Help desk
< July 22	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 23[edit]

Aldo (musician)[edit]

Why was this page arbitrarily deleted despite it being administered by the Australian Wiki foundation It is a factual page about a real artist unique in the genre he represents and very unique to Australia

If the deletor had any issues why not raise them with the foundation or request they be edited to suit his/her feelings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.49.1 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log states:

00:47, 5 November 2010 Fetchcomms (talk | contribs) deleted "Aldo (musician)" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldo (musician))

so it is at the last link shown on that line that you will find the reasons. You should also be aware of the deletion policy.

n.b.: this has since been taken to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Aldo (musician). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how to find new articles[edit]

Hi,

I am looking for a list of recent articles by category. Until now, I only found the special page New pages. But I don`t know how to get a list sorted by categories. (like latest articles in Biology, Microbiology) Dodshe (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could always view the pages on WikiProject Biology or WikiProject Science. Otherwise you can checke Category:Biology and its subcategories, but there is no way of sorting pages by "new pages in the biology category". Maybe this link will be useful to you. It is a list of all of the unassessed articles in WikiProject Biology. Ryan Vesey Review me! 11:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, are there lists on the project pages ( WikiProject Biology or WikiProject Sciences)? There I have found noting. Thanks again, Dodshe (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Article inquiry[edit]

I am planning to make a new Wikipedia page regarding BRIDEX [1]. Is it allowed to make an article about this subject? Miguel AG (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! With 355,000 Google hits, it definately apears to be notable enough. Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 15:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on chemicals inclusion of space-filling or ball and stick models[edit]

As a chemist, this is something that's bothered me for quite some time. Why do articles on chemicals include a picture of space-filling or ball and stick models in addition to (or even worse, instead of) just the skeletal formulae? These three dimentional models are "cool looking" but useless or confusing in actually portraying the chemical makeup of a molecule. Anyone who actually needs a 3D model is likely capable of generating one fairly quickly. Is it just the cool factor that perpetuates this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chihowa (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot really speak for this beyond the suggestion that maybe these types of diagrams are easier for the layman to understand (in the "lies to children" fashion). Beyond that, perhaps bringing this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry would shed some light on this. Regards. Rehevkor ✉ 15:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to find other chemist Wikipedians is to join the Chemistry Wikiproject. The rules guidlines for editing articles within the scope of this wikiproject (icluding the use of molecular models) are located at the Manual of Style (Chemistry). Therefore, the place to raise your proposal is at the talk page for that Manual of Style. Raise your question and provide a concise argument in its defense, and someone will respond to you soon. Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 15:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New University of London Logo[edit]

The University of London has a new logo. It has been uploaded by as a .PNG file which does not show up in many browsers, so needs to be uploaded as a .jpg (see below.

However, would it be possible if someone could replace the emblem here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_London_arms.svg with the new logo that can be found here: http://img211.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=429184245_LondonLogo_122_953lo.jpg

And then could somebody please delete this image completely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UofLondon_logo.png

The reason for this is because the emblem is already in the logo, so it does not need to be displayed. It'll be good to make the Uni of London page consistent with other University pages, such as Uni of Liverpool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Liverpool

Would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.71.198 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindle editions[edit]

I have the Kindle edition of several books that I would like to use as a reference its it allowable to use the location address instead of the page number as a reference?Tirronan (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Kindle locations are essentially digital page numbers. Since you can change the font size on the Kindle, this could throw off page numbers actually in the text, hence the use of "locations", which do not change if the font size is adjusted. The purpose of page numbers in a reference is so that others can easily find the text that was referenced, and the Kindle location would achieve the same purpose.

That being said, if at all possible, I would try finding the page number in the actual book, via a search for the same text on Google Books, simply because most editors and readers will likely have much greater access to a physical book vs. the Kindle edition. If you're unable to find the page number after looking, then I would go with the Kindle Location. ^Avic _ennasis @ 17:50, 21 Tamuz 5771 / 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is one of the questions that often comes up at template talk:cite book, WT:CITE and other places. Can you be sure that the location address is the same regardless of what equipment and software is being used to view it? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly should be able to cite a Kindle version, although I'm not sure what the best practice should be, In theory, the answer should be in Citing sources, but I don't see it. You might want to add your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Citing sources.--SPhilbrick T 17:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until there is a better method, used the location. If you are using a citation template, use |at= for the location and |type= for the Kindle and model, as the location seems to differ. The Kindle 3 with updated software now has page numbers for ebooks that have been updated with page numbers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adddition to Janet Reno entry[edit]

Hello, I would like to add several links to the Janet Reno (Atty General under Wm Clinton) page. I am particularly interested in including:

Attorney General Reno was very outspoken in warning mayors, police chiefs and the Judicial and Executive Branches about the dangers of meth (-amphetamines) as early as 1996 and before. She was reported by the Orlando Sentinel as commenting that illegal trafficking in methamphetamine, a dangerous and powerful stimulant, had been spreading rapidly across the United States. [Orlando Sentinel (online),"Reno Warns That Trafficking In Methamphetamine Rising," http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1996-02-14/news/9602131165_1_methamphetamine-drug-of-choice-general-janet-reno Orlando, FL: 14 February, 1996, (accessed 23 July, 2011)]. She appeared at the 68th session of the United States Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting in Washington D.C. in 2000 with President Clinton and others to discuss social and law enforcement dangers of the drug nationally, especially in medium-sized and rural communities in order to deal with "the rapidly emerging issue of meth in America, discuss the unique needs of smaller and mid-sized communities to deal with the crisis, and develop prevention, treatment and interdiction strategies for meth which can then be applied to cities of all sizes as the methamphetamine crisis spreads across the nation." [Somers, Ed, (online), "Mayors Bring New Agenda for America's Cities to Washington, DC for 68th Winter Meeting," http://www.usmayors.org/68thWinterMeeting/68thpreview.htm USCM 1620 Eye Street, Northwest - Washington, DC: (accessed 23 July, 2011)]

Thank you, W CarrW Carr (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you meant adding those links in the external links section, I suggest you post the suggestion in the talk page of the article (click on the 'Discussion' tab on top of the page, beside 'Article'). Other interested users can then look it over and decide if it should be in the article or not.

Just remember that Wikipedia is not the place for promotion. And never place external links in the body of the text itself. They should all be under the External links subsection.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

91/0/0 norsk op[edit]

The section Anders Behring Breivik#Ideas and politics says "91/0/0 norsk op" at the end. Where the heck does that come from? It doesn't appear anywhere in the source text. JIP | Talk 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was apparently viewing a cached version. JIP | Talk 17:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article paragraphing[edit]

hello: i edited an article and used paragraphs but the info i added goes afar right and is dificult to read. how do i get the info to stay in an 8x11 page format like all the other articles are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.142.237 (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't add leading spaces to paragraphs. Just use the enter key, but start every paragraph on the first space of the line. --Jayron32 18:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of London Logo[edit]

Is anybody able to help me out with this please?

The University of London has a new logo. It has been uploaded on their Wiki page as a .PNG file which does not show up in many browsers, so needs to be uploaded as a .jpg (which is below).

However, would it be possible if someone could replace the emblem here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_London_arms.svg with the new JPG logo that can be found here: http://img211.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=429184245_LondonLogo_122_953lo.jpg

And then could somebody please delete this image completely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UofLondon_logo.png

The reason for this is because the emblem is already in the logo, so it does not need to be displayed. It'll be good to make the Uni of London page consistent with other University pages, such as Uni of Liverpool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Liverpool

Would really appreciate it.

(Sorry not sure how to sign)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.71.198 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fifth time that you have posted essentially the same message. As I recall, it was updated by Toshio Yamaguchi following the first such posting. If you wish to add further comments, please add to the existing thread rather than starting a new one.

You sign posts by typing four tildes, i.e ~~~~ --Redrose64 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I was unsure of how to re-communicate a message.

Basically it was updated but in .PNG format, which is not always viewable, so I offered a .JPG instead.

I would like the above to be actioned but cannot do this myself.

Can anyone help?

86.5.71.198 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Daniel[reply]

Finally done. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do here?[edit]

I came across Chase McBride, which has been blanked by a user with the same name as the title who claims the article is about her and wants to remove it for privacy reasons. What should I do here? Revert? CSD tag? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have no way of knowing if the user and the article's subject really are one and the same. Click undo, but before saving, remove anything that violates WP:BLP, and change the edit summary from the default "Undid revision ..." one. Also send ChaseMcBride (talk · contribs) a {{subst:welcometest}} and possibly a {{subst:uw-delete1}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor created the article and now wants to delete it. I've put a conflict warning on his Talk page. He doesn't seem to be notable enough, though, to warrant an article. I may nominate it for deletion, in which case, he may get his wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, different editor. The article was created by ChaseMcBrideMusic (talk · contribs) - the edits mentioned by Train2104 were made by ChaseMcBride (talk · contribs). It's possible that they are one and the same (but only a WP:SPI would confirm that); it's also possible that one is the real Chase McBride and the other is an obsessive fan or a business rival. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a re-direct from Guillaume de Melun to William the Carpenter?[edit]

Froissart mentions a later Guillaume de Melun as being at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. Also, when you get to the William the Carpenter article there is no mention that I could find of Guillaume de Melun or even that Guillaume de Melun is the same person as William the Carpenter. Further, There is no mention of heirs of this William the Carpenter. http://www.archive.org/stream/chroniclesoffroi00froiuoft/chroniclesoffroi00froiuoft_djvu.txt - 123 paragraph 8 Not in copyright Mugginsx (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William the Carpenter was viscount of Melun, and Guillaume just means "William", so it seemed like a logical redirect at the time, since this other one doesn't have an article. I'm not sure if these two are related (they are probably not directly related, at least). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Attraction[edit]

Greetings,

I updated the article on Law of Attraction recently and provided "verifiable" factual information, yet is was rejected. How can my edits be re-added, as they are in fact, correct.

Thanks for your reply.

User name: NaturalPhilos

NaturalPhilos (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source was self-published and is therefore not a reliable source. Your facts can be re-added only if you provide a different source which meets Wikipedia requirements for reliability. Yworo (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I notice that the editor who reverted your work referred to it as "spam." Spam means that the content exists solely to promote some person, idea, group, etc., as opposed to existing to provide objective, reliable information to the readers. Considering the fact that you cited a self-published work, it is clear that you are trying to promote your cause instead of giving honest contributions to an encyclopedia.

Second, the "Joie" you refer to has no Wikipedia article of her own and therefore she probably does not meet Wikipedia's requirement of notability. It is not surprising that your work was reverted, as it put a reference to this non-notable subject in the lead section. Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hajatvrc, The recent reversion of the text is surprisingly invalid. The edit of the article duly included Newton's Law of Gravitation, which is based on attraction; in addition to the removal of information where "citation was needed" and not provided:

[For example, here is what is currently referenced]

21st century

The Law of Attraction was brought to hundreds of thousands of people for the first time by Rhonda Byrne through the film The Secret(2006) which is based on the "Law of Attraction" and includes many experts in the field of personal excellence such as Bob Proctor, Jack Canfield, Joe Vitale, John Grey and Marci Schimoff as well as quantum physicists John Hagelin and Fred Alan Wolf.[citation needed]

> In the above sentence, there is no reference to the above names listed, and it is unknown whether the additional names are involved with the body of work since they were not in the film. Why would the edit of that sentence be rejected when it clearly needs updating?

We are not promoting any one source, only providing current research on the topic, which is the purpose of Wikipedia - public information. Wikipedia in general is verifiable, but not completely reliable. In fact, the Law of Attraction article [at the top of the page] says:

"This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue..."

Thanks for your assistance, yet it seems there is bias towards new information and updating former data where citations are, in fact needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaturalPhilos (talk • contribs) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one commented on the sentence to which you just referred. Your edit to that sentence was only reverted because it was done at the same time as the other troubled content. You may make your change to that sentence without pissing in anyone's pool. Yworo and I have only criticized your use of an invalid source, spam, and inclusion of non-notable material. Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't login[edit]

I can't login; and this has been a problem for about a year now. I even tried to create a new password, a couple times. Originally I couldn't login because it said "Due to security problems.....It appears you have a virus...." I took computer to computer guy who 'cleaned it'. My wife's been able to login on hers; but mine repeated "Security reasons...." I even went thru Photo I.D. to prove it's me; then Step 3 or 4 would never come up... Last couple months when I try to do Photo ID , it only shows one picture + I ID, but before I can scroll down to names of 2nd pic,it says "Your answersd were not accurate enough.." I try again, + it says "You have exceeded your maximum number of trys..." Can I get a new password, and get back into my account? My e-mail has always been the same... HELP, PLEASE!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.112.169 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.6 million articles and thought we were 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 for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about 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. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]