Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 November 15

= November 15 =

Suggestions?
Hello. I am new to Wikipedia, and yes, I am Chief Executive Officer of Rainier Corp., a medicine company. Is there anything I should know about in particular? Please contact me on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainier Corp. CEO (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello! I see you just got a welcome template. I suggest you follow the links and read the articles about editing thouroghly. And if you have questions about anything, feel free to ask them here. Good luck editing, and good luck with your company!--Archeopteryx (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You should read FAQ/Business.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What you should know about in particular depends on what you want to do on Wikipedia. The Editor's index has links to just about everything a person might possibly need to know about Wikipedia. If you would like us to narrow things down for you, you could tell us why you joined. Maybe you already have some in-house expertise at your company; you could try to determine which if any of your employees have the most experience at editing on Wikipedia, and the best reputation within the Wikipedia community, and ask them for an introduction. Another option is to read the book: Wikipedia - The Missing Manual. What you need to know about Wikipedia in general is that Wikipedia is a very large and complex do it yourself project for people who self-educate by reading and following written instructions. (The Wikipedia article itself is a pretty good general introduction.) You can ask for help when you get stuck on something (for example, by posing questions on this Help desk), but for the most part you will learn by reading our friendly manuals. Another thing to understand is that Wikipedia is unlike anything most people have experienced before, so new users tend to form erroneous initial impressions about it. These usually clear up pretty quickly as you try editing things and see how other users edit your edits. If you like what you see on Wikipedia, you might ask your IT people about setting up a corporate wiki for internal use at your company. --Teratornis (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

List of articles edited by a user
Is there any tools out there where I can find a list of articles I've edited? I realize I can see it in my contributions..but that is a mess as it lists all edits and not just the articles I've edited. I'd rather see a raw (and preferably linked) list of the unique articles I've edited.--Crossmr (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One method is to put userinfo on your user page. --Teratornis (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither one of those does that. I'm not sure you're understanding what I want. Wannabe kate's editor only shows the top 10 in each category. The other one just spits out this: for crossmr: 97% for major edits and 87% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. which isn't remotely what I want. I want a list of all the articles I've edited but without the duplication that would be found in my contrib history. According to wannabe kate I've edited 3454 unique articles, where can I find that list? (even if it was just the mainspace part that'd be great)--Crossmr (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When answering the most recent question on the Help desk, one must answer as quickly as possible to avoid getting an Edit conflict. Therefore I save time by not reading the questions on my first attempt. Maybe something under WP:EIW would work, such as the MediaWiki API. --Teratornis (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I can see how the high pace of 6 edits in 2 hours would require you to answer a question without reading it first. Sorry but who does that help? If you don't know, don't answer the question. Rushing in here to give answers to things you haven't read and aren't sure of the answer to just causes confusion and animosity as frankly its a little insulting to the person who asks the question when you can't take the time to read it.--Crossmr (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (I just got an edit conflict while typing the following. I get edit conflicts on the Help desk routinely.) Rushing in often does help. Scroll up this page and read the previous questions. Often a first answer is a quick stab from some initial respondent, and then other users chime in with refinements or even corrections when an answer was wrong. Seeing the first partial answer can jog the memories of other users, enabling them to provide a better answer than they could have realized from only seeing the initial question. A good answer to a tough question may take some time to evolve. (I'm a little surprised that nobody else has chimed in on this one. Usually the Help desk is more active. Maybe everybody else is stumped by this one. If I'm your only hope on this one, I agree that is pretty awful. I wouldn't want to be stuck depending on only me!) The only way I've found to cope with Wikipedia is to approach it with a sense of humor. Of course I read your question, but you did not originally specify that you want a comprehensive list. You just asked for "a list," and somewhat misleadingly you wrote "I can see it in my contributions" but that only shows up to 500 at a time with the default options, which isn't comprehensive. Thus it is perfectly reasonable that someone could interpret the original question as a request for an overview list. "A list" can be complete or incomplete. We have both kinds on Wikipedia. I gave you a tool that gives you "a list." Your reply conspicuously lacked a thank-you for the free help you received - where did you learn your manners? If you feel insulted because you got some free help but it wasn't from a skilled mind-reader, you should read How to Ask Questions the Smart Way, which explains in a style less polite than mine how free help works and how to exploit it. For example, that page explains why it is important to include something you left out: why you want to do what you are trying to do ("describe the goal, not the step"). Maybe there is another way to do whatever you are trying to do by generating a list of articles. The most productive attitude is to be grateful when you get something for free, even if it's not as good as something you would consider paying for. If the answer isn't what you wanted, it's still useful in that it eliminates some possibilities. As Thomas Edison said, I have not failed; I have found 9,999 ways that do not work. In any case, everything I know about Wikipedia is in writing somewhere, and you can look up your own answers as easily as someone else can try to look them up for you. Asking questions on Wikipedia doesn't always elicit the answer you want. There might not be a simple way to generate the list you want, or maybe a simple way exists but nobody who happens to be reading the Help desk right now knows it. Sometimes the answers you get are merely clues to guide your own further research. As you must know after editing 3454 unique articles (impressive!), Wikipedia is a do it yourself system, so the person who primarily determines what you get from Wikipedia is you. Sometimes all you get is a sanity check that a problem has no easy solution, and thus it is perfectly reasonable that you got stuck. Other people can give clues, some of which might be useful and others useless, but each of us has to do our own heavy lifting. In any case, did you read about the MediaWiki API which I mentioned in my follow-up answer? The API can do some fancy things that go far beyond the user interface features of Wikipedia, but I'm not an expert with it. --Teratornis (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As you stated, you didn't read the question the first time around. You could have apologized instead of trying to put the blame on the question asker. I could ask you where you learned your manners. In the future I'll include more words and diagrams. In the future I'd recommend you be more concerned with reading the actual question then trying to get in first.--Crossmr (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad jumps
Over on Fallout (series) we're having a problem with anchors/jumps on the page. Basically, when someone clicks "Fallout 2" in the top link box, it should take them to the section "Main Series", sub-section "Fallout 2". Instead, it takes them to section "Voice Actors", sub-section "Fallout. My hypothesis on why this is can be found on the talk page here: Talk:Fallout_(series), but I do not know how to fix this. Can anybody help with this?

Additionally, on that same page we're having problem of people continually making the same vandalism over and over again. Specifically, they keep referring to "Fallout 3" as a spin-off, going so far as to move its sub-section to the "Spin-offs" section, despite consensus on the talk page that it is not, and embedded warnings in the page to avoid that. Its quieted down for now, but I have a feeling that it will be back. When that does happen, what should I do? I presume try to get an administrator to block specific users, but where can I find more information on how to do that?

Thank you. Matt T. (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear your cache? I clicked "Fallout 2" and it took me to that section no problem. Both fallout 2 links work just fine for me.--Crossmr (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, it seems to only be a problem with Opera. In Opera, the anchor for the first Fallout 2 sub-section links to the Voice-Actors section. In IE and Firefox in links to the proper place. That's odd. Why would that be? Matt T. (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Web browser is responsible for processing a Fragment identifier (the part of the URL to the right of the # character). The Wikipedia server probably doesn't even get the fragment identifier from the browser when you click on a section URL (I discovered something similar while checking the server logs on a Web site I had server access to - I was amazed to see that when I clicked on a section link on a Web page, the Web server only got the page URL from the browser, without the fragment identifier - the server had no indication that I was jumping to a section link, it's all done in the browser). Thus you would be looking for some clue about how the Opera (Web browser) processes fragment identifiers. Start by reading Browser notes, and if that doesn't answer the question or suggest where to look next, you could try Googling for more clues, or ask on the WP:VPT where more technical users hang out. You might also try making a user subpage, with the smallest possible content that elicits the same problem. E.g., put a few section headings in the subpage, with a bunch of filler text to spread them out vertically (so you can see the scrolling behavior), and see if you get the same problem without all the complexities of the article. That might make it easier for other people to analyze. That is, is there some heading text which always gets this problem in Opera, irrespective of what else is on the page? You'd want to narrow that down first. --Teratornis (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about the cause at Talk:Fallout (series). The section headings include "Fallout", "Fallout 2", "Fallout", "Fallout 2" in that order. The software makes the corresponding anchor names Fallout, Fallout_2, Fallout_2, Fallout_2_2. This means Fallout_2 occurs twice. I guess it's browser dependent whether the first or second is used when you click a link. It sounds like Opera chooses the second. My Internet Explorer 7 chooses the first. This means I get the right section when clicking the first "Fallout 2" in the table of contents, but I get the same and therefore wrong section on the second "Fallout". This is a problem in the MediaWiki software. I don't know whether there is a bug report for it. Without a software change, I guess the only fix is to change the section headings. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Product naming and the interwiki bots
Bots keep adding fr:Naming to Product naming, although the subjects are unrelated. (French "Naming" means the practice of selling the right to name a stadium or the like.) I went to fr:Naming and removed the link to en:Product naming (and its equivalents in two other languages), guessing that this would stop the bots; but my change (though I explained it) was quickly reverted. Suggestions? —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you contacted the bot operator? - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What template should I use?
Hi,

My question is more social than technical; I'm trying to improve an article without aggravating the people who wrote it.

If I encounter an article that has a section with no sources, and appears to be extemporaneous original research, what I should I do? As I see it, here are my choices--I'm wondering which is best:


 * Delete the unsourced material (this would probably cause an edit war).


 * Insert a template at the head of the section, indicating that it needs to be sourced, or that it appears to be OR (where would I find this template?)


 * Add a fact tag to each statement that needs a citation.


 * Insert template and add fact tags.


 * Start a discussion on the talk page (in my experience these get ignored unless you've already made an edit someone doesn't like.)

Thanks in advance for your help! FYI, the section in question is Prayer

Webbbbbbber (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add citation tags or a section/article header tag (, don't forget to include the date) and leave a note on an appriopriate WikiProject page. If there's not a response in a few weeks, you can move it to the talk page. (I'm basically against outright deletion of any material that could possibly be cited) - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * as for where to find such templates, try here: Template Sssoul (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Found the template.  I don't know anything about WikiProject pages though; where would I find the appropriate one? Webbbbbbber (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On the talk page there will probably be at least one 'coffee-roll' coloured banner beginning 'This article is within the scope of...' (or similar). Click the first link (usually in boldface) and leave a message on the talk page. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You can find out more about WikiProjects at WikiProjects. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Uploaders category?
So, from the group dropdown box on the user rights page, you have your bots, your stewards, your admins, and then "uploaders". The only user listed there is a redlinked User:Heathermtimm. The Uploaders category is redlinked. What's up with this? (Should I be asking this at the Village Pump?) Thanks. ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 11:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally when a user signs up they have to become autoconfirmed, that is, wait until their account is four days old and they have made ten edits before they can take certain actions, such as uploading files. Apparently, User:Brion VIBBER, who is the chief technical officer for the Wikimedia Foundation, has the ability to give a user the right to perform uploads before the autoconfirm threshold is reached by placing them in the user rights group "Uploader". I don't actually know which page you looked at to see her listed alone as the only uploader, but I looked at the logs for that account which shows that the change was made on November 12, 2008. It may be a very new feature of the software that isn't widely know about yet and this was the first use of it, which would make her the first beneficiary and accordingly show her as the sole person in the user rights group until more are done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is new. It is discussed at Village pump (technical) and Village pump (proposals). All uploaders which currently means the uploader (like the founder ) can be seen at . PrimeHunter (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mixing cannabis and cigarettes
Header added by Den dodge  Talk Contribs 14:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC) youre question/help menu is way to confuseing, maybe a 'ask the auther' or some sort of button, maybe ask the comnunity some how, make it leagal to headlines like 'questions' in the bottom, so users (me) can quickly ask about something.

but my question is: does anything happends if you mix hash(cannabis) with normal ciggarets? instead of 'burning-out-the-nicotine' of the ciggarets? (hope the answer and maybe an explanation on the cannabis-page, or in my mail, thx in advance! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.181.32.133 (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px]] This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer 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. You could always try  for an article related to the topic you want to know more about.  I hope this helps. C h a m a l  talk 14:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:AROBAZE.png|20px]] 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 [mailto:oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org this address]. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Account
There seems to be an account named Minibill, with no email recorded (so no e-mail password retrieval). I'm not really sure of being the owner of that account but I've never found anyone with that nickname except me. Wikipedia won't allow me to register as MiniBill (which is the nickname I've got on it.wikipedia) :( --87.4.236.85 (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (BTW what about that page?) --87.4.236.85 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Minibill doesn't seem to made any edits on en.wikipedia so you could ask to usurp the Minibill account.
 * ...oh, and I've deleted the content of Talk:Lady_finger - it looks like it was just someone using the talk page as a sandbox.
 * Cheers, This flag once was red propagandadeeds 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition
Of prose? I've been on Wikipedia for quite a long time and I haven't the faintest idea what it is. I attempted to look for WP:PROSE, but it redirects me to the manual of style; unless, however, it actually does mean the manual of style? Thanks in advance, a talk 20:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand it to mean text, as opposed to a list. I usually see it in relation to trivia sections, which are typically lists.  The advice with trivia sections is (in part) to incorporate the information in the list into the "prose".  So most of the article is prose (standard text), and the information in the trivia list should be removed from the list and placed in the main text.
 * ...However, I could be completely wrong - hopefully someone will chime up if I am wrong?
 * Cheers, This flag once was red propagandadeeds 20:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We've got an article on Prose. AndyJones (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, to you both! a talk 21:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

List of FA authors
I'm thinking about setting up a mentor scheme much like the "Adopt-a-user" and Admin coaching programs aimed at teaching people how to write articles as best as they can (for more info see the at-the-moment-very-sparse page entitledArticle Creation Bootcamp). For it to work though, I would like to see editors involved who are established in the field of good/FA article writing, so I want to contact them. I already know where to find the list of most active DYK creators, but I forgot where I could find a similar list on major contributors to FA articles. Can anyone remind me? - Mgm|(talk) 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WBFAN Den dodge  Talk Contribs 22:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. _ Mgm|(talk) 22:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

References and footnotes
I have read the instructions though it still hard to understand, and I cant manage understanding how the process works.

I'm trying edit new text for an existing article. How do I add a reference with a footnote? When I click edit all I see is this below. For example I have a www reference, so how do I enter it. And how should it look like when I add a footnote to a edit text?

==References==

Nicoliani (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Footnotes. You have to edit the section where you want the number for the reference to be displayed. When you put the reference inside the software automatically displays the reference text at the location of . PrimeHunter (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will try it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoliani (talk • contribs) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also Citing sources and an even easier summary at Help:Footnotes. Here's the super-abbreviated summary:

Quito is the capital of Ecuador.


 * Click "edit this page" to see how the coding works. And don't forget to sign your comments by typing ~ ! --Fullobeans (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I buy Wikipeida?
Hello, I wish to be anomonus. I am th chairman of MySpace Corp., and I would like to buy Wikipedia. Is this possible? (Don't worry, I am not a cheapo.)--The Makeover man (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, and is not for sale. But you are free to make a tax-deductable donation!--Archeopteryx (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a respone on your talk page.--Archeopteryx (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Shorter answer: NO! – ukexpat (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What would happen?
Even though I promise never to do so, what if: I awarded myself numerous awards that I did nothing to earn?--Archeopteryx (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing really. Some people might get suspicious though, if you awarded yourself a barnstar for making 10,000 edits if you've only made 4. From what I understand, what people put in their userspace is really their own affair, unless it is disruptive. Cheers!  TN ‑  X   - Man  23:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing would happen, but you'd look a bit silly. And if you did it with another account then that might be an issue. Pedro :  Chat  23:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you mean by: It would be an issue?--Archeopteryx (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Click the link - a Sock account used to make the main account look to be in better standing (e.g. by giving barnstars etc) would be problematic. Not certainly blockable but not a good idea. Pedro : Chat  23:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You will also get into trouble by signing barnstars (or any post for that matter) as if they were from someone else, ie forgery. Just awarding them to yourself, well who cares. But anyone who sees it will give you zero credibility in the future.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  00:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Michigan Wolverines football team
Why doesn't the infobox at 2008 Michigan Wolverines football team show the before and after seasons like the infoboxes at 2009 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2007 Michigan Wolverines football team do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There were some missing parameters in the infobox. I added |Next year=2009, which should fix the display. See for more info. Cheers!  TN ‑   X   - Man  23:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)