I recently discovered that an illustration that I created is a candidate for Wikimedia Commons and it contained a request that someone do exactly that. I'd like to do it, but Wikipedia is WAY too hard to use and moving something to Commons is too mysterious (yes, I've read the procedure and I didn't understand it because I don't live and breathe wikipedia ...I have a life). Here is the illustration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_of_dose_profiles_for_proton_v._x-ray_radiotherapy.png . Since this 'help' section doesn't allow personal contact to me, and since I'll never return, it's up to you to move the illustration to Wikimedia Commons or to somehow contact me and teach me how I can move the illustration to Wikimedia Commons. (Aside: I wonder how much wikipedia would grow if it was easy to participate...) MarkFilipak (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the image has already been flagged for moving to Wikipedia Commons. There may be a problem with its copyright status, as it is derived from a diagram published in Nature. I agree with your sentiments about the upload process, it has been made far harder than it needs to be. Maproom (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read your rant about the attribution difficulties. You are spot on. I think that the problems with all open source efforts with which I've been involved is creeping 'elegance' and lack of focus testing - myself, I prefer plain text but the Wikipedia elite seem to be going the other way. Regarding the diagram, it's not just a copy because the original was seriously flawed. Instead, I created it from first principles, so I don't even consider it to be derivative of the illustration that was in Nature. I don't know what to do now. MarkFilipak (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkFilipak: I have moved it to Commons using a tool for doing so. If you want to find it, it is now at File:Comparison_of_dose_profiles_for_proton_v._x-ray_radiotherapy.png Mdann52 (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone at the help desk! :) I just noticed that when I logged on, it automatically used the secure (https) connection. At first I was quite confused because all the links are now blue (not visited) because I never use the secure connection. Then I thought to look in my preferences, and saw a box checked off next to "always use secure connection when logged in"; I'm pretty sure I never checked that - so is it the default now? No big deal, just curious. --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 01:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The default is for secure to be on. See the bottom of m:HTTPS. (I misread your question at first) RudolfRed (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this why all my "Edit summaries", which used to drop down to allow re-selection, have disappeared? Arjayay (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely. If you are at another url now (https instead of http) then your browser probably doesn't show what you entered in the box at the old url. Other aspects of browser history can also be lost. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, the new edit summaries, that I have added on the secure site, don't appear either - I assume part of the "security" is not to save them?.
As a Wikignome correcting numerous little mistakes I use these repeatedly - to explain spelling corrections, or refer to rules such as WP:CREDENTIALS, WP:LASTNAME, MOS:BOLD etc. To have to look them up, and type them in every time, will seriously slow down my editing - unless I omit the edit summaries, or make them so generic they are not very useful.
Is there a way the edit summaries can be saved on the secure site? Or do I have to go back to the unsecure site? Arjayay (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's determined by your browser which may have a setting to not store form data on secure sites. Which browser is it? My edit summaries are stored in Firefox at the secure Wikipedia. You may also be interested in Custom Summary Presets at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts#Editing interface. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on IE9 - "Do not save encrypted data to disk" is not selected, and I can't see any other settings that might relate. Arjayay (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thanks for clearing this up, guys. :) --.Yellow1996.^(ЬMИED¡) 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I delete my account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NFSA-PATS (talk • contribs) 05:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, the best you can do is vanish. CTF83! 06:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When i edit the abhijeet bhatcharya pages topic notable single one column of that topic comes on top and other three columns come at bottom..the columns do not stay in line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essakhan19 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijeet Bhattacharya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You had accidentally deleted the end-of-table marker. I have put it back with this edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan_Warren_(priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been asked by my fellow priest the Very Revd Alan Warren if it is possible to amend and update his Wikipedia entry, with appropriate notes to confirm and new material. Awaiting your advice and such details. Revd R Easeman 86.29.97.213 (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you are associated with him, it is best that you don't edit the article yourself. Instead, you should describe your suggested changes on the article's talk page, where it is likely that a helpful and impartial editor will act on them. Maproom (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed strangely written and could be read to imply that that subject is dead...--ukexpat (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed most of the Provost articles appear to be written like the person is dead. I have to add is being Provost enough to warrant an article? A number of these Provost of Leicester Cathedral bios seem to be based solely on Who's Who London information. Caffeyw (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

There are two tables in the Petroleum#Export section. On my screen, they look okay; a little close to each other, but otherwise okay. However, when I try to sort the top table, they both seem to merge into one table. Is this happening to just me or this there something messed up in the code? I don't have the time to try and figure it out now. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two tables had become one table because the first table was not closed. I have fixed it. This also solved other problems and shows the first table is actually in the Production section above. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 13:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there are several protocols and standards created by Wikipedia users to uphold a certain level of quality across all articles... I feel that it is these stringent protocols, bots, and users on power-trips that are ruining Wikipedia. The last four times I wanted to view a Wikipedia article, the article I was looking for had either been deleted... had its pictures removed... or otherwise had valid and useful information removed from it. (separate articles all of them). Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of knowledge that anyone can contribute to. Not a place where we war against users who want to destroy something they don't like.

What is the point of trying to contribute when we have thousands of users (and their bots)running around removing valid and factual information/media from the wiki?

Removing factual information/media from the Wikipedia should be a crime... Why are we rewarding these users instead of punishing them? -Rob^talk 12:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If information is removed it is usually for one of 3 reasons:

• The material included is a breach of copyright
• The information is not verifiable
• The subject is not notable

Are you suggesting that one or more of those should not be grounds for removing material from Wikipedia, or can you give us some examples of where material has been removed for invalid reasons? In the latter case, there are processes for deletion review. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I agree with the utilization of what I will call a "filter" to keep wikipedia a factual and copyright respecting place. I am also familiar with the process for deletion review. The system, however is flawed.

For articles.... If a biased individual nominates an article for deletion on some grounds.... 90% of the time a simple google search of the topic in question will yield results that will discredit their deletion nomination. Often times I will see the page of the review of an article nominated for deletion after it is too late and see that if I had caught it in time, the article would have been saved. Ignorance is not an excuse for destroying factual information that someone has spent time creating. You cannot possibly know everything, and simply because you get 10 people who say they have never heard of 'x' and 5 people who have heard of 'x' that means the article does not belong on wikipedia?

For images... Unless the individual nominating has sufficient reason to believe the image is infringing on copyright, why nominate it at all? If a copyright owner complains, I can see reason for removing an image. Otherwise I strongly believe that popular images (ones that can be found in over 100,000+ different locations across the internet) have obviously lost ties with their original uploader/photographer/etc. If you have a wikipedia article for a famous person and the article has no image... but a simple google search yields many of these popular images used all over... it really makes Wikipedia look bad, and it is next to pointless to cite image sources or remove images in this case.

Information removed from article for lacking credible source... This is honestly a joke. I'd say a good 50% of sources on many articles are just made up... or link to a source that is a webpage where the information is unsourced there. If someone disputes information added to an article, but the information is factual and remains non-biased and neutral, (regardless of where the source is leading) unless you can prove otherwise (with a valid source) leave the information in the article. Just my thoughts -Rob^talk 00:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I see this every time I come to Wikipedia? If I am logged in...

Central Login You are logged in as Mfwills. Reload the page to apply your user settings.

--Mfwills (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? --Mfwills (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an effect of the recent switch to HTTPS for all logged-in users; there's been quite a lot at WP:VPT. It happens if you have logged in through http: but you visit a Wikipedia where you have not selected that as your preferred protocol. You can choose to do either of two things:

1. Revert to previous behaviour. Go to Preferences, switch off "Always use a secure connection while logged in" and save. Then return to the previous page and reload it.
2. Always visit Wikipedia via a https: URL. Log out, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and log in again. Then make sure that you always use https: URLs in future. On some browsers, such as Firefox 23, a cookie will be set to make it difficult to not use https: in future.

--Redrose64 (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I was helping my 10 year old do research on the American bison and as I pulled up the page on this particular subject on the headings for the information was listed as "luke is a *****" Not generally what you would see in an article for American bison....I figured it was wrong but wanted to bring it to your attention so that the correction to the information can be made...thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amymillerdc (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you ran into this. You must have found a cached page, as it was caught and removed by an automatic script within seconds. If it's still there when you view it, try refreshing the page. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or bypassing your browser cache.--ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to enter a captcha to perform this edit, because the software said I was adding new external links. Why? And is there a place I can report false positives for the captcha? 2001:18E8:2:1020:81D0:BA98:6347:210A (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably not a false positive from the software's point of view but a consequence of an edit elsewhere. See #Unnecessary CAPTCHA (will later be archived at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 August 26#Unnecessary CAPTCHA). PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add a new option on the dropdown menu (the – — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § one, and so forth), or make one the default option? I believe this used to be possible but I'm not sure now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the Configuration comments at MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert.js. For example, add this to Special:MyPage/common.js to get the character '‽' at the end of "Insert":

window.charinsertCustom = { Insert: '‽' }

I'm not sure what you mean by "make one the default option". If you mean everybody should have it then it can be suggested at MediaWiki talk:Edittools. Administrators can add it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I meant if it meant a new menu item then making it the top one - but only for me, not global. Not important though since insert is not very long. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if these articles are two résumés: Alessandro Figus, Simone Brunozzi. Thank you. 79.53.21.133 (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not résumés, those are encyclopedia articles. Scarce2 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they do look a bit like résumés masquerading as articles.--ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The University that I work for has a new logo (well around 2 years!) and the wikepedia page still shows the previous logo. Also we have developed our buildings and the photos on here show buildings that no longer exist. If someone could tell me the best way to get the changed I would be grateful.

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewragg (talk • contribs)

You can request that the new logo be uploaded at WP:FFU.--ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was wondering if someone could help me. The logo for a San Diego based company Envision Solar is outdated I was wondering if someone could help me to upload the new one. The new logo is on the website. Is anyone able to update this for me?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.38.226 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the question and answer immediately above this one.--ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it.--ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone remember the template to request the deletion of the now-orphaned old logo? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD F5 "Orphaned non-free use images" seems to fit the bill? Arjayay (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your suggestion led me on a wikisurf where I found {{orphaned non-free revisions}} which exactly fits the bill. I think we need this to be added to the Twinkle deletion options.--ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to log on it says my username and/or password is invalid, which it is not, is there some type of virus going on. We use this for our business and cant get any of our time sensitive emails PLEASE HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.99.146 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you change your username lately? You need to log in with the new username. Ginsuloft (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP refers to "time sensitive emails", so I suspect it is not Wikipedia he is trying to log on to. If I am right, we can't help here, as this Help Desk is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother was Edwin Chief Red Fox Morse Jr. his name should be added to your list of folks who died from Pancreatic Cancer! I just lost him in May! Thank you I can be reached at (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.42.34 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address.

I will presume you are referring to Category:Deaths from pancreatic cancer. This category shows articles for people who died from pancreatic cancer. There must be an article on that person before it shows in the category. --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Catherine Gaffigan (talk)

Firstly, Wikipedia only normally adds people to 'notable residents' lists if they either have a Wikipedia biography, or are likely to meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines to merit one. And secondly, we aren't mind readers - you haven't told us where you live... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am an active wiki editor on Ancient Egypt subjects and work a lot on articles that typically do not garner much views, for example on obscur pharaohs of the first and second intermediate periods (typical example Mersekhemre Ined or Intef I). Being curious about the number of views such articles get and the influence of the number of links to these articles on the page view stats, I use the Page View Statistics tool to access the number of views. I noticed that for very rarely visited articles, even orphan or near orphan articles (e.g. Helwan retouch), the number of daily visits always fluctuates around at least 2-3 a day. I was wondering how much of these views are actually bots accessing the page (maybe from google or other search engines, or from wikipedia itself)? I can summarize my question as follows: for articles with very little views, can we distinguish bot views from real humans accessing the article? Is it possible to estimate the real traffic that these articles garner?

I found it somewhat unnerving that so many pages are devoted to the most visited wikipedia articles and so little is devoted to the numerous articles with very few visits. In particular, this "bot view noise" seem to obscur the real impact of these articles. After all, I can't say if there is at least one human per month interested in e.g. Senusret IV. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, Senusret IV isn't going to be as popular as Luve-Keraph or Klarkash-Ton! But seriously: a technical query such as this should probably go to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am going to the pump ! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to create a song article that's been released as single and has been noticed by many important media outlets but hasn't charted within one month of release. Should I create it, or not? Pedro J. [talk] 21:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's merely been noted, but has not charted or nominated for major awards, and has not been written about at length in reliable sources, I'd say no. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles are about the single itself (and not just noting it as one of several singles, or plugging it as part of a peice on the artist), then it may be notable. Charts and awards are not necessary for a song to be notable, but they help. See for example Still Alive (although that's a bit of a special case). MChesterMC (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am working on the article Vijendra K. Singh and am using harvard no brackets citations. But when you click on them, it doesn't make the source turn blue like it does on other people's pages that use this format. Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong? Jinkinson (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to create an anchor in the citation template by adding |ref=harv. --  Gadget850 ^talk 23:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it redirect to the Secure server when attempting to login? I personally prefer to use the non-secure (HTTP login) server for various Wikipedia activities. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 22:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are various reasons the switch to HTTPS default was made. Many have to deal with security of your data. I'd suggest just using the HTTPS as long as it works for you. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Special:Preferences you can disable "Always use a secure connection when logged in". PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just finished my first article (well at least I think I have). I must say that my favorite discovery was learning how the "Infobox" works. Hopefully, I have addressed the concerns that were raised. There is a notice that says someone other than the creator should review the article (and I don't dare remove the line I am not supposed to mess with). Will someone review my article again as a matter of course, or do I need to request this to be done? I realize everyone here is a volunteer so thanks for your help in advance.

- Pendergraph

article: Mark J. Solomon (author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpendergraph (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do anything. The line saying "Don't mess with this line" adds the box at the top which adds the article to Category:Unreviewed new articles from August 2013. A reviewer will eventually get to it. The page counts at Category:Monthly clean up category (Unreviewed new articles) counter shows it sometimes takes a long time. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Mark J. Solomon as there is no need for a disambiguating title, and reviewed it. See this diff and this one for details.--ukexpat (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know: Is it was possible to make a list of Favorite articles that I might to read again in the future? I might have overlooked it on the toolbar thingamajiggy, but I don't know. Krburke12 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a couple of options, either add articles to your watch list or make a list on your user page. From what you said, I'd go with the second option. Dismas|^(talk) 01:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a list on my user page? I am new to the 'world of Wikipedia' Krburke12 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a "Favorite articles" section on your user page and added a couple of articles by way of example. Check the page in edit mode to see what I did.--ukexpat (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I just saw that. :D Krburke12 (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same thing, although I kept running into edit conflicts while all three of us were trying to edit the page at the same time. I also showed how to use the pipe | character to display some other text rather than the source of the link. And I showed a numbered list. Hope this helps. By the way, it's not a standard thing to edit someone else's user page but this seemed to be the easiest way for both of us. Dismas|^(talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so. If we wanted to be really nerdy we could create the list in a user subpage and transclude it on the user page, but maybe that's for another day.--ukexpat (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks Dismas and Ukexpat. If you want you can see what I did/fixed on there. :D Krburke12 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]