Help desk
< May 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	June 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.

May 31

ADOBE PHOTOSHOP ELEMENTS

IAM AN EXISTINGUSE OF ELEMENTS 10. UNFORTUNATELY MY HARD DRIVE CRASHED AND I HAVE INSTALLED A NEW HARD DRIVE. I HAVE DOWNLOADED THE 30DAY FREE TRIAL VERSION BUT AS THIS WILL BE THE 3RD COMPUTER I WISH TO USE CAN I CONTINUE TO USE THE ORIGINAL SECURITY CODE ^{[details removed]} OR WILL YOU BE ABLE TO ISSUE ME WITH A NEW SET OF CODES TO DOWNLOAD THE CORRECT VERSION.

MANY THANKS , SIMON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.224.92 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 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. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Prokofiev - dab issue

I've been editing this article over the past week in response to points raised at Talk:Sergei Prokofiev/GA1. One of the points raised is that there's an apparent dab issue in which, according to this Dablinks report, "Sergei Prokofiev links to 1 redirect which point back." The relevant page which the Dablinks report says is being linked by Sergei Prokofiev is Prokofiev. I've tried searching for such a link on the article page (so I can remove it, if necessary), but with no success. Can anyone help? Alfietucker (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it either, despite trying Special:ExpandTemplates and looking through the HTML rendering of the page. Perhaps User:Dispenser [ping!], the tool maintainer, can throw some light on this one? -- John of Reading (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line of Sergei Prokofiev says {{redirect|Prokofiev}}. This causes {{redirect}} to make a test #ifexist:Prokofiev and that causes Sergei Prokofiev to be listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Prokofiev even though there is no actual link. I tested this at User:PrimeHunter/sandbox2 which contains {{#ifexist:Prokofiev|Exists|Does not exist}} and is now also listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Prokofiev. This side effect is also mentioned at mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions##ifexist. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for investigating this and for explaining the cause. Alfietucker (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing on Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to start a new topic. It is new in terms of content material but not in terms of the actual title. The title of this new page I wish to publish on Wikipedia is 'Islam and the West' for there is only 1 page that has the same title and it's a book summary. In the page I would like to write, I would like to emphasize areas of cooperation and constructive relationship between the two sides throughout the course of history rather than areas of clash and conflict.

How can I do that? Can you direct me to the exact page where I can start writing and publishing?

If possible, I'd like to be notified by email of your response.

With many thanks, Adnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan AlAmoudi (talk • contribs) 11:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood. This is Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia based on secondary sources. We have a very strict policy of WP:No original research, and so essays that you would like to publish do not belong here. If you would like to publish your opinions on things, such as Islam and the West, a really good way to do that is to set up a blog on one of the many websites that allows that.

Good luck. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I have a question about canvassing policy. I'm involved in a long-standing content dispute on the Ripple (payment protocol) page. In my admittedly subjective view unconstructive user conduct plays a major role here. Unfortunately the discussion has been mainly involving two editors, User:PirateButtercup and myself. We've already had some limited administrator involvement, and may be heading towards a more formal conflict resolution procedure next week. I feel we need to involve more editors who are familiar with the subject, as it is very technical and complex. I had already contacted some previous editors on the page (and mentioned this on the article Talk page for transparency). These people in turn contacted some others, but no help has arrived. Can I ask people on well-known Ripple forums (Reddit, ripple.com, xrptalk.org) to join in the discussion, or would that fall afoul of canvassing policy? Would I need to mention the fact I'm involved in a content dispute (more transparent) or should I make sure to avoid all mention of that (possibly more neutral)? Do I need to clear the text of the message with anyone just to be sure, or can I even do that? Any other considerations? I'll add a link to this message to the article Talk page. I've looked around for the best place to ask this question, and couldn't find one place that was clearly best, so I ended up here. I'm sorry if this is not the right place for such questions, and if you have better suggestions that would be much appreciated. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that, that would surely be canvassing. Steamrolling someone with a bunch of editors that registered only for this purpose will only muddy the waters and hurt your credibility. Make use of wp:3o and internal, neutral, forums to help get attention for your problem. Gigs (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wouldn't be just for this purpose and I wouldn't be recruiting based on their point of view, and I'd ask neutrally. But unless other editors here think it would be OK, I'll stick by your advice not to do it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely not ok to recruit people from outside to take part in a dispute here. They are unlikely to be familiar with Wikipedia policies and requirements and are all too likely to make the situation far worse. Have you read Wikipedia:Canvassing? Spinning Spark 23:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've read Wikipedia:Canvassing. I absolutely agree that there is no reason to allow outside canvassing when we don't allow internal canvassing - and for good reason. But the page also acknowledges there is such a thing as appropriate notification that doesn't count as canvassing. Recruiting editors known for expertise in the field is mentioned as one example, and I'm urgently looking for such experts. My earlier attempts to recruit such experts internally have yielded no results and there are several forums outside WP where they are known to hang out, which tempted me to enlist help there.

I thought that as long as the precautions mentioned on the policy page (no selection on the basis of opinions, polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, brief) were observed, it might be OK. But I wanted to be sure, so I thought I'd check first. I'm glad I didn't go ahead without asking first, because the two editors who've replied so far are opposed to the idea. As I said, I won't go ahead unless people here agree, which seems increasingly unlikely.

I agree with your point about outside editors who are not Wikipedians. Would it make a difference if it were aimed just at existing Wikipedians, with an explicit warning not to sign up just for this purpose and without familiarising themselves with Wikipedia policies first? And would it make a difference if there were no content dispute or if an uninvolved editor tried to recruit new experts to Wikipedia? Do we generally try to avoid recruiting people directly? I'll be happy to take no for an answer, I'm merely trying to make sure all arguments have been exchanged effectively. Thanks for your feedback! Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing guideline approves of notification to "editors known for expertise in the field" (my emphasis) not any old experts from outside. Experts in any subject are more than welcome on Wikipedia and if you are able to recruit some that would be wonderful, but it is a hugely bad idea to bring in experts (or anyone) from outside to help settle a specific editing dispute. They are all too likely to walk straight into a policy bear trap or get involved in an acrimonious battle not of their making and then disappear in a huff in the same way numerous other experts have been driven from Wikipedia. I have only read a fraction of the talk page discussion, but I am at a loss why you cannot go down the RFC path to get more input. This is a well established Wikipedia process and should be used here. Spinning Spark 17:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that advice. I think I'll need to read up on the procedure first. I was spooked because it sounded as if there was going to be a quick up-down vote, and what I think is needed is input from more subject matter experts plus a moderator who makes sure people stick to the rules and follow the proper procedures. I was afraid an RfC would make things worse. If proper procedures had been enforced earlier, I don't think we'd be in this mess and we'd have been able to resolve the content dispute. Anyway, for now I'm abandoning the plan to recruit more people externally. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs usually work best in my experience if a simple yes/no question is asked. If you want a more nuanced response, you need to word the request carefully to solicit that as people will tend to respond support or oppose anyway. You can ask for someone to moderate a discussion at several venues, such as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but be aware that there is no moderation process on Wikipedia that can enforce a decision on article content. Administrators can deal with disruptive behaviour (edit warring, repeatedly inserting unsourced content etc), but besides for material that is against policy, they have no authority to enforce article content. Spinning Spark 20:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. In that case I think we need to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard first. I have a feeling that effective moderation may lead the dispute to evaporate and consensus to emerge. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submission help please

I am on wikipedia, registered that is, forgot my password and cannot retrieve it?

Also- I submitted an article for review which just would not go through! For (can provide name). His peers are on Wikipedia and why can he not be..? Please put the article through- He is similar to his peers in experience and notation etc and it is not right that his peers are on Wikipedia and not him? Further- If you google his name he comes up third under.....a Wikipedia link! (link can be provided)

So he is in essence on Wikipedia - now is the time to finally formalise this process by accepting his submission on Wikipedia? It is most embarrassing for him to be rejected by Wikipedia yet his peers are on- and to rub salt in the wound- on Google his name comes up indeed on a Wikipedia link, yet in an informal way, and not his own entry. He is most distressed by the above state of affairs and sincerely wishes for this to be formalised and rectified. Your help shall be most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.56.101.194 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a link to the article you submitted.

Did you provide an email address for the account? If you did, you should be able to request at the log in page, that a new password is sent to that email address. If you didn't provide an email address, bad luck; you won't be able to gain access to your account. However, you can create another account, and using that account, edit your old account's userpage to mention that you no longer use it. Before creating the new account, please read up on Wikipedia's username policy, to make sure your account complies. Hope this has helped.--Mysdaao ^talk 13:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please take down the page to my name, Marwan Bishara

Kindly take down the page marwan bishara there are always errors in it and terribly updated. I DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE A PAGE FOR ME thanks you truly, marwan bishara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjazeera (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have to say that I find it rather implausible that Marwan Bishara would write in such an ungrammatical manner - though it would make little difference, as Wikipedia does not delete articles on request. If there are errors in the article, please raise them on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wikipedia keep deleting pages that I made

Why does Wikipedia keep deleting pages that I made and correcting edits I made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsiclesareawesomelol (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read all messages left on your talk page, they explain all the reasons. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And note that if you vandalise Wikipedia again as you did here [1] you are liable to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]