Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 July 27

= July 27 =

ban
I heard you can get banned from editing at Wikipedia forever? Can you get banned from Wikipedia forever?  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  00:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean banned from reading Wikipedia, no, you can't get banned from reading Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 00:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, I guess we have pretty much have to assume that WoW has visited Wikipedia and possibly sockpuppeted under numerous IP addresses.  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

also
Why is there a redirect here for WP:Y? What does that indicate or refer to?  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can find the answer to your first question at Banning policy. I do not know the answer to your second. Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, thanks, I only want the answer to this question instead of “I do not know”. Also, I don't think you really understood my first question. Thanks anyway,  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: the above statement was not meant to be rude, suggestive, or offensive. Any references are unintentional and coincidential.


 * I imagine it is because "Y" is a homophone of "why", which is a common question here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A method I often find useful when trying to figure out why something was done: First look at the page history to see when it was done. If the edit summary doesn't explain it then look at the other contributions at the time for the editor who did it: . By doing this I found this explanation. It was indeed "Y" meaning "why". (WP:Why redirects somewhere else so it's not optimal). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * for your help. I figured that it was “why”, I just wanted to check. I never ever thought of checking the history logs for the answer in an edit summary (that's cause I'm...wait for it...stupid). Thanks again,  An   editor since 10.28.2010.  04:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

also, again
How to apply for a WikiProject?  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no application process for Wikiprojects. For example, if one wanted to join Wikiproject Music, one would simply sign WikiProject Music/Participants by following the directions on that page. Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think I explained correctly: I want to join WP:BASEBALL. How? There is no “join” link anywhere.  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Baseball/Participant list. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To join Baseball, go here. There is a green rectangle down the left-hand side of the page entitled "Project". Go to the third paragraph, fifth line where there is a link to the list of participants. Click on the link. You will be taken to this page. Follow the instructions on the page to become a participant in the project. Bielle (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * very much  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  01:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, (for your information) I just enrolled for WikiProject: California, WikiProject: San Francisco Bay Area, and WikiProject: Disambiguation Pages.  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  00:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Black page indicator link font color
I would like Time 100, Time 100s, Time 100s 2000s to have the black page indicator font on links when the link is to the page that the template is included in. How do I do that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's automatic. For example, if I link to Help desk (this page), the link is bold. Goodvac (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See more at Help:Self link. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not working because I have changed the color of the links (see 2009 Time 100).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It works in the "Time 100" box at 2009 Time 100. It doesn't work as you want in the "Time 100 selections (2000s)" box at 2009 Time 100 (that box has a white "2009" on red background in the left column). As you say, this is because you have manually set the color instead of letting MediaWiki do it. Black is the default color for unlinked text so MediaWiki doesn't really "change" the color of a selflink to black. It just omits making it a link and then it defaults to black if you haven't set the color. However, selflinks are also rendered as bold text. That "works" in your box but it makes no difference because the text in those fields is already bold. White bold on red background may not look like you expect for bold but see the difference: I suggest you ignore that the special selflink formatting makes no difference in those fields. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So there is no style command for selflinks?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a "selflink" CSS class which you could probably customize to control how your account views selflinks, but I don't think you can control how others will view them. You could bypass the whole selflink feature by testing  in the template and display alternative code if the template is transcluded on that page, but I recommend against this for a navigation template. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Font size
Suddenly Wikipedia is appearing in font so small I can't begin to read it. In fact, I can't really read what I am typing here. How can I enlarge the font so that I can read it? It's got to be about font size 2. Please respond to me at [email redacted]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.144.210 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Check the zoom level of your browser. -- Jayron  32  01:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't reply by email. In many browsers you can zoom with 'Ctrl' and '+'/'-', or with Ctrl and the mouse wheel. If this doesn't solve the problem then try to clear your entire cache. If there are still problems then what is your browser and does http://meta.wikimedia.org have the same problem? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as Jayron32 and PrimeHunter said above, you should check the zoom level, in the bottom right corner for Windows. You can also adjust by using Ctrl and Ctrl (Cmd and Cmd for Mac). Also, is it tiny on other pages? If so, you should adjust you zoom. If not, clear your browser and cache. (As Jayron32 and PrimeHunter said)  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  03:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems using
Problems with OSX Lion and the math processor in Safari. I can no longer use the $$ $$ environments in Safari. The only change is that I just loaded OSX Lion. Prof McCarthy (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you tried using math? Ryan Vesey Review me!  03:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I contacted both Apple and the Wikipedia chat line. While the Wikipedia chat team and their helpmebot did everything they could to send me elsewhere, I think someone finally understood what I was saying, because within five minutes the math environment processor began working again, after being out for about an hour. Prof McCarthy (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry we didn't manage to help much here, but if it's fixed, it's fixed.  Chzz  ► 16:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Valasca
Hi! I created an article about a historical person named Valasca. Can someone please clean up the article? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the article is tagged for speedy deletion, “as a blatant and obvious hoax”. That is because there is no key information at all, and it is not written in encyclopedic style. And, rather than asking someone else to fix the article, it would be better for you to fix it yourself, being the creator of the article (remember, anyone can edit Wikipedia). If you feel that you must request someone else to do so, it should be placed on the talk page of the article. Also, this would be more appropriately placed on the article's talk page.  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  03:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Thanks anyway! regard  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  03:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't remember the content of the article completely, but I am not sure it was a hoax. I brought the issue up on the deleting admins talk page. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was quite un-en-cyc-lo-pe-d-ic (Yes, seven! First seven syllable word typed by me ever!). It was about three to four lines on my browser window, and had a single “source” (not reference) A single internal link, and a couple of run-on sentences.  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was a bad speedy. A tiny bit of searching by the tagger or the admin (e.g. would have found that though the article was lacking a bit of context, this was not a hoax at all but an article about a figure of legend. When deleting as a "blatant hoax" one is by implication accusing the creator of bad faith and so care should be taken.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fastily has given me the deleted content and I will be creating it at User:Ryan Vesey/Valasca if nobody objects. Anyone is free to help work on the article. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was thinking too, Fughettaboutit. It was not a “blatant ... hoax”, it just lacks detail. RyanVesey I am going to try to help the article, if you don't mind. Thanks again,  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  04:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neptune doesn't create hoaxes, but she does create shocking bad stubs about interesting but obscure topics, and then ask total strangers to clean 'em up. See her userpage for reason. I hope she hasn't caused too much trouble. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads, I see what you mean (ANI), and pretty much agree. But if it's a CIR thing, that'll belong back on ANI, at some stage, so for helpdesk / closing this q, I'll try to AGF and answer below...  Chzz  ► 16:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. “[He/s]he does create shocking bad stubs about interesting but obscure topics, and then ask[s] total strangers to clean [th]em up.”  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  23:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Neptunekh2, the article shouldn't have been speedy-deleted, but you will inevitably run into these problems if you create live articles that do not meet basic requirements. Instead, it would be best to use WP:WIZARD and make a draft - and, to read WP:FIRST.  Chzz  ► 16:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fatal Wikimedia bug has returned, crashing older browsers (Netscape 7-9, etc.) in new skin
References: 23926 report (FIXED June 2010), previous report (fixed), original report

2011 update: This fatal bug was quickly FIXED (and there's an even easier fix, below) but has recently since returned, so I'm posting a note about it. Some older machines can't use Firefox; Regardless of browser being out of date, Wikipedia is a major international (and primarily text-based) educational tool and should not crash a browser in this particular manner. This bug was confirmed here on June 21 of 2010 as occurring on several versions of older Mozilla browsers and was quickly FIXED at 23926.

However, it has recently since reappeared. Note that this is not a style or appearance glitch which is to be expected on an older browser. The page loads fine, just as in Firefox, THEN crashes when it attemts to access additional data from bits. (somethingsomething) .org. Previously it was wikimedia but someone was able to fix the problem relatively easily. It may be a related file, as the person who fixed it indicated that the problem might reoccur for additional wikimedia modules.

Note that the page loads just fine in Netscape 7 (and presumably 9, the last version, according to reports), as it appears in Firefox, then crashes when it attempts to load something from wikimedia after the entire page is up. That is the same problem that occurred before. I have just noticed this and will post a new topic.

Also note that this is only in the new Vector skin (or whatever it's called), not the classic (pre-2009) skin. The classic skin is compatible with older browsers. So the problem can be fixed by restoring the fix that was used for 23926 and extending it to other recent Wikimedia-bits, restoring the bugzilla fix if it was deleted from the script, or else default to old skin for older browsers. (So as to avoid unnecessarily crashing the user's browser.)

Options for Resolution: (in order of immediacy / permanence)

1. Extend the 23926 fix to recent bits from wikimedia that are causing the same problem. The glitch appears to result from an error in how older Mozilla browsers read a certain specific command.

2. Block additional widgets from wikimedia (i.e. future add-ons and scripts beyond the basic engine) on unsupported browsers, or tell the browser to ignore script calls containing the command that does not work. Worth considering as the current skin does appear fine -- until this glitch causes it to crash.

3. Revert to the "classic" (2007-2009) skin which works fine on older browsers, by DEFAULT for unsupported browsers. If the above options will not work, this would be simple, global and effective.

Note that I don't have a bugzilla account and I'm stymied to create one, since I'd have to create a separate spamproof e-mail address for that sole purpose. But I can message you with a sample error report, if you wish. Note that this problem was already confirmed and fixed once; the error appears in the same fashion as before, but probably stems from recent updates to which the previous bugzilla fix was not applied. Yclept:Berr (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional piece of data: Just noticed, the problem does not occur on [meta.wikimedia.org] or [wiktionary.org]

(tested using same browser). Yclept:Berr (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Appearance Settings - Darker Theme?
Hello. My apologies if this has been asked before - I have searched but can't find any specific references to this question. Also sorry if this isn't the right place to be asking.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it tiring and uncomfortable to sit gazing into light bulbs for hours at a time. I find black text on white pages has much the same effect on me. My eyes aren't great anyway - they tend to strain very easily. At the risk of rambling, I've never really understood why so many major websites default to black on white, which is fine for reading things on paper, but not so good when what you're reading is glowing at you (and yes, I've turned my monitor brightness down but it doesn't really do much except make images too dark to see).

So my question is, are there any appearance options that would let me read Wikipedia in white text (or better still, grey) on a black background? I've tried all the themes included in Preferences/Appearance and they're all variations on a black-on-white theme.

I'd even be happy to have a stab at creating my own inverted theme - if that would be possible and permissible - if there's nothing in place already. But I'd need some advice on how to go about it.. Can anyone offer any suggestions please? Thanks - Silvensis (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the preferences screen there should be a "gadgets" tab. Under the "appearance" heading there should be a check box labeled "Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin". As the text says, it only works with the "Monobook" skin. It may also be possible to write CSS style sheets that would have the same effect, but I don't know all of the codes for that.   Will Beback    talk    07:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The gadget may work with the default "Vector" skin as well - give it a try.   Will Beback    talk    07:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It does although not very well. There's a band of white at the top of every page that stops about half way down (cutting through) the WP logo.  And the editing toolbar above this text entry window is still white.  Oh yes, and there's also a jarring change where the page first appears white for a split second and then turns black with the green.  Dismas |(talk) 07:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This old thread explains how to set the text and background colours using Firefox preferences - any use? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks for that - I honestly hadn't noticed that gadget. Much appreciated. - Silvensis (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A further option to change colours, for users of firefox;

In firefox, if you put about:config into the URL, you can change specific settings; take note of the dire warning, because it is possible to mess things up here (e.g. setting colours to black-on-black). So, on your own head be it. That said, if you accept the warning,

If you put browser.display into the filter, you'll see a list of settings affecting colour. For example, I just changed the "browser.display.background_color" to 555555, which is a grey colour, and also changed "browser.display.use_document_colors" to false. Instantly, the Wikipedia background changed.

I mention this to Silvensis because, these settings affect all websites. Obviously, some fiddling around is required. HTH,  Chzz  ► 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, thank you very much. I can see it might be possible to cause some problems with this but, given that a glaring white background seems to be the unquestioned standard for most 'professional' sites, having some control to make the sites a little less harsh on my eyes would be invaluable. Thanks again. - Silvensis (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Going live
I created an article on my User Page under my user name. I then deleted my user name and moved the article to a page titled with the name of the person it is about - and saved it. This has not appeared on Wikipedia yet. I did it about 12 hours ago. Have I done something wrong or is it simply that there is a waiting time while it is checked. If so any idea what the average waiting time is?

Thank you..... Eva Meade (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The page you created is at Christopher Bollas (Psychoanalyst and Writer). It needs a significant amount of work though.  Dismas |(talk) 09:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's been moved to Christopher Bollas in accordance with our conventions for article naming. (And yes, it needs a great deal of work.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was at work and got a call just as I was finishing the word "though".  I didn't have time to fix anything with it.  Dismas |(talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a bit more help about drafts on the user's talk page, and edited the double-redir user page.  Chzz  ► 16:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

symptoms of amoeboisis
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the talk page discussion (if a link has been provided). -- Jayron  32  12:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The question "Is loss of appetite a symptom of amoebiasis?" was not a request for medical advice or a diagnosis, but a request for information. Our article Amoebiasis should help answer that question. DuncanHill (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Quick: What has happened to the interwiki links?
There are five interwiki links in the text, but the links are not visible.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see them displayed as normal, at the bottom of the left sidebar. You may have to click a "Languages" link. See Help:Interlanguage links. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Interlanguage links are always positioned in the "Languages" section, positioned in the left sidebar in the default skin, at the top or bottom in some other skins. You may have to click a small triangle at the "Languages" heading to toggle whether they are displayed. I see them fine. If the problem is specific to that page then reload it. If it's on all Wikipedia pages then clear your entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I see them also now, after having clicked the small triangle. (The problem was specific to this page.)
 * Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Error in URL and title
I work for Open-E Inc. I've found an error in URL and title of article about one of our product. Here is the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_Storage_Server_V6

The proper name of the product is: Open-E Data Storage Server V6. There are also mistakes in a body of the article but I'll fix them on my own.

Thank you for your help, Patryk Kosiń — Preceding unsigned comment added by Open-e (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You have a COI so please use the article's talk page to suggest changes to the article rather than edit yourself. Your user name is also in breach of the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tagged Open-E and Date Storage Server V6 for speedy deletion as spam masquerading as articles. – ukexpat (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles have been deleted; user has been 'ed, so marking this 'resolved' as there's nothing else we can do right now.  Chzz  ► 15:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Formatting wiping out categories and navboxes at Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw
Please see the bottom of Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw. There are some formatting oddities that are wiping out the navboxes and categories. E.g., I have just added Time 100s 2010s in the right place, but it does not appear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done partially. Wait, will do the rest. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Although the last ref is ref number 1 together with ref 1, but I can not do anything. Would be best to remove this ref grouping, as it's problematic sometimes and really unnecessary. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the grouped referencing; it didn't seem to serve any purpose and, as you say, messed up the ref numbering.  Chzz  ► 15:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversy
Could someone please enlighten me on the current consensus as to "controversy" section titles?

The reason I'm asking here rather than e.g. at WT:NPOV or WT:MOS is that it is as much a matter of encyclopedic style and accuracy as of neutrality.

I believe that an unnecessarily generic section title like "Controversy" is unhelpful to the reader and may even violate NPOV and BLP.

Granted, if there are multiple controversies in which a living person is involved, then a section title "Controversies" may most faithfully and simply reflect the overall content of its subsections. But if there is a single controversy regarding e.g. a specific issue or dispute, shouldn't we try to find a section title that more truthfully describes the specifics of the situation in question?

I'm quite sure that this issue keeps flaring up in many different articles, but I couldn't find any discussion about it. --213.196.211.14 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about in page titles? One worth considering would be Essjay controversy. There's currently about 1500 articles with 'controversy' in the page title.
 * I think, really, it'd be very hard to come up with a blanket guideline (and it might get rather creepy). I think it'd need consideration on a case-by-case basis - to determine if a better name does, or does not fit, a specific instance. I can imagine occasions where it could be unhelpful or violate NPOV/BLP, but I can think of others where it's probably the best name we can come up with (through consensus).  Chzz  ► 18:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should have been more precise. I specifically meant "controversy" as the single word in a section title. Suppose a section that deals with a single, specific controversy, let's say it's about the naming of a person or entity. What I meant is that that section should probably be titled along the lines of "Naming controversy" rather than just "Controversy", right? --213.196.211.14 (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a case for a section called ==Controversy== on a BLP, no; because, presumably, whatever-the-controversy-is-about wouldn't be the person, as such; thus, there could be a more meaningful heading. ==Sausage controversy== or whatever. Or something more specific to whatever-it-is.
 * But again, I do think this is very hard to discuss in general terms, without specific examples, and would likely be a 'discuss on talk page' thing for any specific article.  Chzz  ► 19:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. Thanks for the advice. --213.196.211.14 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also Controversy_sections and its associated talk page. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Unwieldy template
Hi, I came across this template, Template:Public spaces, and it seemed to be something that wouldn't really work well. A comment on the talk page from 2010 also says the same point, that the template would be unwieldy if it really included all public spaces. How can I try to redesign or delete it to address the problem? Aslbsl (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a pretty pointless template as it stands. If the intention was to cover all public spaces worldwide, it would be huge. It is only used on a few articles so my view is to send it to WP:TFD for discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Aslbsl (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

oldest unsourced articles?
I've tried sorting articles that have been tagged as unsourced, but since there are well over 25,000, AWB can't access them all. Is there a list of such articles by tag date, as there is for orphans? — kwami (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; if you go to Category:Articles lacking sources or Category:Articles with unsourced statements you will find the month-by-month subcategories. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — kwami (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve Lieberman

 * Steve Lieberman the Gangsta Rabbi

i submitted an article on Steve Lieberman the Gangsta Rabbi. you nominated it for speedy deletion by reason a7. as i was contesting this, telling why the artist validly met notability guidelines--you deleted the article before i even stated my case. having multiple features in the 11th largest newspaper and being signed to an indie label around for 9 years and having 7 notable artists on their roster qualifies by your own standards as 'notable' you didn't even let me plead my proper case. please help

613codify (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia articles do not start by describing their subject as "a tough, fearless punk rocker". That kind of phrasing indicated a press kit or other form of advertisement. Create a new, clean, nonsense-free version of the article in a userspace such as User:613codify/Steve Lieberman (rapper), then move it into articlespace when it is ready for publication. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

replacing picture on my page
I have two pictures on my page one old and a new one just uploaded to commons, I am unable to remove the old one and replace it with the one on the right side of the page, any help ? Leicapic (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Which page is this for? Monchoman45 22:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They seem to be referring to either Aaron Elkins or Bob Lampert. Though I don't see any recent edits to either by this user.  Dismas |(talk) 22:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Must be the Lampert article since the user's only upload at Commons is this one. And I've added the image to the page in question.  Dismas |(talk) 22:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Leicapic, to change a picture you change the article where it is used (as Dismas did for you). Showing the new picture on the file description page of the old picture, File:Bob at Amphitrite Point copy.jpg, does nothing. I reverted your edits there. —teb728 t c 23:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You probably wanted to upload a new file - that link is on the file page, at the end of "File history". But, unless there is a compelling reason to replace it (such as, a better version) it's probably better to just upload the new file, and then - on whichever page you want to use it - put something like - see Picture tutorial.

So, in this specific case, you could put e.g. thumb|This is Bob, at Amphitrite Point on whatever page - as I have, here, on the right.  Chzz  ► 23:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently he did upload File:Bob copy.jpg. (File:Bob at Amphitrite Point copy.jpg was the old pic.) But he didn’t know how to replace the file; he tried showing the new file on the file description page of old (see here, which of course didn’t work. —teb728 t c 00:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise that; but, thanks  Chzz  ► 09:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Watching all the subpages of a topic
Is it possible to (automatically) watch all of the subpages of a topic? For example, I would like to watch all of the subpages with the prefix "Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/" Ryan Vesey  Review me!  22:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am pretty sure the only option is to manually go to each page and color in the little star. An alternate method would be to use the "edit raw watchlist" option and copy-paste all the names of all the pages you want to add.  That may require a little less labor; but either way you have to do it "manually".  -- Jayron  32  23:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you might find it useful to go to e.g. Category:All articles that need to be wikified and click on related changes in the toolbox.  Chzz  ► 23:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a relativelly popular request:
 * Bug 2308 - ability to watch "bundles" of sub-pages
 * Bug 1710 - Ability to watch all articles in a category
 * Bug 15072 - Protect, watchlist or delete a whole book at once
 * Helder 20:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Need help with the article
I have recently created an article on the name of Syed Zakir Hussain shah and after little i am receiving messages from Wikipedia asking me to make certain changes in order to keep this in Wikipedia website. Although I have added references it doen't show any sign of that they consider those reference to right because they are still asking the same question.

Here are the things they have asked me to add :

This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (June 2011) Click [show] on right for more details.

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available.

But I don't know how solve this therefore I would need your help with this so can you please answer this as soon as possible.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali786151214 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:FIRST.


 * It needs inline references - the little [1] things that you see on articles; and, the references need to be "reliable sources" - for example, "geocities" is not a reliable source. See WP:REFB, and, I'll add more help on referencing to your user talk page.  Chzz  ► 23:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)