Help desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

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 23

Help

I just wanna ask that is it right to make a social media site of Wikipedia with @list.Wikimedia.org email address or is there another email address used for it. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 06:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is most definitely not a social media site. See WP:NOTSOCIAL. While you can link your account with an email address (and I see that you have done), we don't give out Wikimedia addresses for people to use. Rojomoke (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking it for personal use it's for the community social account that we want to create. I know the there are @wikimedia.org emails that are used by many versions of Wikipedia for many purpose we need it for creation of social media sites for our local wiki project --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 01:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False/wrong information to the page, also take action those users who input false information

I am from The Daily Star Bangladesh, largest leading newspaper of Bangladesh. I need an help regarding The_Daily_Star_(Bangladesh) wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Star_(Bangladesh) Officially I am complaining that some people edit/update with false, wrong, untrusted information to the wikipedia page of The Daily Star Bangladesh. May be they are doing intentional by using bdnews source link. But bdnews is not a newspaper and its not a trusted news source. Although I remove the false information but again and again they update the page, You can get the information of The Daily Star from its website, http://www.thedailystar.net/about-us

They uses the following heading with the paragraphs, "Controversy", Backing of the 2007, etc (see the page history)

Here are the false Information: Section Controversy as on 22 April 2017 revision:

Backing of the 2007
In 2016, speaking at a panel discussion on ATN News, editor Mahfuz Anam admitted to long-running allegations that he collaborated with the military-led caretaker government of 2007 and ran false stories fed by the military intelligence outfit DGFI, aimed at maligning a former prime minister of Bangladesh. The Daily Star is widely criticized for 'backing' the army-installed government, led by former bureaucrat Fakhruddin Ahmad and armed with sweeping emergency powers to curb media and civil rights.[citation needed]
It is claimed that at the initiative of the Centre for Policy Dialogue, The Daily Star and its sister concern Bangla language daily Prothom Alo made the ground welcoming an unconstitutional government with a campaign for 'depoliticisation' through citizens' dialogue across the country, critics say. Previously he had denied those allegations. But on this occasion he finally admitted it saying it was his biggest mistake. He however tried to defend himself by saying that "everyone did it".[2]
This led to demands in parliament by several lawmakers calling for the arrest and trial of Mahfuz Anam and the owner, Latifur Rahman. Lawmaker Fazle Noor Taposh, standing up on the point of order:

Recently, Mafuz Anam admitted in a Television Talkshow aired through the ATN News that the Daily Star published some fabricated and untrue news during the 1/11 political turmoil . . . It 's definitely the violation of Constitution and a sedition case can be lodged in this connection.

[10] The lawmakers claimed that Mahfuz Anam involved himself in a conspiracy in implementing a blueprint during the1/11 changeover and demanded disclosing the "misdeeds" of Mahfuz Anam to the people.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolotan (talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said in your title you wanted "action to be taken" against the users who added that information. Could you clarify what you mean by that? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of references in that section to rival publications. Wikipedia just reports what is written in WP:Reliable sources. It does not get involved in disputes between newspapers. I have no idea whether http://bdnews24.com/ or the other newspaper are more or less reliable than the Daily Star, but if you want balance, then find some references that support whatever you think the article should say. Have you declared your WP:Conflict of interest in this matter? Dbfirs 15:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barons in Scotland

Resolved

– Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that almost every second reference is poorly done on this page. the citations look to me to be verifiable - but are done poorly (and not by me!). Cheerio101.182.219.133 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Done poorly" meaning... what? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP is probably referring to the many "access date" errors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I got it. I'll go fix them. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Generated Issue-- Please help

Hello there,

Someone created a wikipedia page for me and it was deleted. It's fine; I respect the Wikipedia community.

However, now when people search for my name, it shows this link: http://deletedwiki.com/index.php?title=Wassim_Rasamny

How can I take off this link from deletedwiki.com. It is hurting my reputation in different ways as someone whose reputation is everything.

Is there a way to challenge this? Is there a way to remove it? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRoughEditor (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I can think of is to contact the admin on his talk page and ask if he can delete the page. Here's his talk page - [1]. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deletedwiki.com has nothing to do with wikipedia.org (other than that they make a point of archiving articles that we delete) so there is nothing we can do about it. RJFJR (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question was "what can I do"? Not "what can you do". It was a simple question for advice. Maineartists (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which was given. There is nothing he can do other than contact the admin of that Wiki and ask for them to take it down. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Kenny

Hi, I've just merged Jodie Schulz into Jodie Kenny (as they're the same person). Would someone mind checking that I've done everything right? Red Fiona (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redfiona99, the merge seems alright on the face of it, as far as the content being merged is concerned. However, the lead section in Jodie Kenny is not well balanced with the rest of the article – as it contains material that probably should be shifted below in the sections of personal life and field hockey career. MOS:LEAD would give you good pointers on how you could format the lead section. Thanks. Lourdes 14:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of the later steps had been missed (per WP:FMERGE). I have fixed. Eagleash (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I didn't know how to find the talk page for Jode Schulz after I'd merged it. (And I will now get on with the tidying of the article, as I can now rest easy that I've not screwed the merge up completely :) ) Red Fiona (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for Jodie Schulz (or click that link) it will take you to 'Kenny'. At the top of the page just under the heading you will find a tiny blue link to the redirect. Or the redirect page should show up in your contributions. If you follow the steps at WP:FMERGE, merging is not as awkward as it might appear at first sight. Eagleash (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

/* Cover versions */ Denied

I contributed to Pop Musik song page under "Cover Versions" about the cover by Fuzzbox. It was removed and I received a message saying it was not conducive to the encyclopedia format ...something. WHY are the other cover versions relevant, but not Fuzzbox's??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4AC:EBF0:5D78:3477:8628:EB93 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unfortunately your additions (or at least one of them did) linked to commercial sites and a reliable source was not provided. Eagleash (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors don't like linking to the Amazon product description, because the item is also for sale there, and so people put in Amazon links to help sell their song, and we are wary of that. Also your adding "is available on iTunes and Amazon" probably triggered somebody's tilt-o-meter -- we don't include material on where to buy stuff in our articles.

Discogs is an alternative site I use. It has lots of music data, is considered reasonably reliable I think, and since they don't sell anything you don't have that problem. The link for that song is https://www.discogs.com/Fuzzbox-PopMuzik/release/5315033. Herostratus (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a KML File / Uploading A Google Map

I'm confused. I've created a Google Map (a path of an old canal) and am able to download that file to a KML. What I can't figure out is how to upload that KML to Wikipedia so that people who look at the page for that canal can see the map I have made.

I can tell from this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Maps_task_force/Tutorial#Creating_a_KML_file) that I have to create a template which might be described here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Attached_KML)

But I can't figure it out.

If you show me and I do it I'll document what I did. Tell me where to put that documentation too and others who come after me can follow the instructions we create.

Thanks.

This is of course not urgent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighAtop94 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to upload the KML file. Re-read step 8. Open the file on your PC and copy the text in the file. - X201 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X201 Thanks for answering. But what file do I paste it into? Again, sorry for being dense, but if I edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_and_Hudson_Canal where would I paste all of that KML text (I'm fine on downloading it and opening it in Notepad, and copying it). Sorry to not be getting this? -- Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighAtop94 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You need to do step 10, create a sub-page. In your case you need to create Template:Attached KML/Delaware and Hudson Canal, click that red link and paste the text in there and save it. Important! read what step 11 says about formatting the KML text, i.e. don't. - X201 (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 23, 2017 "today's featured article": the "Shakespeare authorship question"

Today, April 23, 2017, is William Shakespeare's 453d birthday. I am sure I speak for many, many Shakespeare aficionados, scholars and performers in deploring some Wikipedia editor's idiotic, offensive and disrespectful choice of making the so-called "Shakespeare authorship question" today's featured article -- on his birthday of all days. William Shakespeare of Stratford and London, the greatest literary genius in the history of the English language, wrote Shakespeare's works, period. Of course Shakespeare has to be featured in Wikipedia when we come to this date, but what have you done? Instead of hosannas and praise and paeans to his genius, for his gifts to us, you have chosen to feature the delusional sneers and jibes of his utterly undeserved and unworthy enemies. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think Shakespeare did not write his works. Only some built-in evolutionary failures, to wit: human snobbery, contrariness and a dogged devotion to stupidity and unreason can account for anyone believing otherwise. There is no genuine authorship question of the kind those idiots imagine. Yes, Shakespeare had collaborators for a few works, but the Shakespeare-written parts of those works were written by William Shakespeare. The so-called authorship question is as much a real question as the flat earth question or how much astrology should guide your life choices question or just how does Elvis spend his days these days question. Since November, we Americans have been living in a tragicomedy, at the mercy of what the Hamburg Morgenpost called the "Horror-Clown", so institutional reassurances that our civilization is not totally collapsing are especially important. Wikipedia is itself a work of genius and a marvel of the modern world, a living, working monument to some of humankind's best attributes, so this insensitive failure is especially disturbing. I hope you will be much nicer to him next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.108.11 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think we're showing insensitivity to the feelings of someone who's been dead for 400 years? Covering the fact that there are some people who believe in something (indeed, with the prominent disclaimer that All but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief) doesn't mean that Wikipedia is endorsing that belief. ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not relevant to the purpose of the Help Desk. We are here to answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Do you wish to edit Wikipedia? Are you encountering difficulty doing so?

(Addressing the complaint, the Shakespeare authorship question article had been worked on until it was judged worthy of WP:Featured article status. That made it eligible for the front page; the only question was the date. Wikipedia is featuring the article; it does not indicate endorsement of the subject of the article any more than Wikipedia was endorsing the Rock Springs massacre on 2 September 2009.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Location Hypothesis

Please look carefully at what is going on here. RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that my work on Plato's Atlantis from a scientific perspective is NOT being well received. Please, somebody, prove me wrong.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify what you wish to be informed about or what you advocate for change in an (elaborate X because of Y) and (change X to Y) format, respectively so that your concerns can be better addressed. Thanks for understanding! Geo ^talk 21:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For over a year, this editor has being trying to insert his original research into the article Location hypotheses of Atlantis. He has been warned over and over, but persists in arguing that since his changes are based on published articles, his original research is not original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over a year? try since 2009. This is when I formulated my Atlantis Location Hypothesis. Google "Atlantis Location Hypothesis". when I try to edit Wikipedia with recent science, I am met with archives from 1917 that are 100 years old this year. It is hard to believe that with climate change science and all of the progress that has been made, recent scientific research is not allowed...

I guess I should appreciate this more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_8#/media/File:Admin_T-shirt.PNG

You all work pretty hard here.

A story is in order.

As a radiologic technologist, there is a train of thought that holds that to protect a patient from excess radiation, the acronym, ALARA should be followed. (As Low As is Reasonably Achievable).

So, in addition to using a collimnator, a device that only allow radiation to reach an area illuminated by a light beam, that areas should be covered by lead. (a rubberized lead apron or a flat lead shield). The claim is that x-radiation produced during the exposure is also accompanied by "off focus radiation from the x-ray tube", "leakage of radiation from the collimnator" or "Xray tube housing leakage" all 3 of which are limited to leakage equivalent to average readings of background radiation from the environment by federal regulation.

So, the lead covering is commonly placed between the patient's body and the xray source or xray tube outside of the useful xray beam as indicated by the light from the collimnator when the exposure is made to obtain the image. The belief is that the lead shield protects the patient from the three sources that cannot possibly reaching the patient. Furthermore, the standard measured radiation is in the microGray range when significant scatter is in the milliGray range. (A microGray is 1/1000 of a milliGray)

The problem with all of this is that whenever xradiation is used in a diagnostic room setting, there can be only 2 kinds of radiation present. The first is the beam from the tube. The second is the scatter radiation produced by the Compton effect inside the atomic structure of that which is being radiated. (Patient, wall, equipment, etc) Furthermore, we can measure this with radiation detectors.

So. the question remains, what happens when you cover the patient's body outside the primary beam with lead. Experiments show that less radiation is present under the lead apron next to the patient's body. More is detected next to the patient's body if lead is not used outside of the primary beam.

What is happening is not what it seems. During the short exposure the patient's body becomes a source emitting scattered radiation. If you cover it with lead, you create a third interaction that prevents the scatter from leaving the patient's body. Therefore, the patient is absorbing more radiation. However. We are only talking about microGrays. You would get a thousand more time radiation in a commercial aircraft flying at 35,000 feet going from Los Angles To New York. But still, that radiation is only the equivalent of a diagnostic radiograph of your chest at high kvp technique.

Well, what you believe will work can be justified by somebody's research. I cannot pick the geology apart. I can only say that there is controversy.

My Atlantis Location hypothesis is only a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an idea that is supported by reasonable existing scientific data. I am not an ancient history expert. I am not an expert in the study of known ancient antiquities. I am a scientist with an interest in imaging using tomography, in this case "P" wave tomography. I have used CAT scanners in practice. I know what they can do. I am not "believing" in anything. I am presenting existing research and an explanation regarding a possible scenario of how it can be put together with science to solve an ancient mystery.

Like mathematics, my hypothesis could represent something that exists, and it may not represent something that exists. Make no mistake, that are super volcanoes like the undisputed one at Yellowstone Park, Wyoming. Keep in mind 80% of volcanic eruptions occur underwater. Most go undetected. My Atlantis in the Azores is a product of something that could have happened.

We know the last ice age ended abruptly. We know that oceans rose 10,000 years ago. I am presenting the hypothesis. If it can be elevted to a theory and then a scientifically proven occurrence, only time will tell. I do not apologize, and I do not back away from the science supporting the hypothesis. It is no more disruptive, it is no more obnoxious than any scientific hypothesis that remains as yet unproven.

As the example of lead shielding in my technological profession, this will continue until research accepts or rejects it. as we still do not know a lot of things about the dynamics of the planet Earth, we do not know if this hypothesis is correct. However, you cannot dispute the emerging science.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Atlantis/Location_Hypotheses

Look how they are hiding this in Google searches. Hiding it won't work, either.

Just google "Atlantis Location Hypothesis" and see what you find.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit can be found in my sandbox... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RAYLEIGH22/sandbox

Since it only describes the geologic activity of the Azores, is is constantly deleted. Statements that indicate the activity of Santorini are allowed. Plato stated earthquakes destroyed Atlantis. Earthquakes are still occurring.

Just look http://www.cvarg.azores.gov.pt/seismic/index.html

So why can't we place this here in Wikipedia. Original research it is not no more that what Dougweller posts is original research.

I claim that the deleting of my edits is disruptive. But that is only my opinion.

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer now turned off for everyone, by default?

Is there a systemic problem with media viewer? It now seems turned off for everyone, by default. I don't plan to register, and thus cannot enable/disable that function, so why is it now turned off? I can't even find a gear icon to enable media viewer. Is there someway to do that *without* registration? Maybe this is just a temporary glitch with Wikipedia? ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.223.29 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not very likely. Do you perhaps have a very old browser ? We recently turned off all JS enhancements for older browser generations, that we are no longer able to support. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]