Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 February 1

= February 1 =

IP vandalism warnings
When reverting vandalism, and then posting a warning on the IP talk page - how long back should we go before there is a clean slate, and warnings start at warning 1 again. Thanks — Ched (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends. If IP addresses are reassigned as soon as one connects to the Internet (as is the case with many large ISPs), then there could be a different person behind the IP each time you warn. I would say start at level 1 or 2 -- I rarely use level 1, as I believe it should only be used for test edits and other "not-really-vandalism" edits -- for each time unless it is clear that the same person is vandalising; for example, a stretch of vandalism edits in a few minutes, or vandalism to the same articles over and over again. Xenon54 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How to fix when tables/images and tex overlap
Is it like a bug or something? I don't know, but it looks ugly.--71.190.80.213 (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To which article are you referring? ArcAngel (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be better if you told us where the specific problem is so we could diagnose and target help better, but there are various templates that may be of use: Clearleft, Clearright and -. See also FixBunching.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox AFLretired
I would ask at Template talk:Infobox AFLretired, but it is redlinked. Is there a way to make it behave like Template:Infobox NFLretired so that Jack Kemp can have two stat pages like Keith Bostic (American football)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How to redirect for a duplicative article
I came across an article Abou_Yazid that is a very small article about Abu_Yazid. I tried to redirect it but it did not seem to work, perhaps because some lists link there. P7njsl (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. You didn't blank the page's content when you made it a redirect (which you should do), but the redirect was working anyway. Algebraist 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting images
Please point me to a page on how to revert images. I tried starting at Help:Reverting, Images and Page_history, but could not find anything specific to reverting of images. Jay (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "revert images?" Images can be reverted to their previous uploaded versions on their description page. You can "revert" an image in an article by removing it. flaminglawyer 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant reverting an image to a previously uploaded version. Is there any page that talks about this? Jay (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

withdraw from gabapentin
If someone has abused Gabapentin and wants to quit, what can they do to prevent severe symptoms and how long will symptoms last[?] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.35.159 (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Pictogram voting delete.svg|20px]] We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer. Contact your General Practitioner and/orphysician.  C h a m a l  talk 07:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Images removed from Scutigera coleoptrata
Someone removed all but one of the images from this page. What's ther policy on this? Should the number of images per articles be reduced and people who want to see other images be directed to commons? I had so far understood the link to commons in such a way that the images there could and should be integrated into the article where reasonable. The article also no longer links properly from the "search" page (still works from the side bar).--76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The key words in that sentence of yours are "integrated where reasonable". A gallery just tags the images to the bottom. Integration is when the images illustrate and clarify a particular section of text. Adding images to a gallery basically duplicates the function of the Commons. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The gallery was done in a previous edit. The pictures had been in the text and then someone ripped them out and put them at the bottom in a gallery. I thought there might be some rule why they did that.  It's a bug, so directly linking images to descriptive test is a bit more difficult than with other subjects, but I thought that some of the pix were quite informative and am sorry to have lost them. The link to the commons is more something for experts than the casual visitor. If someone might be so kind as to put some back? (Particularly the one with it hunting the spider would be nice.) --76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

hello
how do i paste a link? BOUT n actor i think you should know

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0108362/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joemorton (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nowhere to "paste a link" and there is no article on Kevin Breznahan, so you can either be bold and create one (please read WP:YFA, WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V before you do), or you can make a request at WP:AFC that the article be created. – ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) I'm not really sure what you mean by pasting a link. I think maybe you are asking that an article be written about this actor? This is a free encyclopedia written by volunteers, so articles are added to the catalogue by the mechanism of those who are interested in a subject, donating their time and ability by writing about that subject. This means that if you are willing and capable, you can start the article yourself. See Your first article. To requests than an article be written on this actor, please go to Requested articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Annoying browser problem
Hi

I seem to have developed a problem with my browser. If I edit a section within a page, it is adding a blank line above the section header everytime I save the page.

I am going mad trying to work out what is happening, I have disabled most of my browser add-ons now, and am using firefox 3.0.5 Any help would be greatly appreciated as I have pulled almost all of my hair out now lol --Chaosdruid (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone had chance to look into this one ??--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Ban
Please ban Monkeyman1239 (writing uncivil comments on Saints Row 2‎). Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endothermic (talk • contribs) 12:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He's been warned with a level 3 warning. If he vandalises again, you or whoever reverts him can give him a level 4 warning (add the code uw-vandalism4 to the bottom of his talkpage). Then you are allowed to immediately report him to WP:AIV. Xenon54 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Slanderous attacks on Boy Scout founder, based entirely on one writer's imagination
Can someone be considered a good source on something, if they dedicated a significant portion of their book listing the most idiotic reasons imaginable than the founder of that organization was secretly homosexual? Or are there rules against such slander? In the article on Baden_powell they mention the repressed homosexual rumor. If you can not prove something, should the claim be there at all? Many have taken such things out over time, only to have them put back in. There is now a side article about the controversy, it mostly showing the claims, and dismissing them. For example, writer Tim Jeal‎ claims Baden Powell was a repressed homosexual, because his wife had short hair and wore a Boy Scout uniform. Many women involved in scouts wear Boy Scout uniforms, and doesn't mean their husbands are homosexual. Do to head aches, he started sleeping on open air balcony at age 60, instead of with his wife, therefor must be a homosexual. The list goes onward. Even if he got his other facts about Scouting right, the fact that a significant portion of the book is based on his ridiculous imagination that its founder was a "repressed homosexual" who enjoyed looking at naked boys for sexual reasons, should it be in the article at all? Tim Jeal's page even has a link to it in the Scouting portal. Dream Focus (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interested parties see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting. The "significant portion" DF refers to is 3.7% of a large respected book.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 13:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a content issue. If DF can't work it out with other editors (including myself), then it needs to go through dispute resolution. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Respected by who? How can you respect a book that has nonsense like that in it?  Now then, does this qualify as slander or not?  I couldn't find any rules about biographies, and slander.  Isn't there a policy somewhere? Dream Focus (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be something that should be discussed among the interested parties and arrive at a suitable agreement. I don't think the Help Desk can do anything to improve this matter. Whether we say it is acceptable or not according to some standard policy, there will still be people who will not agree. The only thing that will happen is that the discussion will be dragged on to the help desk instead of where it should be. I suggest you guys take this to dispute resolution as Gadget850 suggested, if it is really necessary.  C h a m a l  talk 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick legal point, you cannot slander (or libel) the dead. So it's a Wikipedia BLP policy issue, not a legal one. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons also has nothing to say about the dead. Algebraist 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was some discussion recently (that I can't find at the moment) that BLP may apply to the recent dead, but yes you're right, in this case it's a source/reference/OR issue.
 * A similar situation exists in the Lance Armstrong article. Lance has been tested hundreds of times and he has never tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. He has also prevailed in court against people who have accused him of taking performance-enhancing drugs. Despite the failure of his accusers to provide any conclusive evidence, the article discusses these allegations because the allegations themselves are notable, even if false. If Wikipedia were to remove all mention of claims for which there is no conclusive evidence, we would have to remove all our articles about religion, for starters. There is no more evidence for the miracles of Jesus than there is evidence for leprechauns, but many millions of people believe in the miracles of Jesus so they are notable even if it should turn out that they were entirely fictitious. See also Elvis Presley phenomenon - all the objective evidence says that Elvis Presley died in 1977, but so many people claim Elvis is still alive that the almost certainly incorrect belief is notable. Occasionally people who are religious get careless and make claims that are falsifiable; then we can write articles such as: Great Disappointment. --Teratornis (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

rooots
i know some roots are for medicine are ther some poison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.119.144 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, any part of a plant can be poisonous, including the roots. Please address any other question like that one to the reference desk - Mgm|(talk) 14:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But note that we cannot give medical advice. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

random articles, changes?
Maybe it is the different web browser I am using? But I do not see how it could be this. Today is the first time I noticed this, but when I click on random article multiple times and then click back, it then sends be back to the page where I first clicked random article. This is definitely new. I always use random. Almost daily. And previously each click on the back arrow sent me back one previous page. For example, 10 clicks on the random page button. Then click back one time. I would then be on the page I was on after having clicked random page 9 times. Maybe I have not clicked my back arrow while using random article in a while. Is this new? Or is there a glitch in the system?And is there a place on wikipedia where they post changes such as this one of maneuvering around wikipedia? Thanks 24.166.153.36 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. It is the different web browser I am using. Safari does this. Safari is new to me and I don't know all that much about computers to begin with. Perhaps by default, so maybe there is a way to change it. But that is my problem. So. Anyway. I thought I'd at least put this up here so no one else has to rack their brain on it. Sorry for the inconvenience. 24.166.153.36 (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of entire section on SRIH.
I found the section on SRIH, The Societas Rosicruciana in Hibernia removed entirely and as i am the author of this piece(Knightpriest), i am reporting this to you in the hope you can do something about it, i do not see on what basis it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightpriest (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit summary by the editor who deleted it indicates that it was a copyright violation of http://www.srih.org/pb/wp_d88a9d3a/wp_d88a9d3a.html but that page appears to be blank now. In any event the paragraph is back in the article, although it does need some references from reliable sources. Also please remember to sign your messages here and on talk pages, but not your edits on articles. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

writing reports
which of these would be the best source of synonyms for the word FASCINATE? books in print,roger's tesaurus,the world book encyclopedia or the world almanac and book of facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.147.18 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried Wikipedia's 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. I hope this helps. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 17:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Login and site change
hi i have recognized that when i login with my english username through the english wikipedia it works, but if i try to login thru the german wiki site it doesnt, in addition after i login on english and change any article to german by clicking the reference link, i get logged out and cant edit etc., how does that work?!

Thanks in advance

Brais Brais (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The German and English Wikipedias are separate websites with separate logins. You can, however, create a unified account which will work in all Wikipedias by going to Special:MergeAccount. Algebraist 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing name format in search
Hi,

I am looking at Oscar J. Friend, and see that it cannot be found by searching Oscar Friend or Friend, Oscar. How can I remedy that?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopHistorian (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be found with those search terms, actually, but you can make it easier by creating redirects. I've made one from Oscar Friend. I'm not sure about Friend, Oscar (is that really a likely search term?), but I suppose it does little harm. Algebraist 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would create the redirect for Friend, Oscar (just to help the casual browser who might not know how people articles work), but be aware similar redirects are spotty. Gates, Bill redirects correctly, but not Brown, Gordon, Clegg, Nick, or Tyldesley, Clive. Xenon54 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the Gates redirect is leftover from someone else who didn't know about article naming when the search engine wasn't so smart. As far as I've checked the idea of searching those combos works. Perhaps it didn't with that particular entry because it was not yet old enough. - Mgm|(talk) 23:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference links...
I'm overwhelmed trying to figure out how to highlight in blue certain references, such as "Office of Strategic Services" in my new entry on "William Arthur Smith"  I'm also not sure what they are talking about when they suggest I put the article into prose format rather than list format, since my entry looks like prose to me. I will be adding sections etc.

I think it would be good to have some simplified directions for people who just want the new entry to follow a format like, say "Andrew Wyeth".

Pascin727 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should probably start with Tutorial to get the basics like wikilinking. The article is probably a list because it rattles off accomplishments without engaging the reader with alterations in the sentences or the tone. You will also want to make a references section where you write down where the information came from. - Mgm|(talk) 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference format used in Andrew Wyeth is quite complicated so you need some basics to understand it. If you feel brave and want to give it a go anyway, WP:REF and WP:FOOTNOTES are the place you should look. - Mgm|(talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I left you a tutorial on references. Parts of the article look like they used to be a list, but were simply collapsed into paragraphs. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Category "Sporting Knights": Knighthoods for reasons other than sport
I see Norman Brookes is in the "Sporting Knights" category. His knightood was not for tennis, but "in recognition of service to public service". If Brookes is in, we'd also have to add Hubert Opperman, who was best known as a cyclist, but whose knighthood was for "High Commissioner to Malta". I'm sure there'd be many other knights who had some sort of sporting career but were honoured for other reasons.

Either we allow anyone who was knighted for any reason and was well known as a sportsman; or we restrict it to people whose knighthoods were specifically for their sporting achievements. I'd favour the latter. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:CAT, WP:SUBCAT, WP:CLN, and other links under WP:EIW. In particular, an excerpt from WP:CAT:
 * Each Wikipedia article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. Multiple categorization schemes co-exist simultaneously. In other words, categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree structure, but a more general directed acyclic graph (or close to it; see below).
 * If you want to categorize people by the reason for their knighthood, and the existing category scheme does not, you are (probably) free to set up an additional category tree to handle it. However, before changing anything on Wikipedia, it's good to first determine why things are they way they are now. Presumably whoever set up an existing order had some reasons in mind. Whoever wants to change the existing order must at least be aware of the original reasons - how else can you be sure your new thinking fully accounts for the old thinking? Changing things without first identifying the other players and the stake they may have in the existing order might trigger an edit war. You can edit almost anything you like on Wikipedia, but so can everybody else - thus it's not enough to have a good idea, you must have a good idea that everybody can instantly recognize as being good too, or someone may just revert you. Convincing us on the Help desk is hardly sufficient, you must also convince everyone who cares about who gets to appear in Category:Sporting knights. Note that there is also a List of sporting knights and dames in case you are looking for more things to argue about. --Teratornis (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking the last comment first, this has nothing to do with "looking for more things to argue about". For the record, as a very frequent respondent to questions on the Reference Desks, and have been for well over 4 years, I don't think much of your tone and I don't appreciate being lectured when I've done my best to do the right thing.
 * I know exactly what you're saying about seeking consensus first, and I agree with that. I have lots of good ideas, but usually I don't implement them without involving others first (unless I'm being guided by WP:Bold).  I try to target my discussions to the most relevant place, to get the best chance of attracting the attention of the relevant stakeholders.  Hence, I was going to raise this matter at Category talk:Sporting knights, in order to commence a discussion with the very users you suggest I talk to.  But the first thing I saw there (apart from the fact that it's a non-existent page at this stage) was:
 * "Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. Please consider visiting the Help desk for a more prompt response or reviewing the Categorization FAQ for quick tips."
 * The FAQs gave me no guidance, so I came here. --  JackofOz (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I commend you for following up. The Help desk gets many questions from people who never let us know whether the help actually helped. The instruction you mention appears to come from MediaWiki:Editnotice-15, which I think needs a bit of editing, to something like: "Please consider visiting the Help desk, and mention that you were viewing this page." Wikipedia is just a bunch of individuals who can't read minds - nobody here knows that you read some other page written by other people that told you to come here, unless you say so. And it is important to say so - see How to Ask Questions the Smart Way - your odds of getting a correct answer improve if you summarize the sources of information you consulted and what led you to pose the question on the Help desk. As for my "tone", I don't understand what you don't like about it - when I use the word "argue" I refer to the activity which is fundamental to all human progress. (How did humans outgrow bad ideas such as slavery and animal sacrifice? By having lots of arguments, fortunately won by the slightly smarter people.) Wikipedia is wonderful because we can argue about everything, and a good percentage of those arguments are potentially productive, at least if we know how to argue. If arguing about the category is a good idea, and I think it is (because if we haven't argued about it, maybe we haven't found the best way yet), then the corresponding list might have something worth arguing about as well. Wikipedia is not a support group, it's a gigantic intellectual contest to see who can write what makes the most sense. When you come to the Help desk, you are asking to be lectured - and if you misspell a page name and neglect to link it, you are forcing respondents to do a bit of extra work to figure out what you are talking about (there is no Category:Sporting Knights as the correct name is probably Category:Sporting knights and Wikipedia's persnickety letter-case rules grant no quarter to the slightest error). When asking for free help, it's generally a good idea to make the helper's job as easy as possible. The Help desk gets lots of questions with these types of errors, and the great majority of them are from users with relatively little experience on Wikipedia. But it doesn't really matter how much time a user has spent on one part of Wikipedia or another - Wikipedia is so complex that everybody is a raw beginner in the many aspects they haven't yet explored. When I go to some part of Wikipedia that is new to me, I don't expect people to stand in awe of my vast experience on some other part. I expect them to treat me like the newb I am there. (Actually they aren't responding to me but rather to just the words I type, some of which might be clever and some which fall a bit short.) All that really matters is whether I get the information I need. And since written text carries no inflection as speech does, it's entirely up to me to decide what "tone" it has when I read it. So I just give it a friendly tone. In any case, I might not be the most congenial person on the Help desk, but it looks like I'm the only one who responded to your question, out of the possibly hundreds of users who monitor this page. Imagine what the people who didn't respond were thinking. (I have no idea, but it's so much more fun to imagine the worst.) --Teratornis (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I concede that I should have mentioned what led me to come here. On reflection, it could have been read as me trying to convince people of my point of view, rather than seeking advice about the best way of raising this issue with those most likely to be other than indifferent to it.
 * I don't think of these discussions as arguments. An argument is the point you're making or the evidence you're adducing, in order to prosecute your case.  It forms part of an overall discussion, debate or conversation.
 * I mentioned my other experience here not to establish some sort of credentials or to have me treated in any special way. It was merely to highlight that I take very seriously the rules about courtesy, not biting the newbies, and being generally helpful and positive.  I felt that a response such as "Convincing us on the Help desk is hardly sufficient" was not that; and when added to the didactic tone of the rest of it, it came across as anything but "friendly".  ("And since written text carries no inflection as speech does, it's entirely up to me to decide what "tone" it has when I read it." - I'll just point out that this works in both directions.) But I accept that was your intention, now that you've explained it.
 * "Changing things without first identifying the other players and the stake they may have in the existing order might trigger an edit war." - well, yes, it might. But where did I ever announce I had decided to change anything?  I raised this as a subject for discussion.
 * "When you come to the Help desk, you are asking to be lectured" - I'd be very surprised if other volunteers on this page have a similar philosophy; but if that's really the way this page works, I won't ever come here again. It's not called the Lecture desk, it's called the Help desk.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) the Category:Sporting knights appears to be a sub-category of Category:British knights by occupation, which (to me) implies that it would include professional athletes whether or not that's what they were knighted for. if you want to propose a redefinition/rearrangement maybe you could work it into the WP:CFD page somehow? or try raising a discussion on the talk pages of the individual knights. Sssoul (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll consider those ideas.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)