Help desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

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

January 2

Strange Java Script

I recently added a talk message to a user's page and the diff shows some strange inserted javascript in an unrelated section to my edit. Has anyone seen something like this before? It seems to reference a user named Henrik? Diff [1].--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Torchwoodwho/monobook.js imports User:Henrik/js/afc-helper.js which contains code like that, but I don't know enough about scripts to say more than removing this import should avoid the problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This happens to users of Safari or Chrome, when scripts use document.write() to load new scripts. They should be using importScript(). I'll try to fix this for you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many pictures can I put up?

How many pictures can i put up in my article? Is there a limit. Once, I did put up about six pictures, but five of them were taken down by an administrator. what is the maximum number of pictures that I can put up in one article?

UniversityoffelicityUniversityoffelicity (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the article, some articles like Barack Obama have almost 13, mostly because of notability, some like History (TV channel) only need one. so commonsense is the best rule of thumb. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i just noticed on you talk page that some pictures you uploaded have had some issues this may also be a contributing factor on them getting taken down. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can follow the instructions in Commons:COM:L#Acceptable licenses, you can upload as many pictures as you want to Wikimedia Commons and put them in a gallery page there. You can link from an article on Wikipedia to a gallery page on Commons with the {{Commons}} template. Incidentally, your username may violate WP:ORGNAME. --Teratornis (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldsmobile

I have been trying to fine out how many of the Super 88 Oldsmobile 4 door cars where made in 1964 I have been looking and cann't fine out any thing on them Thank You Ron emailaddress is ^{[details removed]} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.95.115 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the info does not exist on Wikipedia (which is never guaranteed), you only options are to find it yourself (on the internet or in a book) and add it to Wikipedia, or to hit the "Discussion" tab at the top of the specific article and ask that someone add that information. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address.

You might find what you are looking for in the article about Oldsmobile 88. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. --Mysdaao ^talk 14:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can i find out how many time a page has been edited?

i looked around the only thing i can find is for users edit counts. i want to know how many times a article has been revised since its creation. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, you can find many such tools at Wikipedia:Tools. Here, you would be looking under the section header labeled Page histories. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to direct WP:SICILY to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sicily

I've read up on the basics, but I'm still somehow baffled as to how I formally make WP:SICILY part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sicily. I can create an article and do a re-direct (which I've done), but how do I actually make WP:SICILY the formal designator for this wiki-project? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I'm referring to this "Shortcut" box, as seen here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click edit this page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms to see how it did something. You can place {{Shortcut|WP:SICILY}} on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sicily. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Are we allowed to use ordinary peoples' names in articles? This article uses such a name. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 11:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean the caption to the image Alex age 2, crosscountry sking with his parents - as the article is about a Ski Area then the child is not notable. If the image helps add value to the article then it should just have a neutral caption like Cross-country sking near badger pass, I have changed the caption but I do not have a view on if it adds any value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moving a page or aticle

I created a new article and tried to move it, after it is ready. The title of the article is Bioproducts or Bioproduct. Once I am done moving, when I do a search in Wikipedia the page does not appear. Am I missing some thing in creating an article? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioguru1 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a little while - up to a day - for Wikipedia's search engine to "index" newly created articles. External search engines take longer. Xenon54 / talk / 16:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Good day dear I am postgraduated student and i wanna start studying at oyur Univ.What are the requirements needed to register and could you please send me the cost for MBA in English language?

Yours Mr Samba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.135.68 (talk)

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) 21:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement on the move

An editor has moved an an article created by me. I dissagree with him (or her.) The dialog over the talk page is fruitless. I prefer to crete newer articles rather than to spend my efforts on moving and removing the articles endlessly. But at the same time I insist on using the original name. What do you suggest? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to discuss theory. It would have been better if you had linked to the article. But if I were you, I would take the page to Wikipedia:Requested_moves to get a bit more input on the article move from non-involved editors. It's either that, or you will just have to stop caring and let it slide. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The best course is to list this at Wikipedia:Requested moves (I assume this is regarding List of cities conquered by the Ottoman Empire).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited (minor updates/corrections to my bio) for two hours, Saved page, it looked fine, then I got a notice it couldn't be processed!

All my laborious edits, including posting 17 references to book translations and updating outdated URLs, appear to have been lost. I don't have my own copy, nor time to start over. Can someone please recover and post the edits I entered? I can't imagine any would be objectionable. And I can't find any contact on your website from which I can actually get help. --Coloradophysicist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloradophysicist (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions show that you have only made two edits. If the edits you were working on did not save correctly, they are lost and there is nothing we can do to recover them. It might have been a software error, or it might have been something else like you were trying to add links with URLs that were blacklisted. Without knowing the message you saw, we can't know.

GOOD NEWS: By hitting the back button lots of times in my browser, I was able to see a page with all my edits, and I pasted a copy of it into a Word document, so I do now have a copy of the work that seems to have been lost. But I have no idea what to do with it. I was properly logged in when I saved the page; it appeared to have saved and displayed correctly; then a few seconds later, an error message came up saying that my edit could not be processed, so I should try logging out and logging in again. (On returning later to the recovered page, I logged out, logged in again, but couldn't return to where I was. Also, when I returned to the original incorrect page, there was a message from Calmer Waters, but it disappeared before I could reply to him/her. This system is not very user-friendly.)

When you say "to my bio", do you mean a biographical article about you? If so, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography.

REPLY: I already had read that and everything else that seemed relevant. It says nothing about this problem.

You should avoid writing a biographical article about yourself because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable article about yourself. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Yes, the bio is about myself. I did not write it; I only attempted my routine annual minor corrections such as outdated URLs and adding the missing references to translations of my three most recent books. Nothing changed the tone or should be objectionable in any way. I can't imagine any of the URLs were blacklisted. I am trying to maintain your standards in all respects, but can't if the engine won't keep the corrections I saved. Now what?

SUPPLEMENTARY REPLY: I now have the corrected page back up (thanks again to my browser's back button) on a separate screen and will await the community's kind advice about what to do with it. The exact error notice is: "Preview. Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work try logging out and logging back in." [which didn't help—it only lost the screen!] I can privately send you the URL for the corrected page if that would help. I hesitate to try pressing "Save page" again lest it get lost again. Thanks for any suggestions!

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION: Is there a way to enter special characters, like Czech and Polish diacritics, so as to get the foreign book titles right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloradophysicist (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""Preview. Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again." That means that you took too long in the edit window. Save regurly and often, if you have the edit window open for over an hour, your edit will not succeed (This is not only on Wikipedia, it goes for most text submission on the Internet). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Aha! Thanks for this useful info. I hope this will be added to the instructions (if it's there, I missed it).

(edit conflict) That was a software error, which is rare but happens. It wasn't suggesting logging out and logging in ordet to retrieve what you edited, only to avoid the error in the future. If you try to edit it again, it will work.

REPLY: Unfortunately, that is very laborious -- about two hours' work to be redone. I have both a Webarchive and a Word copy of the edited version that didn't post properly. Is there some way I can post it? Or can I send it privately to someone more knowledgeable to post it if they think that's appropriate?

Even if you did not write the content, users are strongly encouraged not to create an article about themselves. Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more details on this before creating it. Also, you may not meet the notability guidelines for people at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you aren't considered notable, the article may be deleted.

REPLY: I've read all that. To repeat: I did not create the article. The community created it years ago. To keep it up to your standards of accuracy, I only try to update its details annually. Notability is not a problem either (my name returns 160k Google hits). I appreciate your concern on these issues, but do not think it is justified. If any of you who are trying to help me here would like, I could send you privately a copy of the Webarchive I'm trying to post, so you can see why I think it's both appropriate and helpful to Wikipedia.

The message from Calmer Waters is a welcome message posted on your user talk page, which is located at User talk:Coloradophysicist. You are probably talking about the orange message bar you saw on the top of a page. When you went to your user talk page, the orange bar disappeared because you had viewed the new message, but the welcome message still exists and you can respond to it any time you want.

REPLY: Thank you.

I don't have the answer on how to use characters in other languages, so I'll let others answer that. --Mysdaao ^talk 21:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below the edit box you should see either MediaWiki:Edittools or (if you have JavaScript enabled) a box (maybe saying "Insert" at first) where you can choose between different sets of characters that can be inserted in the edit box with a click. You can also usually copy-paste a special character from an external source or an existing page to the edit box. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Thanks very much. If someone can tell me how to post the page I was trying to post, without having to retype the whole thing, I can then take advantage of the special characters.

Coloradophysicist, when I say article, I mean Wikipedia article. When you post an article, you are creating the article in Wikipedia, which is discouraged. If you've read the appropriate policy pages and still feel it is appropriate to create an article and you are not violating any rules or guidlines, then you can. Since others have written the content that will be put into an article, that brings up the issue of copyright. If you are writing the information in your own words, there is no copyright issue. But if you are copying and pasting the content into the new Wikipedia article that will be created, there may be an issue. Has the author given permission for this to be on Wikipedia? This is a complicated legal issue, and Wikipedia:Copyright has more details.

You can't upload a file in order to create a page on Wikipedia. If you have a copy of the edited version in Word, then you should be able to copy and paste the text into the browser again, unless I've misunderstand what you've done. You can send it privately to someone, but it is generally not necessary.

Instead of sending the information privately to someone, you can always create a draft page in your userspace. It won't be an article, but it will be a page where you can save and work on it and others can give feedback on it, once you give a link to it. To create a page for a draft, see Wikipedia:Your first article and look at #6 at the top for information on this.

In the future, please put all of your reply all together after the entire message you are replying to. That is the guideline on Wikipedia talk pages. Please don't break up other people's messages, because this is confusing. As you can see on other threads, the standard format for discussions is for new replies to be kept together. If you are making several points, you can put them on separate lines. Please see Help:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for these guidelines. Thank you. --Mysdaao ^talk 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia doesn't use the number of Google hits to measure notability. There are specific criteria that is used to determine whether people are notable as subjects for Wikipedia articles at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Your username indicates you are a physicist. If you believe your notability comes from academic work, there are also other specific criteria for academics at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Please make sure you are notable under one of those guidelines before continuing. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

er ... the way i'm reading this, some kind of misunderstanding is going on. it's a question about how to re-post changes lost due to a technical glitch, not about content issues or the advisability of creating a new article. is the Word document that you saved the entire article in "edit window" form, including the Wikipedia formatting mark-up (links, <ref>s etc)? if so, then you can click the "edit this page" tab and then paste your text into the window in place of the existing text. if you didn't save the formatting, though, i wouldn't know what to do except retype it. in general, it's not a bad idea to write lengthy additions in Word first, save it, and then paste it into the Wikipedia article to avoid frustrations like what you've experienced. Sssoul (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acid ( Mortal Kombat )

ABOUT ACID

ACID IS A MERCENARY FROM OUTWORLD...<balance of post removed>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillmike56 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This page is not for posting article content or proposed article content but for questions about using Wikipedia. No article (and no post here) should ever be typed in all caps. The subject you posted about does not appear to be a valid topic for an article. Even if "Acid" is a well known character from Mortal Kombat's Outworld, commonly, such in-universe characters do not have sufficient reliable third party sources written about them to verify article content or show notability. Such characters may be mentioned in a larger article on the topic. Here, A Google search does not even reveal that the character has any presence, and if this is about a user created character in a role-playing game, that would almost certainly not be a notable topic. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of wikis that specialize in gaming, and accept a wide range of non-notable content which would seem vitally important to gamers but might be "cruft" to Wikipedians. See WikiIndex:Category:Games. --Teratornis (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soxred's Tool

Does anyone know a way to get Soxred's Tool (the main edit counter given for user contributions) to list the breakdown of "top edited articles" for users over a certain number of edits? It appears to work fine up to about 45,000 edits but won't any for users above some threshold near there. Maybe some add on to the url to limit how far back it goes? I really need this break down of edits feature for an RfA I'm writing. Alternatively, does anyone know of another tool that provides the same function? I checked the edit counters at WP:TOOLS and WikiProject edit counters and found squat.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try WikiChecker - it does what you want (I think) but it might take forever with 45k edits. Xenon54 / talk / 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xenon. A very useful tool if not quite right for my purposes. I have found a manual workaround. And yeah, that would take an amazingly long time—it takes a few minutes for a user with 2k edits so i figure it would take a few hours on the account I wished to check (which is actually well over 45k) and I bet it'd time out anyway. The program actually says it's not recommended for accounts with over 30k edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing sources inside sources

It would be a lot more useful to reference a book which is given as a source inside another book but i don't know how to, even with the current reference templates. Also what do i do if the book i am using gives the sources at the end of each section but does not cite within the text. From my past experience (and anyone's academically) it would be better to use or cite those sources within the book. Do i only use the author of the book (in this case Denis Smith - Civil Engineering Heritage of London and the Thames Valley) but it seems possible only to do this at the moment. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cardinal rules of academic writing is "never cite as a source a work that you haven't examined yourself." If I understand your question correctly, you're asking how to do exactly that. You should be citing the book you have read, not any sources cited therein that you haven't personally read. See also WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Deor (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your first part the normal thing i would have done is say using the Harvard system (Wayne Rooney 1985, cited in Graham Frivolo, 2006) [note these do not exist]. See below for some clarification. Simply south (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for dropping in and giving a somewhat different advice: (1) Try to access the original text. (2) If this is not possible, or extremely difficult, check for indications of reliability or unreliabity of the author and the publisher. (3) Is the claim being made, extraordinary? If it is, do not use the source without checking the primary source (see WP:REDFLAG), and skip steps (4) and (5). (4) If you find no indications of unreliability, and sufficient indications of reliability, you may cite the secondary source. (5) Indicate that the secondary source has taken the information from another source, or multiple other sources, and specify these sources to the extent possible. Cs32en 07:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book is part of an institute (ICE) that is respectable and can be trusted as a source. None of the claims they make i don't think are extraordinary as they seem to be a major organisation on this thing.

I think i also need to clear something up at the start which i don't think i did very well at the start. The problem is that the sources for the information are given at the end of the section which is goodbut it is unknown which info came from which book as the authors' names are not cited in the text. As the sources are only given at the end, i was wondering whether in the articles which use this book should I use the authors given at the end of each of the sections. Also, how, as it is not clear in the current citation templates? Simply south (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with the technical issue, but maybe someone else on this board can help you. As for determining the level of reliability of the source, given that you most likely would have to refer to the source alone instead of either enumerating all the literature given there or guessing which source is being used for a particular piece of information, you can ask the people at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for their opinions. Cs32en 21:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will redirect them here. Also you can see why i am asking at the help desk and not the reference desk. Simply south (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid citing facts from a "part of an institute" without viewing the item itself. Often institute papers are from a variety of sources and reliability, and any biases, can not be determined from a secondary citation. However, for example, "Hucksley cites the Buckland Institute for a high correlation between death and taxes." with the full pinpoint citation to the page in Hucksley. Nonetheless, it sounds in this case like your chasing a chimera without the original. --Bejnar (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book chapters published in full within another work may be cited directly, eg, Author Authorson, "My Chapter," in A book about things ed. Editor Editordaughter (Nodnol: Nodnol Press, 1984): 14-80, cited at 25.

Other material, for instance, quotes, paraphrases, references, illustrations and arguments taken from another work should not be cited.

If you absolutely must, you need a great deal more citation information than a parenthetical quote. "Jane cites Eric to argue that "blah blah blah" (Jane Authordaughter, My Book, p34 citing Eric Editorson Another Book at p67-74).

But this is extremely bad practice, and most first world libraries offer competitive inter library loan and document delivery services. Additionally, asking around wikipedia may produce editors who have access to deposit or academic libraries which can supply. So don't do it, but if you must, reference exhaustively. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the source is genuinely unavailable for public viewing though - especially rare or out-of-print ones - and such a request is unlikely to meet with any response at all, especially if the document in question is of local origin and the person asking has more access to the resources than those they are asking. Situation I find myself in time and again. (Note in my case it's a hypothetical - it has happened and probably will again, but I can't think of an example off-hand.) Orderinchaos 10:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]