Help desk
< April 4	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 6 >

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.

April 5

kimberella question

was my nickname for years after barbarella, and one of your reps around year 04-07informed me the following on my page:

author: philcha, wikipedia sent msg to my myspace confirming my nickname meant. talk orig: Philchat

I've been under this assumption for years. help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.142.135 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your question? What assumption are you trying to validate? RudolfRed (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can offer is that this must be somehow related to the fact that User:Philcha made edits to, and related to, the article Kimberella. I am going to drop him a message now. Maybe he can shed some light, though I would second the request to try to clarify your question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Rabinowitz biography Controversial Comments section

THE SECTION ABOUT ME IN THE BIOGRAPHY --THE SECTION CONTROVERSIAL COMMENT OR STATEMENTS--CARRIES A QUOTE FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO ME. I NEVER SAID THAT THE SUPPORTERS OF RON PAUL WERE NEO NAZIS. THIS IS A MALICIOUS INVENTION , NO DOUBT BY RON PAUL SUPPORTERS. I WROTE ONE ARTICLE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ON THE SUBJECT OF RON PAUL TITLED "wHAT RON PAUL THINKS OF AMERICA" DECEMBER 22. 2011. I DEFY YOU TO FIND ANY SENTENCE IN IT THAT SAYS WHAT YOUR wILKIPEDIA QUOTS SAYS. PLEASE CORRECT THIS AND REMOVE THIS FABRICATION.

ALSO- A MINOR MATTER ALSO FALSE. IN THE DESCRIPTION OF MY HIRING BY THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WHOEVER WROTE THIS SAYS THE PAPER HIRED ME BECAUSE OF MY WORK ON THE KELLY MICHAELS CASE. THIS IS NONSENSE. THE EDITORS OF THE JOURNAL NEVER HEARD OF THE CASE OR OF MY INTEREST IN THE FALSE CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS I WROTE ABOUT. THEY HIRED ME FOR OTHER REASONS--TO DO POLITICAL COMMENTARY--PERIOD. DOROTHY RABINOWITZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.128.141 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm afraid that we can't take your word, without further evidence, that you are Dorothy Rabinowitz - though it actually makes little difference, as far as the issue is concerned.

As to the 'neo-Nazi' issue itself, it is a little tricky: the WSJ video cited seems to have Rabinowitz saying (at about 3:50 in) "The numbers of people who have been attracted to Ron Paul unmistakably represent the breed of neo Nazis and others..." - but in context, it seems entirely evident that she is suggesting that a number of neo-Nazis have been attracted to supporting Paul, rather than suggesting that all of Paul's supporters are neo-Nazis: and on that basis, our article is misrepresenting the source. I am going to delete this as a violation of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Axilla seems to be complete nonsense. Editor please have a look!

I navigated to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axilla as I wanted to open discussion about an informational improvement to the page.
I couldn't understand the Talk:Axilla page at all. Someone states that "this is no longer the Talk page, that it's inactive and for archival purposes only,
And that comments should be put on the 'real' Talk page for Axilla. This is followed by further comments that don't make sense to me. Other pages redirect to Axilla.. Just please have a look at the entire flow of Talk:Axilla. The entire commentary seems to be bogus. My profuse apologies if I'm misguided, however, I can follow all other Talk pages quite clearly and do contribute.
If this is indeed not the 'live' Talk page, then somebody needs to make it clear to contributors where it IS.
Thank you!
Mykstor (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like in 2004, Axilla was set as a redirect to armpit. In 2006, it was changed to Underarm, and then in 2007 it was changed back to Axilla. After all that, the talk page apparently was never updated to reflect that Axilla is a real page again, and I'm not sure how to fix that. Hopefully someone will be along soon with more advice. RudolfRed (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Yeah, go ahead and post a comment there as normal. What you are seeing is a VERY old WP:AFD discussion, back in 2004 such discussions usually happened on the article talk page itself. It is basically an historical artifact, and you can safely ignore it. I will tidy it up presently. --Jayron32 03:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have archived the very old discussions. Feel free to post any comments at the talk page as you normally would. --Jayron32 03:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request articles page is not editable (or link to it is wrong)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles is not editable, so I can't request a new article. OR, the link to "request an article" when you search for "Gregorian day number" is wrong. I basically wanted to create an article, but I am finding this impossible. I have found NO information on the internet on this subject that isn't a julian day number. what I wanted was a gregorian day number starting with year 0 AD (I think it's 0, not sure). 0-based would much more useful than 1-based because of the need to do date difference calculations which result in 0. calculations would need to be presented which:

convert from gregorian day number to gregorian date
convert from gregorian date to gregorian day number

something in a C or C++ language or algorithm would be nice extra.

the mathematics would need to be explained and shown. Jmichae3 (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to edit that page. You should click Submitt for creation link. Ruslik_Zero 08:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the page you told me to go to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard leads to Request an Article, which links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles the page you told me not to go to. Jmichae3 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create the article yourself, then I recommend you use the Article wizard, and at step one choose the option "Create an article now".

If instead you would like someone else to create an article, then go to Requested articles. That first page is protected, but that's only because it contains the instructions. From that page, follow the topic-specific links, perhaps to "Computer science, computing, and Internet", and you'll find yourself on a separate page that you can edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Updating

I am an official representative for Anaman Yogiji. I was able to update his page and redirected from Siri Shiva Singh. I'm aware more citations are needed and currently I'm collecting the needed press articles to support the article. My dilemma given my client changed his name legally this year is how to get the wiki url to reflect the new change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri_Shiva_Singh to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaman_Yogiji.

Where do I find the appropriate article to support me with this edit?

Thank you,

Blove55 (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel daft. After post this article I clicked on the hyperlink to discover that the fix was made on the back end. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blove55 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't quite do it right, you needed to actually move the original to the new title, not copy and paste the content, which breaks our copyright rules. I've fixed it for you but you might want to read Wikipedia:Moving a page for next time. I also recommend you read WP:COI--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links and twitter

I just removed a twitter account from the External Links section of an article on a lobbying organization and need to know if i did right or should re-add it since the policies WP:External links + WP:Twitter are a bit vague on this. Thanks Jenova20 15:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the subject of an article gets one and only one external link. Unless this organization has no website, not even a MySpace page, you did the right thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful response. Jenova20 18:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Which came first...?"

I'm a relatively infrequent editor, but have noticed within talk/discussion pages that there often is disagreement (or possibly, on occasion, even willful or accidental misdirection) as to which policies or guidelines are contingent upon other policies or guidelines. My basic question is:

When editing with weight and point of view concerns in mind, do these concerns already presuppose one is referring to or deciding between verifiable (and thus reliable) sources? I ask because in some cases it's been implied that NPOV or weight concerns trump RS criteria altogether.
Stated conversely, are there ever cases when the listed criteria for reliable 3rd-party publications show some "wiggle room," in the interest of explicitly including a minority point of view? Or is a minority viewpoint always contingent upon always meeting all the reliable 3rd-party criteria?

Thanks for any clarification here. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all those policies must complied with - an editor cannot use one to "trump" another. If a particular edit creates difficulties it should be discussed so that a consensus can be reched. Roger (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- a more succinct way to ask my specific question would have been: if RS criteria is disputed among editors, is it correct to assume that the resolution would have to be determined at the level of RS criteria alone, and only then deal with NPOV & weight issues? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were I drafting a policy section addressing how other core policies interplay with NPOV, I would state it something like this: A touchstone of the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, including its subsection on undue weight, is that when inquiring under them whether material is represented fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, we look to how published, reliable sources have treated the material. The verification policy also requires material be verifiable through reliable sources, but does not require the sources be actually present in the article unless they are quotations, likely to be controversial, or the material's verifiability is challenged. Thus, it is suggested that when questioning NPOV, it may be useful, as threshold inquiries, to first determine whether you challenge the verifiability of any of the material you believe is biased, then assess whether the sources present, and any sources produced in response to your challenge, are actually reliable, and only then assess whether the material meets NPOV's remit of fair, proportionate and unbiased treatment of the topic. Please don't make the mistake of affirming the consequent, occurring sometimes in this area. While reliable sources are a necessary condition of assessing neutral point of view and undue weight, just because reliable sources do indeed exist for a fact a person wishes to include in an article, does not mean inclusion of that material is NPOV or proper weight in the context presented.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spelling this out. What about a case where the NPOV use in the article of questionable sources (questionable in terms of 3rd-party factors, self-publishing) is not in question, but editors widely disagree on the RS status of a source itself, with no hope of consensus? Should the deciding criteria be the use, or qualities of the source itself, all other factors (NPOV, weight) being equal? That is, what if NPOV-use is not in dispute, but the publication process or status of sources themselves? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understood you're shifting the focus of your initial inquiry: NPOV is not at issue at all, just how to determine reliability. Well then the discussion would be whether the source meets WP:IRS. That can be tricky because it is tied to context, e.g. an article in Better Homes and Gardens from a travel writer that has an aside about the cosmological constant is not a very good source on the cosmological constant; an essay by a blogger is not reliable in most contexts but is reliable as to their own opinion, if their opinion is somehow a topic of focus; Find-A-Grave is not a reliable source of information as to the blurbs they host on the deceased but the photographs of gravestones they host may be reliable sources as to dates of death. The reliable sources noticeboard is a good place to discuss such matters. Not sure if I am addressing your actual question.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not framing my question as clearly as I should be, but it's along the lines of: if there is no clear consensus about a particular source meeting RS, even from the noticeboard discussion, are there factors that then could potentially decide inclusion or exclusion of sources, assuming sources are already being used in a NPOV way within the article? It just seems that the interdependence of criteria and guidelines can cause a stalemate in certain cases, if consensus cannot be reached among editors. Which is what made me wonder if there could actually just be a much simpler answer, as in something like: "RS criteria is always more fundamental than weight/POV, since weight & POV can't but always be in relation to SOME specific sources anyway," etc.? Hdtnkrwll (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no clear human consensus about a particular source meeting RS, you not going to find a written policy or guideline to trump that discussion. Of course, there's always Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. You could try to seek wider participation in the consensus discussion, request an admin to look over the discussion see whether he/she can close the discussion with a decision one way or another, etc. Do you have some particular situation in mind or is your request merely a question in the abstract. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be most accurate to say that each of these (RS and NPOV) is a "necessary but not sufficient" condition for an article? After all, an article can be RS without being NPOV, and vice versa. In a Venn diagram, they would be represented by two overlapping circles, and Wikipedia articles need to be in the overlapping section. An article can have reliable sources, but not be written from a neutral point of view. On the other hand, it could be written from a neutral point of view, but not have reliable sources. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review

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

Please review, it's my first article creation.

Very surprised this article did not exist on Wikipedia.. he is a famous public speaker, scholar, and TV Presenter in Islam Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things. First of all, there was an article about him, that was deleted back in 2010. (Found this out because apparently the talk page wasn't deleted when the article was). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Raheem_Green for the discussion about it. Secondly "Well known" is a phrase that is very difficult to reference or quantify. Third, you may want to look at WP:Notability and check to see if the person fits those criteria. Facebook is generally not a great source of references, but as a primary source by the person can be acceptable. Secondary sources are better. Are there any articles or mentions about him in newspapers like the Times?Naraht (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I saw that but couldn't really make any sense of what was taking place in the discussion. I'm still surprised that nobody has further attempted to add anything on him, though. I followed the Article Creation wizard to create the article, and in there was a bullet-point list of what defines notability or not, and I can certainly remember Green meeting at least 2 of those criteria for notability. Concerning his notability, I'm not sure there can be any argument to the contrary - 1) he is a founder of an important UK Islamic institute 2) He is a very frequent and well known presenter on Peace TV and Islam Channel 3) He has also made many other appearances in miscellaneous venues (e.g. off the top of my head he was a guest speaker on the Deen Show) 4) He is a key lecturer in the education academy he founded (I should know, I was considering going there) 5) He is a renowned public speaker, one only needs to do a quick search on YouTube for his talks and speeches which are given in front of audiences of thousands and are also televised. So just off the top of my head is 5 reasons for his notability, I'm sure others are more knowledgeable than I am/more experienced Wikipedians, so I'll be making a post in WikiProject Islam if we can find some better sources about him and expanding the article. How does that sound to you? Thanks for your advice Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it is about a copy of the article that used to exist (which if necessary, you probably could get a copy of, but I wouldn't worry about it), it is reasonable that there are things about it that don't make sense. It is also possible that his level of Notability as changed. I'd try to add sources from groups/people who aren't Muslim, to show notability on a wider scale. I think that making a post a WP:Islam is a wonderful next step. You may also want to take a look at the Manual of Style page on Islam.Naraht (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht: While I agree with the spirit of your post, I think it is unlikely that he would need to site non-Muslim sources. Aren't there many good English language Muslim sources? This list has some that I would think are considered good. Probably the fact that A. B. Green hasn't been described by any these further supports a lack of notability. LaTeeDa (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he needs to, but rather that I would try. I deliberately put that into as soft a terminology as I could. But if he has done the speaker's corner, then there might be... And I think you mean "A. R. Green" rather than "A. B. Green". Naraht (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a cite url that contains spaces

Is there a way to convert this url "http://www.goss-online.org/magnoliaPublic/en/news.html#South Sudan set have own national air carrier" into a format that actually works. I believe there is a special code that replaces the spaces, but I have no idea what it is? I've tried the underscore character "_" but it didn't work. The url is in a cite in the South Sudan article. Roger (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try using %20 instead of the space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Url_encoding Naraht (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it works! Roger (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use http://www.goss-online.org/magnoliaPublic/en/news.html#{{urlencode:South Sudan set have own national air carrier|path}}. — Bility (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not able to create a page

hie

i saw various companies profile and data about them, so i thought to put information about couple of other companies. i tried to create a page and write an information but it says like i am not able to publish any autobiography or anything as such. it says that i am writing about a specific person or company. why i am not able to do this. i dont want to go through the entire policies of Wikipedia its very tedious. i just wanted to know how to publish an information about a privately held company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.232.216.54 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Unless the company concerned meets the required level of notability, as demonstrated in third-party published reliable sources, we will not permit such an article. This is not a business directory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disambiguation

I've contributed/revised, but I am a "beginner.' I rely on Wikipedia as a professional science and engineering consultant. Question: Isn't changing the disambiguation template extremely disruptive? Why is it allowed without editorial review of some type because of site "integrity" or "safety" reasons? (This concerns me as a user and potential future editor.) 98.198.19.40 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain which change you're talking about? The disambiguation template is fully protected, meaning only administrators can edit it and it hasn't been changed since July of last year. Typically an edit request is made on the talk page and significant review takes place before any changes to high traffic templates go live. If you're talking about the way someone is using the template, it would be helpful if you provided some information on where this took place. — Bility (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia search function not working very well?

Often when searching wikipedia for a topic the search comes up empty, when there is good information about the topic.

For instance search for Bogon or Bogons, which are IP address that should never be passed through a router. Nothing about IP Bogons comes up. Then search google for Bogon and a Wikipedia entry for 'Bogon Filtering' comes up as the second search result (meaning it is important to searchers, often chosen) and if you click on it you get a very informative Wikipedia entry on Bogons. Hmmmm, why does the Wikipedia search box not find this??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.25.244 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for "bogon" or "bogons" I get the disambig page, on which there is a link to the bogon filtering article. You can use the Special:Search page instead of the searchbox to get a listing of articles with "bogon" in them, or using google with "bogon site:en.wikipedia.org" works too. — Bility (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bogon is a manually edited disambiguation page. If there is a page with the searched name like in this case then the search box takes you directly there instead of displaying search results. To see search results, click on the last item in the drop-down list (which says "containing..."), or perform an empty search and make your search in the second search box. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Philosophy

I can see that users are overworked in having to cite every piece of information, just to maintain copyright. But it's distracting users away from finding sources of accurate information, and instead, citing every little piece of information with some random source, even though that piece of information is widely known! I see that maybe you need to be focusing on accurate information rather than citing every piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.163.228 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The reason we cite information is because we want to ensure accuracy and verifiability. You are correct that not every single piece of information needs to be verified - facts that are not in dispute do not need references, provided they could be verified if necessary. Where a fact is not immediately obvious, is open to challenge, presents something that could be controversial, or directly quotes a source, a reference is always needed. I agree that we need to focus on adding accurate information; citing references is the best way to do this. If we back something up with a reliable source, people can trust it. If something is not referenced, readers have no idea whether or not the information is reliable. Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it means that people who don't know much about a subject can edit the page. Referencing ensures that people do not add what they think is true, but what can be demonstrated through a use of reliable sources to be true. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other day I was part of a discussion on the merits or otherwise of Wikipedia. One participant declared that he had trouble directly trusting Wikipedia content because he knew how easy it was to, at least temporarily, introduce absolute garbage into an article. The value he saw, however, was in the references. He found Wikipedia a wonderful pathway to a treasure trove of other sites discussing topics he was interested in. Those references provided both some certainty, and a path to further research. In short, he uses Wikipedia primarily FOR its sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

marilyn lightstone biography

Ms. Lightstone's biography states she is in a long term relationship with Moses Znaimer. She hasn't been for quite awhile and is married to a man by the name of Nathan Hartley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.14.101 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The sentence which claimed that she is was unreferenced, so I have removed it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pilkingtons Buses

The article claiming to be about Pilkintons is incorrect.

As the owner of Ribble Valley Coaches Ltd I can state that the company is not owned by Pilkington's and was never never taken over by them. This article is incorrect and misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.19.168 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that you can edit too! If you find something that is incorrect, feel free to remove it, as long as you have a valid reason, and try to cite sources whenever possible. "Pepper" @ 22:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just blank content. That is likely to be taken for vandalism. Leave a detailed edit summary explaining any removal, maybe listing a source therein that corroborates the fact.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]