Help desk
< July 10	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 12 >

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.

July 11

Mods and Policies....

I recently was restoring and updating material I placed on Number of the Beast back on April, 24th 2010. The material was removed by Dougweller. He gave the following reason: "I don't see Walid Shoebat as a reliable source for this subject - additionally the YouTube video is copyvio and the website is just a personal website with more copyvio & stuff about the pillars of fire & atom bombs"

1. Dougweller is being subjective about the creator of the interpretation. I ask how can the person that created the interpretation not be a reliable source?

2. Dougweller then claims copyright violations. Clearly all material presented falls under fair use.

I revert the change and begin to update the content with different and more sources.

carl bunderson comes to the page while I am editing and reverts the change I had just made.

I then save my new changes (not knowing carl bunderson had just undo that I had saved) with the updated references and immediately carl bunderson undoes the changes I have made.

carl bunderson never took the time to see that references were added and changed. I am then told by carl bunderson that I am violating the Verifiability policy. How am I violating the Verifiability policy or any other policy? I have read the policies and can not find anything in violation.

I'd like my contribution reviewed. Ploxhoi (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Any random Christian association does not work, unfortunately. I understand, it was a real pain in the neck to look for reliable sources. The same has happened to me before; see Talk:List of vegetarians/Archive 1. Sorry I cannot be more helpful but please look for another source. Cheers Kayau Voting IS evil 02:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ploxhoi has also decided that Carl Bunderson and I are trolls. Never mind, he isn't new but he's only made a handful of edits. Our guidelines do not allow fair use as a justification for linking to copyvio sites. Shoebat's views are simply not significant/notable, and he's been told this now by 3 editors. He needs to find reliable third party sources discussing Shoebat's views, specifically scholarly journals in this csae, before they can be added. He also needs to read WP:CONSENSUS. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller you are completely ignoring fair use, what you claim are copyright violation are not. Before you start labeling everything you see that maybe copied a copyright violation, please read up on fair use. You can start at: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Just because youtube and other sites have copyrighted materials posted doesn't mean all materials on that site are copyright violations. The majority of the material is fair use or contributed by the owner. I did not decide you were a troll, but by your actions led me to believe you were trolls and being disruptive to the website. Just don't remove stuff that is not vandalism and not expect for someone to put it back. Don't just post here is the policy, explain the specific point in the policy for which the material was removed.

Now I ask what is wrong with the peer-review video I posted? http://www.muhammadtube.com/videos/186/bismillah-and-666 Also Dougweller is saying Shoebat's views are simply not significant/notable, which is subjective. That view appears to be a different view than what I have received from the other mods. The other mods say I need a reliable third party review, I thought I had that covered with the peer-review video. No way will I find a source other than Christan in nature. Jewish groups will not comment, that would mean they'd accept Revelations, Muslims will deny, otherwise they are attacking their own religion, and Atheists will deny all. Though I myself am not Christian, I do find the view intriguing, significant, and very compelling. I think you are asking the impossible to dig out a source with absolutely no Christian association. Ploxhoi (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to make an encyclopaedia here. We are not making a giant book for experts of every area. Articles should be precise, but not that precise. If you cannot verify something with a reliable sources, then don't add it at all. Please remember to assume good faith, as calling someone a troll when (s)he is acting in good faith may be considered insulting. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I said was I thought they were being trolls and being disruptive. I never realized they were mods. I am sure you would have thought the something if you were in my shoes. You are right we are building an encyclopaedia here and the topic is "Other Interpretations of 666". Walid Shoebat made the interpretation of the Greek from of 666 as written in the old Codex Vaticanus as being Bismillah. The similarity if you annualized what he says if uncanny. Other have made examples and posted videos. Now since this is a Christian topic related to revelations, its impossible to a non-christian source though I did post a reference to a peer-review. Ploxhoi (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I have to ask you another question. Who is William Shoebat and why should anyone care what his opinion of 666 is? Ok sure, William Shoebat has an article on Wikipedia, and is probably notable, but so are hundreds of thousands of other individuals. Any person (even any notable person) can create a website, write a book, or go on tour, all to espouse some new theory. If we published in our articles every opinion ever expressed on the internet, Wikipedia would soon overflow with crap. The sources that are acceptable are limited to sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This generally means scholarly works, peer reviewed, and published by a respected academic body. So I ask you again, why should anyone care what Shoebat thinks? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Shoebat is very interesting person. He was an PLO terrorist that fought against Israelis. He later was arrested, left the PLO, married a Christian woman. He tried to get her to convert to Islam, but she asked him why should she convert and not him to Christianity? She made a deal, he would study Christianity and consider converting and she'd do the same. He decided she was right and he left Islam. Walid he was born and raised a Muslim, he reads and speaks Arabic, he discovered a relationship with the Greek 666 and Bismillah while studying Christianity. How often do you find someone that has this background and the opportunity to discover such a relation? I do believe that its a relationship worth documenting. You should take the time and look for yourself. I believe this is a noteworthy interpretation and should be included. Just because its new or Walid Shoebat isn't exactly famous or really special is no reason to discard the topic. The topic should stand on its own merits as it has with peer-review. Its not like we should post every opinion, only those of merit if the topic has such a place for the opinion. Ploxhoi (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are interesting. We have hundreds of thousands of biogarphies here; we can't put the opinion of every single noteworthy person. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U of Kentucky policy regarding holocaust studies

Received e-mail requesting support for opposition to U of Kentucky policy regarding study of the holocaust. Rumor or fact? How can I forward e-mail to you for verification?Uncmtbal (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following article.

http://news.uky.edu/news/display_article.php?artid=2873

Ploxhoi (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in Lupin's AVT

Sometimes when I press rollback, the rollback is not executed in Google Chrome; however, the system does not prompt me. I have to frequently check my contribs just to check if the rollback was executed. Strangely enough, the warning usually works, and I would end up warning somebody when I was not the rollbacker (an example is the List of The Powerpuff Girls characters, where Tide rolls rollbacked the edit and I ended up warning the user.) Is there a way to fix it? Thanks a million, Kayau Voting IS evil 02:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody else made the same revert before you save then your edit becomes a null edit (no change to the page source) which is not registered in logs. When editing manually, I cannot see whether my edit was a null edit or not without checking the page history or my contributions afterwards. A warning doesn't have to be given by the editor who made the revert and the warning you gave with Lupin's AVT [1] doesn't claim you made the revert, so I don't see a problem in that situation. If the first editor to revert (or somebody else) also gave a warning then I don't know whether Lupin's AVT will discover that and omit the warning, but if a user is sometimes given two warnings for the same edit then it doesn't seem to matter much. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, usually AVT prompts me when the edit cannot be done. This is not done. In some cases, the rollback is not executed but nobody has reverted the edit. This is an important bug that cannot be explained by null edits. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User keeps unediting every edit I make without being reasonable

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

view history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eathb (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a textbook or any regular reference book. Look at Encyclopaedia Brittanica for example: do they put notes at the end like that? No way! Please, before you deem the undoer 'unreasonable', assume good faith and try to talk to him or her. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects

To all administrators. i just wondered if anyone had thought about making a wikiproject about wrestling as I am a massive wrestling fan and could help out with questions?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean professional wrestling (mock combat with scripted entertainment) then there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Real wrestling currently falls under Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Download a list of pages I have contributed to

I am familiar with how to look at my list of contributions. I wonder - is there a way of downloading a text file that lists each individual page that I have edited? - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - For future reference, it can be done with WP:AWB. Get an AWB user to help you with it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Merida

It says on his page he has made 6 appearances and scored 2 goals when he has only scored 1 goal.I try to edit the page but when i do,on the edit page it says 1 goal.So i save it but when i look on the page it says two goals again. I have tried purging but hasnt worked.What do i do?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diff says that somehow or other you did not manage to edit the number of goals, only the update date/time. I suggest you have another try. You shouldn't need to purge to see the result of an edit to the contents of an infobox. BTW it's helpful to include a clickable link, Fran Mérida, when asking about a particular page. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox source includes this code:

| years1         = 2007–2010 |clubs1 = [[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]]   |caps1 = 6  |goals2 = 1
| years2         = 2007-2008 |clubs2 = → [[Real Sociedad]] (loan) |caps2 = 14 |goals1 = 2 
| years3         = 2010–     |clubs3 = [[Atlético Madrid]]        |caps3 = 0  |goals3 = 0

It is the names and not the order of named parameters that matter. caps1 go together with goals1. I suggest swapping the names goals1 and goals2 to avoid confusion for other editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At what educational level should Wiki articles on technical subjects be written?

Should we be Britannica, World Book, or something aimed at grade school children? An editor suggested that one article needed to be dumbed down because school children would be among the readers. Some article topics (e.g., theoretical physics) are by their nature aimed at those with more sophisticated general knowledge levels. Some article topics (e.g., teen idols) are inherently aimed at the young. Is there a Wikipedia guideline for determining what level is appropriate for a particular article? I note that there is some allusion to this in the editing guidelines on law articles, implying higher levels of assumed knowledge. What of articles on technical topics that happen to have wide public interest? Thanks for ALL views. Sfcardwell (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion Wiki articles should aspire to address all levels of sophistication. I think this should firstly be attempted within the article, and also by means of linking to further expansion in articles on subtopics. But even the article which is on a subtopic should attempt to address the widest audience possible. That is my opinion on the subject. I am particularly opposed to articles on "Introduction to something." I don't think we should be creating subjects in accordance with a level technical detail or some related factor. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note [Simple], which is specifically aimed at supplying a version aimed at younger people and/or people for whom English is a second language.--SPhilbrick T 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern at the Simple English Wikipedia is with language. I don't think the concern there is primarily with presentation of subject matter. I think the question being asked is about how certain subject matter should be presented. The two areas may overlap, but I think in the majority of cases it is not language itself that presents the significant barrier. The obstacle to grasping certain subjects is likely to be a scarcity of background information necessary for comprehension of the topic under consideration. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Wikipedia is not paper, so Wikipedia can be many things at the same time. (However, Wikipedia is not Wiki.) We can have technical articles about complex subjects and introductory articles too. See for example:

Bus stop, why don't you like that? The division appears natural to me. Someone who doesn't need the introduction can easily skip it and get right to the technical article. Someone who would get overwhelmed by the technical article can start with the introductory article. When Wikipedia has something I don't need, I just ignore it. There is probably no human alive who needs everything on Wikipedia. The needs of one person could never adequately reflect the needs of all humanity, which is Wikipedia's target audience. And to Sfcardwell, we also have Wikibooks and Wikiversity which can treat complex topics in more depth and more pedagogically than an encyclopedia. --Teratornis (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teratornis — There is no such topic as "Introduction to special relativity." It fails fundamental policy requirements for article creation. At WP:RS we find, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Special relativity is a topic. How is Introduction to special relativity a topic? Sources (for the Introduction to special relativity article) are going to support Special relativity as a topic. Some of those sources supporting Special relativity as a topic are going to be easier to understand than other sources. But the sources are all on the same topic. If the material is inherently difficult for most people to understand we should have earlier paragraphs serving as an introduction to succeeding paragraphs. And when space constraints become an issue, topics within a main article should be linked to articles on subtopics. And if called for at articles on subtopics, earlier paragraphs should serve as an introduction to succeeding paragraphs. Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, I might sound really stupid, but isn't 'introduction to special relativity' a content fork? Kayau Voting IS evil 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kayau, I don't know. I don't find "Introduction to something" articles addressed at WP:CFORK. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments; they were very helpful not only on the immediate question but on my thinking about Wikipedia in general. I particularly appreciate, and will try to follow, the thought that since we're only wasting electrons we have the potential to cover all levels of knowledge. I likely won't quite achieve "express[ing] the ideas of [adults] in the words of children", but it's certainly a worthy goal. Again, thanks for the ideas! Sfcardwell (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this section of the Wikipedia:Writing better articles essay as well as this essay helpful. SoccerMan2009 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Willy_on_Wheels

I was just looking at [[2]]Wikiholism test and there was written "Do you know what this user has done?"So,Just amazing what this user has done major controversial?Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a vandal that moved pages to incorrect titles. It's one of the reasons you have to be autoconfirmed before you can move pages now. TN X Man 15:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And following WP:DENY, I think it is likely someone will remove this section (and/or the question on that quiz) shortly. PleaseStand ^(talk) 19:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, see this edit, one of Willy's earliest. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Creation

Is there a page where i can request for a page to be created?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two, really. At WP:AFC, you can write a draft for others to review or WP:Requested articles, where you can ask others to write the article for you. TN X Man 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Kerry

Lloyd Kerry's page could do with a bit of a clean-up.I'm not that good in that area.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So get better. Pick something that needs cleaning up, and ask the Help desk how you can clean it up. Find an article on a similar subject that looks better, and refer to that as your model for what the Lloyd Kerry could be. If you don't want to clean the article up yourself, make a list of everything that needs improving, and put the list on Talk:Lloyd Kerry. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment to see where you want to go. --Teratornis (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Create an Author Page, How?

I searched for my topic as directed, but could not find what I was looking for. I'm an author seeking to create a Wikipedia Author Page. Can such a thing be done? If so, can you direct me to the proper instructions?

Namaste, Paul L. Gubany —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul L. Gubany (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as an Author Page. As a Wikipedia editor, you are welcome to create a User page, where you can put various information about yourself that is relevant to your work on Wikipedia.

If you are talking about a Wikipedia article about you as an author, please read WP:AUTOBIO. In short, if you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then somebody could create an article about you; but you should not do it yourself, as you have at least a potential conflict of interest, and are unlikely to be able to write such an article neutrally. If you have the necessary independent, reliable references to establish your notability, please post a request at WP:Requested articles, preferably with those references. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Shippuden 4: The Lost Tower

Is the most recent edit on the above page vandalism so i know if i can revert it?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, but since I looked at it I reverted it. A foreign language (Chinese I preume) character with no context, so I reverted. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Goines

Is the most recent edit on the above page vandalism?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily vandalism, but it is unsourced, so I'm undoing it. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 20:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References Vs. External Links

It is my understanding that External Links != References, and that external links do not qualify as references. I recently added a BLPPROD to a BLP that included an external link, but no references. Was I mistaken? RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the external link was to a reliable source then I think the article doesn't deserve a BLPPROD tag. It needs straightforward copyediting, not deletion. I can't find a policy or guideline page to back up this opinion, though. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has a person's official site as an ext link that doesn't mean that it can't be used as a reference as well. Though it should be used as such. So the site would show up in the ext links and the references (using ref tags). Dismas|^(talk) 05:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of characters of Richard Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung from mkirs54321

I want to contribute to the article Das Ring des Nibelungen ... list of characters. I have a family tree of the ring which is used by opera companies and schools. It is in pdf form on my computer. I could save it as pdf. I am unclear as to how I would contribute this. The size of the image is ideally 8 by 10 inches. However it can be reduced somewhat and still by readable mkirs54321 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkirs54321 (talk • contribs)

I believe that .pdf is an acceptable file type here, meaning that you can Upload it to Wikipedia, providing that you are willing to release it under a free license. Alternatively, there is a procedure to convert PDF files to SVG. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 00:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I contact a Wikipedia writer?

Hello. How might I contact a Wikipedia writer (someone who writes articles on a regular basis for Wikipedia) about a potential bio page for someone who doesn't come up in your search bar yet should. I am hoping to have a bio of a notable who is not yet on Wikipedia included. He is a high profile ethnobotanist - a leader in his arena and very well respected and famous in certain circles. Please let me know how I might go about that. Thank you very much for your time, and for the work you do. I love Wikipedia!JK Greenberg (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Mysdaao ^talk 23:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s another approach—start with an existing article on an ~~ethnobiologist~~ ethnobotanist in Wikipedia. I’m not familiar with the field, but I gather that Frank Hamilton Cushing qualifies (or replace with one of your choosing. Then, click on the “view history” tab, and next. click on “earliest”. That will identify who started the article which is usually (but not necessarily) someone interested in and familiar with the topic. In this case, the first editor is User:Fred Bauder. The article was started in 2003, so it is a good idea to confirm that the editor is still active. Click on “contributions” and you will see that Fred edited on 10 July 2010, so looks to be still active. Go back to the history page and click on the “talk” link next to Fred’s name, and you will be at Fred’s talk page, where you can introduce yourself and make your request. You can also look at others who contributed to that article, although note that some will just be doing wikignoming, making minor changes to the article. Those editors might not be good candidates for your request. You can look at the actual edit, to see if it is a substantive addition to the article, or you can look at the change in byte count (the number in parentheses). Small changes are generally wikignomes, while larger changes could be content providers.

If you strike out here, try another article.--SPhilbrick T 18:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another approach is to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. In particular, you will want to look at the list of Participants. Contact any of them by posting at their talk page – especially note that User:Alan Rockefeller is a specialist in ethnobotany.--SPhilbrick T 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who write articles are often autopatrolled. You can contact autopatrolled users, though they'll probably ignore you. Kayau Voting IS evil 04:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]