Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 November 20

= November 20 =

Can't find article
Hi, I contributed an article to Wikipedia a month back and I tried to do it again yesterday.

I used the article wizard and formated the article and saved the changes. However after I closed the window, I could not find the article anywhere. And it does not appear on the search. I followed the regulations stated so I dont know if it has been deleted.

Please help me to check if my article is in the system and let me know why it did not get saved.

Thank you so much! Nightout.sg (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC) vimala


 * Did you do this before you obtained your userid? --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your account was created 14 October 2009 and has no other edits than this question. Were you logged in to this account or another account? If you were not logged in then do you know the used IP address? If you log out and still have the same IP address then you can see whether the IP address has made edits without logging in at Special:Mycontributions. However, that doesn't show edits to deleted pages, but an administrator like me could see it if I knew the IP address or username. Finally, what do you think the page name was? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You probably hit "Preview" instead of save. If so, I regret to tell you that you will have to start over.  Intelligent  sium  03:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "Donate Now"
So, can someone tell me what's the point of having a policy of not accepting ads and yet Wikipedia keeps popping its own ads? So, I guess the only difference is that this is done by Wikipedia itself!! Didn't they have a "Donate Now" just some time ago?? How is it a free-content if we have to pay for it? (though I know the word "free" doesn't necessarily refer to price) In any event, I juts wanted to say that I don't Wikipedia's game -- asking people for money. --136.183.240.185 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the annual fundraising drive, so I don't think it was that recent. As far as free-content: well, someone has to pay so that we can continue to feed the server kittens. -- B figura (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to pay for it. You can have other people pay for it.  Dismas |(talk) 03:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you create an account, you can turn the advertisements off with a Special:Preferences setting: Gadgets -> Browsing gadgets -> Suppress display of the fundraiser banner. Incidentally, it seems these new "Wikipedia Forever" banners are not a great success. Imagine that. I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't put some ads in the otherwise wasted space below the toolbox on the left bar. Banners are annoying on a site like Wikipedia because they eat up precious vertical space, and Wikipedia has lots of long pages. Combine that with the aspect ratio of the typical computer - wider than it is tall - and using vertical space for an ad is much more obtrusive than using some currently wasted horizontal space below the toolbar. But what do I know, I'm not a professional fundraiser. --Teratornis (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "wikipedia forever" banner won't totally go away like most of the other stuff does. Meanwhile, I keep envisioning a scene from Airplane! where a radio station shouts, "...where disco lives forever!" just before the low-flying subject of the film knocks the tower over and the station off the air. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Wiki Forever one was finally pulled, I think due to poor performance. And I think the reason for the location has to do with some prior finding that donation totals were correlated to font size, which can be higher in a banner. -- B figura (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the one I'm talking about is at the top of the page right now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone said I have to tinker with something in my preferences to make it go away. I shouldn't have to do that. It should go away when I click the "dismiss" button. That "wikipedia forever" thing was set up the wrong way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox composer
I have created this infobox, and have attempted to use it at Igor Stravinsky, but I cannot for the life of me get it to work, all I do is make a template loop. Help? Zazaban (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not using template code, see WP:INFOBOX for guidance, and Infobox scientist for an example. But before you do that, I recall reading somewhere that the consensus was not to use iboxes in classical music biographies. – ukexpat (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Composers. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the infobox be TfD'd, then? I don't want to be hasty and send it there if it doesn't need to be. Glass  Cobra  14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have redirected it to Template:Infobox musical artist like it did before today, and posted to User talk:Zazaban. There is no need to go through a TfD at this point. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pishtacos
I recently read an article that mentioned the legendary pishtacos. There is an entry for it on the Spanish language page, but not in english. Is it possible to request for the article to be translated? Thanks. 09:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.137.152 (talk)
 * Created Pishtaco as a stub. As the Spanish version is unsourced, it's quite a job to create one in Enlish.  Free free to continue working on the article.  Power.corrupts (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit window scrolls upwards by itself, how do I stop this?
The last couple a weeks a nuisance issue with the edit window has plagued me. If the text is too large to fit in the edit window: I largely use default settings, Monobook, I have recently reset all settings to default, in preferences my edit window is set to 80*25. I use IE 8. How do I stop this nuisance? Power.corrupts (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * every keystoke in the edit window sends me to the bottom line of the edit window, I'm unable to see text below the line I'm typing
 * every keystroke in the summary field sends the edit window scrolling one line up, until I view only the bottom line
 * if I'm at the end of a large edit window, even if I do nothing, every 3 secs or so, the edit window scrolls upwards, about 3 or four times, to position itself at the middle
 * This seems to be a problem with Internet Explorer. You can fix it by switching to a decent browser. Algebraist 12:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I get this problem too, in IE 8, I know thats not of much help, but at least you know you're not suffering alone! Haven't been able to find a way to fix it as of yet, but I'll try and remember to let you know if I do, regards SpitfireTally-ho! 12:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Using page->compatibility view causes the page to be displayed as if by IE7, which didn't have this particular bug. Algebraist 12:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It works! In IE -> Tools -> Compatibility view. Solves it.  Thank you. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a problem with IE. In some situations that I don't yet fully understand (something to do with long lines?) something similar happens in all recent versions of Firefox as well. Hans Adler 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's who in the Wikizoo?
Hi guys,

Thank you very much (Unionhawk, PhantomSteve and ColinFine) for answering my question/s, I appreciate it.

Ok, I'll try and simplify my previous first question.

How do you update an article which is not exactly meanstream (i.e. sport, entertainment, politics etc.) and that has not been picked up by mainstream media?

I would like to know: How many people per subject are there? i.e. How many people does sport and how many for technology etc.

Thank you, NirocFX —Preceding unsigned comment added by NirocFX (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not as regimented as you seem to have inferred. Basically, anyone edits anything. So there is no 'x' number of people who work on sport, for example.  There are Wikiprojects which enable editors with a common interest to collaborate more effectively, but membership of a project is not required in order to edit an article within its scope (nor is there any barrier to membership of a project - it is just a matter of adding your name to the list).
 * As for obscure topics, it is not necessary for a subject to receive mainstream coverage. If a fact which would be worth adding to an article has been covered in any reliable source (mainstream or otherwise) any editor is free to make the addition, citing the source. Feel free to post a follow-up question if what I have described is not clear. Regards,  AJ  Cham  12:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, obscure subjects can be the best example of Wikipedia's advantage over a tradional encyclopedia - we can cover topics which a traditional encyclopedia can't justify using paper for! As long as there are reliable sources for the information, which are independent of the subject, the information can be added to Wikipedia! As AJCham said, there aren't formal groups of editors responsible for subjects. Any editor can edit any article they want. For example, if you look at my contributions, you will see that I edit articles in all sorts of subjects! Some editors focus on an area in which they have an expertise or specific interest - others (like me) just edit various articles that we come across (although that doesn't stop us from creating articles which we have sources for, as I did with the William Stanley (Victorian inventor) article: I found that this local 'hero' didn't have an article, found sources of information, and created the article.) I hope this helps clear it up --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * However, lest the questioner get too rosy a view about topics well out of the mainstream, be aware that Wikipedia deletes thousands of articles and other pages for various reasons, perhaps the chief of which is failure to demonstrate notability of the subjects (as Wikipedia defines the term). See What Wikipedia is not for a partial list of what Wikipedia rejects, and see Deletionpedia which is a collection of just some of Wikipedia's deleted articles. The good news is that the MediaWiki software which powers Wikipedia is freely available, along with many other wiki software packages, so anyone can start their own wiki and make up whatever rules for content they like. The result is thousands of wikis that specialize in various subjects, many of which are insufficiently "notable" for Wikipedia. One of the main hurdles for the novice Wikipedia editor is figuring out the most appropriate place to edit whatever he or she has in mind. When you edit on Wikipedia, you interact with the software, which doesn't care much about what you type. After you click "Save page", then sometime later you begin to interact with other (human) editors, who will tend to enforce Wikipedia's rules on whatever you wrote. This can be distressing for new users if the reaction of other humans differs much from the initially encouraging impression one gets from the permissive software. But the only way to learn is by reading the friendly manuals and trying stuff. --Teratornis (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Creating a company profile
I'd like to create a company profile like e.g. the Royal Dutch Shell page. Is this possible and what rules should/ must be respected? Our company is not as big as or influential like Shell, but is there a possibility? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totems Communication & Architecture (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles on companies must follow the guidelines at Notability (organizations and companies), which have the notability requirements that the company must have had significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Because you wish to create an article on your company, please read Autobiography.  Creating an article about a company you work for is strongly discouraged for the reasons stated there.  --Mysdaao talk 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See also WP:COI and WP:FAQO. – ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And see WP:ORGNAME - the username you chose violated Wikipedia's rules and that account has already been blocked. You should choose another username that distinguishes you as an individual; it does not have to be your real name as you can see from our signatures. To really understand how Wikipedia works, read the online book: WP:TMM. You may also be interested in Wikicompany which (unlike Wikipedia) invites every company to write about itself. --Teratornis (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin Egos Run Amok
It's a well-known phenomenon that giving one group power over others results in abuse. Something not entirely admirable in human nature, I suppose. I wonder if Wikipedia has ever experimented with term limits on admin tools, or some other structure to check the human need for ego-gratification that adminning provides. 72.11.116.212 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You would take that up at Village pump (proposals) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But be aware that other similar things listed at Perennial_proposals have been frequently proposed and rejected by the community. If you propose something similar, there probably won't be consensus for it.  --Mysdaao talk 17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a greater problem in that the active admin corps are actually shrinking. The number of admins that stop using their tools, or that leave the project altogether is higher than the approval rate at WP:RFA meaning that there are fewer admins; and more importantly, as the Wikipedia editor base grows, much fewer admins per capita.  Lots of the menial admin work, like CAT:CSD and stuff like that has seen drastic growth in backlogs in recent months.  -- Jayron  32  03:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * CAT:CSD doesn't involve having power over others in a direct way. Admins are very good at dealing with the obvious: vandalism, 3RR, etc. The problem is that anything involving personalities and a long history tends to be complicated, and, frankly, admins are sloppy and interested in their egos. Fewer admins doing THAT is fine by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.116.212 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The link by Mysdaao to Perennial_proposals includes some kind of partial admin. See also the failed proposal Limited administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please add a category
Can someone please add Category:Daft Punk to Alive 2006/2007? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Mysdaao talk 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Background color
I've noticed that reading articles using monobook tends to strain my eyes. Is there any way to adjust the background color using my monobook.css or something? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really know that much about the .css so can't offer any help in that regard. However, what you could try instead is My preferences> Gadgets> User interface gadgets> Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin. Personally I think it renders the pages unbearably ugly and I shouldn't be surprised if you agree! However it may be worth a try, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, Spitfire. I just tried it and that is the ugliest thing I've ever seen. TN X Man  19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This code in your monobook.css will give you the opportunity to set the background color you prefer. Since only changes some elements, as well as you find others that you want to set with the same background, you only need to add an appropriate CSS selector.

 
 * -- Codicorumus &laquo; msg 18:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You can go to your appearance preferences and switch the theme to classic. This is what Wikipedia was like prior to 2003. Very comfortable both for mind and eyes. --Q0k (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Contributions
Hello,

I just contributed to the "Marc Dutroux" article on wikipedia. I also created an account on wikipedia, a few minutes later. I was wondering why I cannot see my contributions since I thought contributions were saved by IP instead of by account. However, I was wondering how I could get my contribution on my account, so please could you help me? I haven't found any answer in the FAQ.

Thanks in advance Dave

Sapphire dve (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave, although if you don't have an account your contributions will be attributed to your IP, once you have created an account, your contributions are attributed to your account instead. Unfortunately there is no way to transfer any contributions between the two. However, hopefully in time you'll have so many edits on your account it won't really matter SpitfireTally-ho! 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that IP contributions cannot be re-assigned to user accounts. Apparently, it used to be possible in the past, but it no longer is possible. As to the IP edits, there are clearly 4 in a row from an IP about half an hour before you posted here. I am guessing that these were your edits - but by looking at the time stamp in History, you should be able to tell that. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How do I delete my wikipedia account?
I just created an account and I want to change the Username, but I tried pretty much everything I could, but it won't let me. So, now I want to just plain delete it and now I can't seem to do so either. is there a simple process to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan-George-Rocks (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your account cannot be deleted. You do, however, have the right to vanish, which you can exercise by (1) requesting your user page (found at Special:Mypage) and subpages be deleted, by adding the template to them; (2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers); (3) never logging in to your account again. The "right to vanish" does not mean anyone has the right to a fresh start under a new identity. Anyone who wants to continue editing should request a change of username instead so edits can be reattributed. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 19:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * However, you can change your user name by following the instructions at "Changing username" --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello there, although it is possible to have your name changed, it is usually reserved for editors with a higher volume of edits. Because you haven't really done many edits with your current account, I suggest that you scramble the password, logout, and then simply create a new account with the desired username (in the same way that you just created your current one). Although this is perfectly within policy, you should be aware that editing from two accounts at the same time is prohibited. Kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, not quite, using a second account to evade a block or a ban is prohibited. Use of a second account is OK in some circumstances. – ukexpat (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Source for bibliography
Can you please help me find a source I can put in a bibliography for a book I am writing? I am trying to verify the original USDA protein requirements. ∼∼∼∼ Thank You  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.201.178 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 06:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to upload image and getting nowhere
Why does this have to be so complicated? I have registered, but apparently am not autoconfirmed, or such nonsense. Having wasted 10 minutes trying to upload an image to an article: 30k photo I took of violinist Ida Levin, in concert, I'm not able to do it...and I can't figure out how from the various 'help' features. Any help appreciated, thanks,

Keith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith rodan (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's complicated because copyright is a serious issue. As this is an image that you have created, please upload it to Commons so that it is available for use on all Wikimedia Projects. Commons does not have an autoconfirmation requirement. Click on the link I have just provided and then on the "It is entirely my own work" link. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just emailed you. If you reply with the image, I can upload for you.  It only takes 10 edits to become auto-confirmed, so you don't have long to wait.  These restrictions exist beacause of copyright law and vandalism. Superm401 - Talk 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)