Help desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 25

Referencing errors on Ornstein–Zernike equation

Reference help requested.

The website documentation indicates/implies uri that I supplied is "archival" in nature, I think that I would/should indicate that as well, too -- I have made the edit as it stands using archive-url, but good ol' "ReferenceBot" disagrees, probably because my supplied url is "(pre-internet)", for the average case, like this one, what is the best rendering/use of keywords/values ? So as not to unnecessarily catch the bot's attentions in the future ?? And to my and wikipedia's (standard protocols) satisfaction, too???

[edit]

{{cite journal
    |last1= Ornstein 
    |first1= L. S. 
    |last2= Zernike 
    |first2= F. 
    |title= Accidental deviations of density and opalescence at the critical point of a single substance |series= Proceedings 
    |journal= Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) 
    |date= 1914 
    |volume= 17 
    |pages= 793-806	
    |bibcode= 1914KNAB...17..793. 
 *  |url= (pre internet) 
 *  |archive-date= 24 Sep 2010
 *  |archive-url= http://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00012727.pdf
    |format= pdf 
 *  |quote= Archived at the 'Digital Library' of the Dutch History of Science Web Center  
}}

Thanks, WurmWoode^T 00:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use |url=. If there is an archived copy of that url at Internet Archive or other archiving service, that archival url goes in |archive-url=. However, consider changing to {{cite book}} instead:

{{cite book
    |last1= Ornstein 
    |first1= L. S. 
    |last2= Zernike 
    |first2= F. 
    |section=Accidental deviations of density and opalescence at the critical point of a single substance
    |title=Proceedings 
    |publisher=Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) 
    |date=1914 
    |volume=17 
    |pages=793-806	
    |bibcode=1914KNAB...17..793. 
    |section-url= http://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00012727.pdf
    |section-format= pdf 
}}

Ornstein, L. S.; Zernike, F. (1914). "Accidental deviations of density and opalescence at the critical point of a single substance" (pdf). Proceedings. Vol. 17. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). pp. 793–806. Bibcode:1914KNAB...17..793.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help Publishing Wikipedia Article

Hi,

I need help in publishing a drafted article few months back. Due to certain issues, I've to make some edits which I already done but the status is still the same. Can one you please check this article and share the feedback so I can make the required changes to assure it's publishing over wikipedia.

URL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_it_(Gold_VIP_Technology_Pvt._Ltd.)

Thanks in advance!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaygoldvip (talk • contribs) 06:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhaygoldvip, the article is obvious spam, moved to article space from a draft by you, consequently nominated for deletion and now deleted by me. You appear to be working directly or indirectly for the company, or otherwise are acting on its behalf. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the company you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Abhaygoldvip. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Help desk/Archives|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting WP pages

Is there a separate procedure for deleting WP pages? I'm thinking of WP:Randy in space.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland: Yes, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I update and edit the information on your site

How do I update and edit the information about me on your site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.149.148 (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP it depends on what info you are talking about and where it is placed. Since you do not have a talk or user page it is unclear what info u are talking about. All pages have an edit source button top right area of the window where u can edit the article (if u have permissions to edit it) VarunFEB2003 ^{Talk • Contribs • Guestbook} 12:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have information about yourself on the site, that is another reason to register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an article about you (or material about you in an article on another subject) that you are not happy with, please see WP:AUTOPROB for how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed user

I came back here after a 2 months wikibreak and I saw that I'm a extended confirmed user. So what is this permission and whats the difference between autoconfirmed users?

WP:Extended confirmed user explains it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ayub407^talk 18:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking Question

In reviewing drafts, I occasionally encounter a draft that has serious overlinking of ordinary words, which is distracting from the article. It typically appears, from context, that the author of the article is in India or some other country where English is the usual second language. My question (and if this is the wrong place to be asking, please direct me elsewhere) is whether linking to ordinary words should be based on the assumption that the reader is level 4 fluent in English and so not only doesn’t need linking of ordinary words but is distracted by it. (I am assuming that a Briton or Canadian or Australian would be just as distracted by overlinking as an American.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't purely meant to be a review question, but about the philosophy of who we should assume is the reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a brilliant query Robert. If you read the results of the Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011, the average reader was apparently above 30 and significantly from the Americas and West. The figures may have changed now, but the concept of overlinking, what is and what is not overlinking, is best addressed on the talk pages of the respective articles given that I believe your view in general is right – that Wikipedia is catering to readers who are the level 4 category. Common sense, and a combination of the culture of this place and its editors who have a feel of what is and what is not overlinking, is what is guiding a majority of editors here right now on this issue; and it seem okay to me. Lourdes 00:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit suspicious of that online survey due to multiple possible selection biases. But anyways, https://simple.wikipedia.org/ exists for a reason. While technical terms or words with a different meaning in the context should be linked, that is to build the encyclopedia, as a convenient way to have a "see also" that takes little space and can be skipped. I do not think we should link for dictionary definitions; I think the assumed reader is level 3+ at least. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "reliable sources" and press releases

Hello, is it OK to source some factual information about a school from the school's own homepage or a press release?

Example: "Beginning in kindergarten, students receive hands-on, inquiry-based science five days a week with a dedicated science teacher."

This is very rare in a public school setting in NYC, but most "reliable sources" simply don't get to that level of detail, and yet this is an extremely valuable info for prospective parents.

So I would like to include this into a wiki article, directly attributing this info to the school's own web site.

Would that be allowed?

Thanks Yuri Brooklyn (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri, in my opinion: no! The sentence seems a promotional statement. It should not be included especially when sourced from the school's website or press release. Lourdes 17:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; added to which, Wikipedia is not a directory to be used in choosing suppliers of services. Eagleash (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Eagleash Thank you. I am curious with how you see the difference between promotional and informational content.

If a school has 2 teachers per class (the norm in NYC public schools is 1), and has daily science in every grade (also unusual in NYC), it is positive, but factual info. How can I get that information in?

What if that same info were quoted by a "reliable source", would that be OK then?

Thanks Yuri Brooklyn (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yuri Brooklyn, if a reliable independent source had thought that information worth mentioning, then there would be a case for putting it in the article: it would have to be truly independent of the school, though, not involving an interview or a press relese. Even then, it is not automatic that it should go in the article: the consensus would have to conclude it was encyclopaedic and not promotional; but you could put it in and if anybody objected, you could make a case for its inclusion. But if it is sourced only from the school's website, then putting it in would be endorsing their opinion of what is significant about the school, which is contrary to our requirement for a neutral point of view. --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP-address

Is it possible to find an IP-address of a registered user? I warned a user several times as he was vandalising many articles. He then stopped editing, but now an IP-address (not a registered user) is doing some of the same as the user I warned. SveinFalk (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SveinFalk: Only a very small subset of users have that ability. They are called checkusers and access to that ability is highly restricted. You may attempt to file a sockpuppet investigation request but checkusers will not publicly link accounts to IP address for privacy reasons. If the IP is vandalizing articles, warn them a few times and then report them to WP:AIV. That is probably a much better, and faster way, to deal with this situation. --Majora (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SveinFalk (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SveinFalk - The real problem at this point is not that you need to know whether the registered user and the IP address are the same, but that the IP address is a vandal. So just report the IP address. The IP address should be blocked. It is less important whether the registered editor is behind the IP address or is blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sending content of a sandbox to an outside file.

I have a sandbox filled with math formulas. I wonder if it is possible to send the content of the sandbox to an outside file with the stipulation that ALL LaTeX formatting will be preserved? By that I mean that I will click on the file name and will see all my formulas in some kind of a browser.

I want to give more details as to what I need. I create files in LibreOffice Writer which is a Linux application. I am able to write some formulas there including integrals, sum signs, subscripts and superscripts. I cannot create subscripts of subscripts or subscripts of superscripts and the Wikipedia's sandbox allows me to do it easily. LibreOffice Writer has an option of uploading an external file and I hope to accomplish that. I tried to load the raw LaTeX formatting into LibreOffice Writer's file but it did not work. Formatting in LibreOffice Writer is not LaTeX based system. Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you can't, AboutFace 22. You can export a page as a PDF file, but that's the only way Wikipedia provides. I'm not sure what format of file you are thinking of, but if LibreOffice won't let you format a certain way, then its file format probably doesn't support that formatting. --ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "ALL LaTeX formatting will be preserved". Does this achieve what you want? I just looked at your sandbox in my browser, right-clicked and chose "View page source", and copied it all into an html file which I uploaded. What was once LaTeX displays fine; the links of course no longer work. Maproom (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AboutFace 22 I used to work on LibreOffice and faced similar problems and much more. In the long run, I changed over to a more dynamic word processor as it saved a lot of time. But till the time I used LibreOffice, my work around for such issues was to create stuff like "subscripts of superscripts" in another document (your sandbox, if you may), then take a selective screenshot (that is, a screenshot not of the whole screen but only of the formula) and then paste it as a picture into the LibreOffice doc and resize the same to my use. It's a workaround only. Lourdes 00:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to take a selective screenshot due to the fact that <math></math> tags render as images in the HTML, meaning you could download those images directly. For example, the first formula on User:AboutFace 22/sandbox is accessible as an image here Pppery (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Lourdes 01:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)environment name tags[reply]

Thank you, everyone, for suggestions. I am using LibreOffice since it is a better alternative than MS Word. I tried MS Word and it gave me many distortions even in simple integrals. I tried to convert my sandbox content into a pdf file and it worked only to the extent that I had simple subscripts not subscripts of subscripts or subscripts of superscripts. On that the converter failed. Now I am trying to use Linux TeXstudio application. The promise is huge but so far it does not work for me. Ideally it should do everything LaTeX provides. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom, thank you. Something terrible happened to my sandbox. I removed the most crucial part which was at the bottom and which contained more complicated functions with subscripts of subscripts and subscripts of superscripts into tutorial sandbox 1 & 2 and left them there. I did not read the warning that the content in those sandboxes is cleared every 12 hours and now everything is gone. I wonder if that can be restored for a few hours? Of course, it is all in my head and I can restore it by entering everything manually but it is quite a bit of work, perhaps 3 hours.

That html you showed to me is fine and I could get a pdf file out of the original sandbox as long as there are no more complicated subscripts which are now gone. Thank you. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is still possible to look at the material you put in Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting/sandbox by clicking the view history button and finding your revision - see Help:Page history Pppery (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC) (same user that commented previously)[reply]

You can likewise get the contents back from User:AboutFace 22/sandbox in the same manner, although you would ness to use the view history button on that page instead. Pppery (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YOU GUYS ARE PRETTY AMAZING, and you are amazing on Sunday! I was able to restore ALL my code, the portions I deleted as a result of my stupidity. Thank you very much. Now I want to ask @Maproom to try to convert it to html because now the sandbox has the portion with the subscripts of subscripts and subscripts of superscripts. As I mentioned before I could convert the sandbox content to pdf but not the last portion with two level of subscripts. That conversion failed. MANY MANY THANKS TO YOU ALL. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AboutFace 22: Do note that Maproom is not automatically notified when you say @Maproom in your comments. Linking to their userpage to is required for automatic notification. The {{ping}} template is useful for this purpose, as I used at the beginning of this comment. In this case, you would use {{ping|Maproom}} or, if you wanted to ping me too, {{ping|Pppery|Maproom}}. Pppery (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Since you are talking about pinging, your fix would also not have triggered a ping. If you fail the first time you have to redo the entire thing from scratch. New ping template and new signature. Just correcting the name in a template will not send a notification. Just keep that in mind for the future. --Majora (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: I was not actually trying to ping anyone with my edit with the summary Correct pinging. I was correcting the {{tl}}ed example pings Pppery (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much again. Now I @Maproom: for him to take a look at my last paragraphs, and I am doing it with a ping. BTW, TeXstudio is beginning to work.. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: see [1]. I'm not doing anything difficult or clever here, just grabbing the html, saving it, and re-uploading it. Maproom (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, WOW, WOW! It really works! It is very impressive! OK, in order for me to use it and I will almost definitely will (although now I am making considerable progress with Linux TeXstudio application and it also can do double level subscripts), so in order for me to make use of what you just showed to me I would need another, second sandbox, if it is at all possible in Wikipedia. That sandbox is simply a collection of formulas. I need to insert a lot of text between them for my current project. First, thank you very much but also here's my question: can I set up a parallel sandbox? Thank you @Maproom: (with a ping :-) BTW, How to print it out? --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AboutFace 22: User:AboutFace_22/sandbox is your sandbox, User:AboutFace_22/sandbox2 is another of your sandboxes. In a sense it doesn't exist yet, there's nothing in it, and the link is red not blue; but you can edit it, and as soon as you type or copy anything into it, it will exist. However, if you put html, rather than Wikipedia markup, into a Wikipedia page, you may not get quite what you expect. Maproom (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@Maproom: thank you for the option of getting a second sandbox. I appreciate it. I may use it on a very temporary basis but what did you mean by saying that "if you put html, rather than Wikipedia markup, into a Wikipedia page, you may not get quite what you expect?" --AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AboutFace 22: What Maproom means is that most HTML tags do not get interpreted as HTML when placed as source code for a wikipedia article. For example, even though it is possible to add images to Wikipedia using markup like [[File:Example.jpg]], attemptong to add images via HTML using <img> tags will just produce a literal <img> in the rendered page. Pppery (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]