Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 October 24

= October 24 =

Death notice for a recently deceased famous composer
There seems to be a hold on adding new notices to the "Recent Deaths" area. I don't know how to contact the right folks for adding this, but you already have Maryanne Amacher's death listed under her biography listing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryanne_Amacher

Could someone kindly add this info for the 22nd of October?

Thank you,

Rod —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rostasi (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you refer to Deaths in 2009 then it is semi-protected and you need 3 more edits to any page before your account becomes autoconfirmed so you can edit semi-protected pages. You can make suggestions for the page at Talk:Deaths in 2009. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute
When i search for "CCAI", the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute article does not come up (even though the article mentioned it is referred to by the acronym). Also, when i search "Congressional Coalition", it comes up as "Congressional Coalition on Adoption", which was the old name of the article. How can i fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrumo (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If we do not have a page named CCAI that redirects the user to that page, then a user won't be redirected. I created a disambig page for it now as there are multiple meanings for the acronym. Second, the search is indexed every couple of days, which means that either new or recently changed article's won't have been updated yet. Give it a couple of days and see if it updates. That virtually always solves the problem :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 06:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cecile O'Rahilly~audio file
Some time ago, I posted an audio file of this scholar reading the first 100 lines or so of the *Tain Bo Cuailgne*. Will it ever be available for use..., for anyone? Access seems strangely blocked. -Raymond CormierRjmcormier (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Files are available for use as soon as they are uploaded, unless they are deleted. If you are referring to the file TBC-ORah3.ogg uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in November 2008 then shows it was deleted a month later for missing license information. Many recordings are copyrighted and there has to be a license which allows the upload. See for example commons:Commons:Licensing. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniela Cicarelli
I removed a link to a paparazzi sex video and most of the article--it seemed pov and cruel to Cicarelli. Was I right to do this under BLP? Someone has reverted my edit. ThanksRich (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP mostly deals with material that is poorly sourced (i.e. libellous), and that doesn't seem to apply here. The material was well-sourced. As the reverting user implied, you should have at least started a discussion on the talk page before removing the material; perhaps some of it could have been saved. Xenon54 / talk / 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, thanksRich (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it a bit more, and I think that if what you say is correct wikipedia policy then it's pretty messed up. Linking the video is rather discourteous whether or not i'ts legal and well-sourced. Yes, she is a famous person, but "he" may not be, although that's hardly one of my main points.

She and he didn't consent to the video, and if I remember and understood correctly, in the United States, the philosophy behind the "public person" privacy rulings by the Supreme Court was overriding and obvious public interest, and surely this video has no ovverriding and obvious public interest. It is true that this was filmed outside of the USA, but do we want to support a kind of virtual sexual tourism? Surely an unauthorized sex video taken within the usa wouldn't pass muster on wikipedia, and I think we should have a uniform policy.Rich (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi all!
Please, just one answer, if my main account is block for some period of time, can i edit wikipedia over ip address, in a peaceful and useful manner? Is that forbidden? 89.216.205.134 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. You are using another account or IP address to evade a block, a practice known as sockpuppetry. This will result in the block on your main account being reset, and possibly extended. Xenon54 / talk / 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, i cannot edit ANYTHING during block on the main account?? No matter on content? 89.216.205.134 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can request an unblock on your account... I think there are instructions on how to do that at the bottom of it on your talk page.  Or you could have kept it secret from us, but that ship has apparently sailed ;)  TastyCakes (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) No, nothing. It's right there in the sockpuppet policy: "Circumventing policies or sanctions: Policies apply per person, not per account...Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account, and in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart." Xenon54 / talk / 14:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * x2 That's why it's called a block. It means no editing allowed. It may be possible for a checkuser to link your IP address to your main account - which might result in a block on the IP address because of sockpuppetry.  Ron h jones (Talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But i didnt know that!! I will never edit then! Thats the only reason for my block extension now! What can i do? I dont want new block!! Please help... 89.216.205.134 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You made just one edit outside the Wikipedia space, and three edits here. As you did not know this - and took the initiative to ask here - i would say there is no real issue. Just refrain from editing till the block period is at an end. Alternatively you could contest the block in case you don't think it is justified. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplacement
I am creating a headline in one place, and it is appearing in another. I checked to see if there was anything wrong on the edit page, but there's not. Is it because there are tables on this page? Please help. Mr. Prez (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed in . A table was not ending correctly. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Prez (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I' m Lost As To Where To Go From Here........
Two questions:

1) I searched Wiki before I started my first article submission on Charlie "Tremendous" Jones and could find no reference whatsoever. When I was looking today for some additional reference links, I came across the following on Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_%22Tremendous%22_Jones_(speaker) As you can see, it is a link to an article on Wiki about him. Yet, when I go into the search function on Wiki and type his name, both just simply Charlie Jones and Charlie "tremendous" Jones, Wiki does not pull up any article on this person.

Is this just an article which was created by a user & subsequently deleted from Wiki, or why cannot I find it on the Wiki website? If it is the former, am I safe to attempt to create & resubmit the article? 2) During the same search on Google, this came up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Digby_scallops/Charlie_%22_Tremendous%22_Jones This is my User Page where I was developing my article prior to submission. Why has this appeared on the internet?

Thank you for your assistance.

Digby scallops (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Clicking your first link shows it definately exists - Charlie "Tremendous" Jones (speaker) is a redirect to Charlie Jones (speaker), which was created yesterday. Feel free to edit the article, however try and include references to reliable sources, or the article, along with your contributions, may end up being deleted. DB  103 245-7 Talk 18:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Both questions are related to the indexing of pages by search engines. The Charlie Jones (speaker) is a new article, and has not yet been added to Wikipedia's search index - this can take a few days,
 * As for User:Digby scallops/Charlie " Tremendous" Jones, Google indexes user subpages as well as main article pages (unless the noindex template is used). This page must have been indexed while the article text was still there, so the text still appears in Google's cached version.  This will change when Google next reindexes the page. (Note that we have no control over when Google will do this)
 * On a side note, be aware that this website is called Wikipedia, not 'Wiki'.  AJ Cham  18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How to nominate a picture for deletion
I can't find the correct page to do this and is there also a list of reasons to nominate anywhere? The picture doesn't warrant speedy deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're looking for Files for deletion.  AJ Cham  18:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Indeed I am and thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sponsored Results" sidebar when using Wikipedia
At home, using the IE browser, I get this annoying "Sponsored Results" sidebar, which takes up about one eighth of the total column width. When I open Wikipedia at work, I don't see this sidebar. Also, if I use Google's Chrome browser, I don't get the sidebar. Any ideas how to get rid of it on IE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.197.68 (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a browser extension or piece of malware that has found its way onto your computer, perhaps involving DNS hijacking. Wikipedia itself does not use any form of advertising.  Some anti-malware programs may be able to help (eg. Ad-Aware or Spybot - Search & Destroy. Try asking at our Computing Reference Desk for more specific advice.  AJ  Cham  18:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) You have some type of adware on your computer affecting IE I think (Wikipedia has no advertisements, and this is not a regular feature of IE). I think the Google toolbar places sponsored results. Do you have that? Removal should be easy. If not, I suggest downloading something like Ad-Aware Free Anti-Malware 8.1.0.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can also use this method of blocking ads (retrieved from specific servers on the Internet) that might possibly solve the problem. -- Menti  fisto  19:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whilst that would get rid of the ads, it is a workaround rather than a solution. If the problem is caused by malware installed on the system, it could still be doing something more sinister and/or introducing security risks.  It would be much better to remove the source of the problem entirely.  AJ  Cham  20:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple non-sinister possibilities are 1) that you are viewing not Wikipedia but a mirror site that reuses our content, or 2) that you are viewing Wikipedia through a site that wraps our content in a frame and shows their content outside the frame (maybe a search engine). Both could be detected by a URL that didn't begin http://en.wikipedia.org/ —teb728 t c 07:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

How can I get Wikipedia to stop redirecting my title to another page?
I have prepared a page on a parenting practice but when I enter the page title, Wikipedia directs it to a broader page on a related topic. Is there a way to override this?

I see that in some other disciplines, there is not a problem with this. Take the topic of Yoga for example. There are separate pages for different types of yoga (Hatha Yoga, Bikram Yoga, Kundalini Yoga, etc.) and they are not forced to appear on the Yoga page.

Thanks!Manyhats (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If a title automatically forwards you to another page, it is because that page is redirected. Once that happends the destination page will hve a small addition under its title which states "(Redirected from )", with pagename being a link to the page that origionally redirected you. If you click that, it will take you to the page in question without automatically forwarding you.


 * On another topic, the title "parenting practice" sounds pretty much like a guide. Keep in mind that par WP:NOT policy guides are exempt from being included. If your page is indeed a howto you might want to post it at Wikihow instead (Not related to Wikipedia) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To which page are you referring anyway? According to your contributions, you have made edits to 4 articles, none of which have been redirected, nor have any of your contributions been deleted.  AJ  Cham  21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it: We already have an article on Parenting practices. Make sure that your page isn't covering the exact same subject. If this is the case you should extend the excising article instead. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Excirial & AJCham 2. I have not yet created the page on Wikipedia. When I tried to make a start, I ran into this problem and wanted to find out what to do about it. It is not a howto page. I'll visit the article you mentioned. Manyhats (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Issue
I am currently trying to edit the article Not Ready To Make Nice by the Dixie Chick. The info box is all spread out in text and formatting on teh top of the article. I have absolutley no idea how to fix this, could someone please tell me how, so i will know for future reference, and not just fix it. :) MistyPony1994 (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The infobox was missing a closing tag: |}}. The closing brackets that were present closed a section of the infobox, namely the Extra tracklisting section not the box itself. In other words, all sets of brackets need to be closed for the infobox to work correctly. Hope that explains it. DB  103 245-7 Talk 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems DB 102345 already fixed the issue before i could even look at it. hat the infobox lacked was a proper closing of the curly brackets which denote a template (See The change made. The cause of this was due to a nested template: The infobox template had a sub template called Extra track listing; Since there were only enough brackets to close a single template the wiki software didn't understand this was an infobox and therefor didn't parse it as being one - leaving you with garbled text spread across the page. Hope this help, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Intersection of contributions
I'm fairly sure I remember seeing a script which, given two usernames, tells you which pages they've both edited and the time between their edits to them. Does anyone know where that lives, assuming I didn't dream it? Olaf Davis (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Try Intersect Contribs or Wikistalk.  AJ Cham  21:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Olaf Davis (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm - there's not one which lists them in order of time between the two people's edits, is there? I thought I remembered that but could be mistaken. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You remember correctly, however I can't help you out. I recall seeing it, but I didn't link it. I don't recall whether it was written to help with SPI, or someone else remarked that it would be useful for that, but I recall someone could identify the pairs of people sorted by how closely in time they edited. I'm providing a little more information, in case it jogs the memory of someone who did bookmark it.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] links all bunched together
I made extensive changes to a page (Rock hyrax) and now most of the section edit links are all bunched together in one place like this:

[edit] [edit] [edit] [edit] [edit] [edit]

and not next to their section headings like they should be.

What have I done wrong and how do I fix this? Arikk (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing the problem you describe. Try refreshing, or clearing your browser cache (Ctrl + F5 in Firefox).  AJ  Cham  22:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a known problem, caused by an excessive amount of images pushing down the edit links. See WP:BUNCH for more detailed explanation and fixes. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see - the reason I wasn't seeing the problem is that I use the Vector skin, rather than Monobook.  AJ Cham  22:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the best way to fix this problem is to look at the article, and take the pictures beside a specific header, and put them into that section, as opposed to listing every photo at the top of the article or in a single section. This way, the edit links will appear between the pictures and not all together at the end. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That can still cause bunching if the sections are short. In that case the FixBunching template is the way to go. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Main page revisited
Scroll back up to and help me out! Supertouch (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it a couple times, and while I appreciate that you are trying to ask a general question, I'm not grasping the main point. Rather than ask you to rewrite a summary, perhaps you could point to the specific articles in questions, and it would be easier to give specific advice.-- SPhilbrick  T  00:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I too don't see what you are trying to ask. If you could point us in the direction of a page or name of a page then maybe we will be able to help you out. I don't see what you are trying to point out with the Corruptcopper (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)