Help desk
< December 23	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 25 >

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.

December 24[edit]

Types of users in wikipedia[edit]

Hello,

Can anyone tell me what is the difference between an Administrator, Bureaucrat and an Oversight? And what exactly does each one do? I think an admin can delete pages. What would a Bureaucrat or an Oversight do that an admin can't? All help is appreciated.

Thanks, RomeEonBmbo (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator can delete and undelete pages and individual edits, protect and unprotect pages, as well as edit through full protection, quickly rollback vandalism and other edits, block and unblock users, and perform a variety of other maintenance tasks. A bureaucrat can grant admin and bureaucrat privileges (~~but not revoke them; that takes a steward~~ See Nyttend's comment below, but note that bureaucrats still cannot remove the bureaucrat designation, at least if the relevant policies are accurate), usually following a successful request for adminship. An oversight can "suppress" edits, so that they cannot be viewed by anyone, even admins, except for other oversights; this is usually used for libelous claims and personal information. See WP:UAL for more info on other kinds of users. --N Y Kevin @089, i.e. 01:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other advanced permissions you didn't ask about, such as Wikipedia:CheckUser. You may also find Wikipedia:User access levels and Wikipedia:Global rights policy good to read. --Jayron32 01:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense now. Thank you both!! :) RomeEonBmbo (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several months ago, a discussion (I can't find a link, or I'd give you one) resulted in agreement that bureaucrats should be able to remove administrator privileges. In short, both administrators and bureaucrats can grant certain user rights, and they can remove all types of rights that they can grant. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population Density value in Wikipedia page for US cities[edit]

Hi

I am using wikipedia to look for population size of cities and I now try to use the population density too.

if I use as an example Frostburg, Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frostburg,_Maryland

Density 2,576.5/sq mi (994.8/km2) and using the online tool http://www.metric-conversions.org/area/square-miles-to-square-kilometers.htm Answer: 994.8 mi2 = 2576.520 km2

thus my question is whether all these density values are 'inverted' ? 1 mi2 = 2.58998 km2 ... the km2 value should always be larger than the mi2 ?

it seems the case for a large majority of US cities I query ...

Best regards

Brahim Hamadicharef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.13 (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is /sq mi and /sq km, that is per square mile and per square kilometer. Since a square kilometer is a smaller plot of land than a square mile is, there will be less people living on that square kilometer for any given density of people. --Jayron32 06:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaldo[edit]

I have created a {{given name}} page for Arnaldo. Creation of this page appears to be blocked. Can you unblock it for me please? — Hebrides (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need an admin for that, so I'll add an {{adminhelp}} below. Note, in future, the best place for this request is WP:RFPP. Chzz ► 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp|See above re. SALT here Chzz ► 16:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

It was protected due to repeated creations and deletions. I would suggest create the page in userspace first at User:Hebrides/Arnaldo, then when finished, follow the process given at requested move. Then the community can make a decision as if the page is suitable to be an article. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've put the article at User:Hebrides/Arnaldo. It's a standard {{given name}} page but I've disabled the {{given name}} template at the bottom while it's in my user space. — Hebrides (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK check[edit]

I've posted a DYK before, and did it wrong. I've just posted another one, and want to check that it's ok.[1]

As an aside, I find this process is much more difficult than it need be. Could it be made more user friendly? Mattun0211 (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. I find it a very easy process to mess up.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of website address[edit]

I am trying to change the website of my husband Derek Watkins Trumpeter, but even when I click Edit and Save Changes it defaults back to the original incorrect site. Can you help please? The correct web address should be 'www.derekwatkins.co.uk (NOT www.derekwatkinstrumpet.co.uk)

Can you help please?

Thanks

Wendy Watkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondsgirl45 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wendy, welcome to Wikipedia! You did change the website address in the box on the right hand side, but there was one more link that needed to be changed, which I have changed for you. Please click on this link to see what change I made. I would also like to recommend to you that you read our Conflict of Interest policy, as because you are closely related to the subject of the article, you should refrain from editing the article. Have a very Merry Christmas! The Helpful One 13:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article is a very close copy of the material from this website, especially the "About" page. Wikipedia articles about a person should be based on what other people have written about him, not on what the person has written about himself. Were the quotes on your husband's testimonial page originally published in reliable sources such as books or newspaper articles? Without evidence of independent coverage of your husband's career, the article is likely to be deleted. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a close copy -- whole paragraphs are lifted from the website. I have tagged it for deletion as a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo in Bulgarian version[edit]

Hi,

the logo in bulgarian version of wikipedia is offensive for every single bulgarian. There is title "10 000 articles for Macedonia" but Macedonia is NOT Bulgaria. Please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.190.222.8 (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please could you provide a link to the page in question so that we can help you solve the problem? Merry Christmas! The Helpful One 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia has no oversight for the Bulgarian Wikipedia— you need to discuss it there. The site is at http://bg.wikipedia.org. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it isn't "offensive for every single bulgarian". It was chosen by editors of the Bulgarian Wikipedia and I guess most of them are Bulgarian. I imagine there are more Greeks who would find it offensive. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipedia-logo-m10k-bg-C.png which says: "The logo commemorates reaching of 10 000 written articles related to the geographical and historical region of Macedonia". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posts deleted[edit]

Why does a supposedly open leaning and knowledge disseminatiing body like Wiki allow Original Posters to delete article sthat are not to their liking or contrary to their own culture?

I have had articles deleted by people whose views I think are faulty and this reveals the posters to have closed narrow minds which is so wrong these days.

It is this biased shabbyness that detracts from Wikis aim of being an open prgressive learning tool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurblack (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? My quick glance at your Help:User contributions fails to find an article which you edited and which has been deleted. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

We don't. Articles are only deleted if there are good reasons, based upon the policies and guidelines that have been agreed through discussion and consensus. And if they're deleted out-of-process, there are ways to appeal the decision.

I cannot see any recent involvement that you have had in deletions in your recent contributions. If you'd like to ask about any specific case, I'm sure helpers could give more specific advice.

One thing that is essential though is, the core policy of verifiability. When adding any information to Wikipedia, you need to supply a reference to an appropriate reliable source. I hope you will agree that that requirement helps the encyclopaedia to maintain its quality.

It is a bit disingenuous to say that all posters (editors?) have closed minds. Some do, I'm sure; some don't. We're all editors here, you and I, and many thousands more. Of course, in such a large community, we're never all going to agree about everything. But, we can discuss things and come to agreements about what should/should not be permitted. There's no deadline, so as long as we all keep talking, it's fine.

If you can explain any more specific problem, I'm sure we could offer more help. Chzz ► 16:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only deleted article your account has contributed to is Transsexual Phenomenon Number 2! Wikipedia has articles about transsexualism and the deletion had nothing to do with the topic of the book. A similarly written article about any other book would probably also have been deleted. See Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for requirements for a book article. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that you are talking about edits that were reverted rather than deleted articles?

You have had several posts (perhaps most of your posts) reverted where you added unreferenced information. In some cases the edits were identified as vandalism. I believe, however, that instead of vandalizing you were posting personal experience, original research, or comments that belong (if anywhere) on talk pages rather than articles. Wikipedia has a policy that article content must be verifiable by references to published reliable sources. These posts were so wildly inappropriate by our standards that people thought you were intentionally disrupting the articles. —teb728 t c 09:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fair use of university logos[edit]

Resolved

– Image restored -- John of Reading (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this article and the image of the university logo in the infobox was deleted as "(F5: Unused non-free media file for more than 7 days)". I have two questions.

First, if I were to re-upload the logo with a fair-use rationale of it illustrates the article and there is no free equivalent, would that be sufficient?

Second, if I were to go out to the school and take a picture of their logo on their sign, could I then license that image under the GFDL, or would that be copyright infringement because it is a reproduction of the copyrighted image? --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 16:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, the image was deleted from the infobox on 15 December and put back on 19 December, so when the file was deleted on 24 December it was not an unused non-free file. I suggest you post at the talk page of the person who deleted the file, User talk:Fastily, to have the deletion reversed. If that doesn't work then try posting at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Startling by Each Step: Grammar check[edit]

Resolved

Dear Wikipedia editors

I am requesting aids for grammar check of the plot summary from the Chinese TV serial Startling by Each Step. I've done all I can of proofreading and correction, but I am not confidant of my ability. Please help. Thank you and have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already copyedited by User:The Utahraptor of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turning dab pages into regular pages[edit]

Please inform me how to do this or do it for me, if it is some admin-y thing. Monofluoride (and tri, tetra, penta, and hexa) fluorides should all be regular pages (perhaps listish, but still articles, not dabs). There is really no name uncertainty. Those are lists of chemical compounds (I will add a bit more context as well, as done for difluoride).TCO (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems in this actually. But I'll recommend taking it to the relevant talk page of each article in question (and leaving a note on the disambiguated talk pages too) discussing the proposal to change the disambiguation page into a list or article. Wifione ^Message 19:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave a note on the page creator's talk. He has a sign that says away a lot. Change should not be controversial. All pages have zero talk or development since their creation. They are really not a dab, but a list. I need this changed as I link to the entire concept of monofluorides, etc. I can't have dab links at FAC and I'm not trying to go to a specific one, but to the general class of them.TCO (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Dear Sir/Ma'am

I read the whole Wikipedia page and checked out all the links. But I am unable to have a clear picture as to how I can contribute to the wikipedia project. I do not have access to edit/clear articles for mistakes. I really want to volunteer and contribute towards this noble project.

Please help

Regards Aditya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityabalapure (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you try to edit? Do you get an error message? RudolfRed (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "I read the whole Wikipedia page"? There are some pages on Wikipedia that new editors cannot edit because they tend to be vandalized frequently, so maybe that was the problem. You can also look at Help:Editing for more on how to edit. Good luck! "Pep|per" @ 20:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles can be edited by anybody by clicking "Edit". If you have problems with an article then please name the article and clarify what you mean by "I do not have access to edit/clear articles for mistakes". Perhaps you have the access but just don't know where to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal consolidation[edit]

This page needs expansion please. 69.125.19.135 (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunately the case for a lot of our around 3.8 million articles which are all created and edited by volunteers. Until a year ago an article could be marked with {{Expand}} but it rarely attracted attention and {{Expand}} was deprecated. The only reliable way to get an article expanded is to do it yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the References Section of Unified S-Band page.[edit]

I'd like to add two references to the Reference Section of the article on Unified S-Band, which was the radio link for Apollo. Since I don't write HTML often, I'm not very good at it. I could give the two references to someone else, if they wished to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Painterjh (talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't actually html. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. The most tricky part to many new editors is that you don't edit the reference section but the section where the reference is used. You can post suggestions to Talk:Unified S-Band (see Help:Using talk pages) but I cannot say whether another editor will act on them. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do editing, just offer info!!![edit]

Is there a way to contribute by sending info to the (primary?) author . Learning all this stuff just to add a tidbit to a section of an article is MINDBOGGLING!!! K9 Geek (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just post the information (with source) to the talk page of the article you wish to improve. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Help:Using talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten password[edit]

Hi I was registered as BillhooksUK - but forgotten my password - thus sent a password request, which has not arrived as I have since changed my e-mail address as I am now with another ISP and could not keep the old one... Option 1 - reregister with a new name and leave an unused redundant name clogging up the system, and thus have no continuity of edits or posts Option 2 - keep the old name and find a way to update my details without knowing my old password, nor the new one that has been sent to my old address Option 3 - give up all together and stop getting upset when some idiot removes all my additions to a page Option 4 - find a way to e-mail to administrators without getting referred back to this page Option 5 - have a Happy Christmas, after all it is Christmas Eve and what am I doing on line anyway???? Option 6 - hmmmmmmmm!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.42.95 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/BillhooksUK only shows 17 edits four years ago and no controversy. You cannot gain access to the account without the password or being able to receive mail at the stored address. But you can just choose option 1: Create a new account with a new name. Don't worry about this. Wikipedia already has millions of unused accounts and they don't clog up the system in a noticeable way. If you want others to know both accounts are you then you can post messages on their user pages linking them. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry has limitations on how to use multiple accounts but I don't see any problem in your case. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also- WP:USURP. Register a new account. Make more edits than the previous account, editing regularly over 3 months or more. File request there to take the username. (As the account made few edits and is inactive, likely candidate for approval). Dru of Id (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not true. You can't usurp an account with any edits unless the holder of the target account explicitly agrees to it; since you can't provide positive proof that you control(led) that account, usurpation is not allowed. --N Y Kevin @355, i.e. 07:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that, ironically, is not true; accounts that exist, whether they have edits or not, are usurped on a regular basis. The matter is not in any edit, it is with substantive edits. USURP is by definition rather conservative as to which accounts with edits may be usurped, but saying that a user's explicit approval is needed is simply false, and I would tend to agree with Dru of Id that this case is a likely candidate for approval if and once the user has significantly edited and can provide a trustworthy case for the usurpation of their old username. You know, AGF and all. Now I'm off to bed... Merry Christmas all. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should think that creating Bagging hook and writing a significant amount of content (pushing the upper boundaries of "stub" and lower boundaries of "start") would count as "substantive". --N Y Kevin @814, i.e. 18:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]