disguise" your urls you can surround them in <span class="plainlinks"> and </span> tags (example: Wikimedia Commons for Gloucestershire nature reserve images). However i don't know exactly how to do what you are trying to achieve. benzband (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you want something going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID point 9. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your replies. I have taken the initial advice of including the coding to diguise the URL. The word 'normally' is included in the 'Links to avoid' help file. I would expect that joint products such as Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons would have a simple way to do this e.g. against a switch say on 'catagory' as they are such comprehensive products. This is their internal search engine and not some external search engine in the wider world, but perhaps there is not a 'simple coding' route? What I have done is working just perfectly in its selection routine to support the content of the article, and would prefer not to remove it, unless it is truly against policy (as said policy does not specifically exclude it, it would appear from my reading of the help file). If anyone has anything further on this would be grateful to receive coding instruction, so thanks once again.Sjeans (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to search pages should be avoided. Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects#Wikimedia Commons has templates to link to a specific category or file. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for further info. I've tried to use the category link, but because the images are in various categories and sub-categories it cannot be used efficiently. Was hoping that there was something similar which did a cross category search, which it seems there is not. What a shame as something which is so easy and gives readers something quickly without hassle is best not done even internal to Wiki products. I've removed the two coded entries I've made regretfully. Thanks for your time.213.120.22.158 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interested readers could probably find far more images with Google or other external search engines. If a topic is suitable for a Commons category then you can create the category and link it, but Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust is about an organization and shouldn't have a category for assorted wildlife images in the area. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, but have been trying to encourage people who are not 'confident' on technology to use Wikimedia Commons and even Wikipedia by ensuring all possible links are done to help. The straightforward use of the search engine for the Commons has been a real boon as have found images far quicker than searching categories/subcategories. I suppose this is as far as I can go on this one now. Thanks again.Sjeans (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my wikipedia page is not longer visible.

my name is shelley hirsch-someone had created a wikipedia page for me and i suggested that there needed to be more info. now it appears that the whole page is deleted. i would like to keep up what was there until i make changes...thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelley hirsch (talk • contribs) 22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page at Shelley Hirsch. However, if that is you, please read the guidelines for dealing with a conflict of interest. RudolfRed (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help students like me make pages expand in size without having to scroll from side to side

Dear Wiki,

I am a graduate student that often uses Wiki. I was wondering on behalf of all students, if it is possible to expand the pages without having to use the side to side scroll because the lines expand and not really the size.

Thanks, Annie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.169.143 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this a little better? What do you mean by "expand the pages"? What actions are you taking when you see the "side to side scroll"? -Thibbs (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you entered a line with one or more leading spaces? That causes the text to display oddly, extending off to the right. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]