Help desk
< August 4	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 5[edit]

Fixing redirects[edit]

Is removing the text of an article that already exists which was placed on a redirect page really considered vandalism? As you can see, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation is a redirect to the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. I removed a bunch of invisible text that was placed on the redirect page, but was repeatedly reverted, and nobody will explain why I was reverted and reported for vandalism. KypDurron1 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should really bring it up with the people who reverted you: we can't read their minds. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aloe Vera[edit]

Could someone please try and sort out the strange embedding of the images within the text please? There are currently big white spaces but I can't see anything in the mark up that suggests why. Thanks Smartse (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is way too many images and not enough content. I've added most to the gallery underneath, which improves flow a bit, but the article does need work. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the image issue has been fixed, and I'm going to do some work on the article in general. hmwith τ 13:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Thanks Smartse (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External tools[edit]

Did anyone notice that many external tools for Wikipedia seem to have gone crazy yesterday? Why is that? Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 04:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the toolserver (the server that hosts almost all "external" tools on Wikipedia) is down (or was), see Wikipedia:VPT#When would tooserver errors be fixed?. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can pages have the same url[edit]

Hypothetically if there were for example say 3 singers named Bob Smith and the first Bob smith had the url wiki/Bob_Smith and the 2nd Bob had wiki/Bob_Smith_(singer), what url would the 3rd bob smith have? Would you have to use their age or something else in the url? Danielspencer2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Age would be a pretty silly disambiguator, since not many people searching would know it and it changes regularly. Nationality or genre would probably be best in this case. Algebraist 04:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Bob Smiths have different middle names, you could disambiguate with those as well. See WP:DISAMBIG. --Teratornis (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Bob Smith for several examples :-) ~----

If they perform different genres of music, it could be Bob_Smith (rock_musician) and Bob_Smith(folk_musician). Livewireo (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation[edit]

how to create my own page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.30.6 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to first register an account, which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles. Once you have registered, 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 which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to 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 Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and 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. ≈ Chamal ^talk 06:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, however, when you say “my own page,” you mean that you want to create a biography of yourself, you should ask yourself honestly if you meet our notability guideline. It would be a shame if you put a lot of effort into creating an article only to have it deleted for lack of notability (as dozens of articles are deleted every day). —teb728 t c 06:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we call ourselves "editors." If you want to help, it is best to create an account. After you do so, you can create a user page. These pages are not part of the encyclopedia, but rather pages that editors use to describe themselves and their editing activities. Click on the name of any editor who has answered your question to see some examples. If you just want a page on the internet some place, then Wikipedia is not the place. But if you are so inclined, you may find that helping to build an encyclopedia is fun. -Arch dude (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinates for medium-sized areas[edit]

I assume that it is the standard not to add co-ordinates to a large area (country, state, county), but to give one for small areas (parks, plateaux). What then about mid-range areas? I'm thinking specifically of consituencies and other administrative divisions in the UK. I'm finding it hard to find a precedent - many are tagged as needing one, for example, but I gather the standard procedure is to then opt-out. Any help appreciated, - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates page says that the location of the head office of the administrative district is given. That page gives further details on how the coordinates should be used in various types of objects/locations. You can ask at their talk page if you need more details or guidance from someone familiar with the subject. Cheers. ≈ Chamal ^talk 11:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, if I may, I shall continue briefly here for the sake of a coherent thread. UK Constituencies, to the best of my knowledge, do not have official head offices (sometimes local party headquarters can be de facto admittedly, but this is not comprehensive coverage and dependent on which party controls the constituency). What then? - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 11:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a range of coordinates? West to east and north to south? That would work fine I think. Dcoetzee 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Reviews/Warnings[edit]

How often are pages reviewed? If a page has warnings from June, and the article has been updated, when can I expect the warnings to be removed (i.e. insufficient in-line citations, lack of categories, cleanup required)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlyssaGregory (talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When someone removes them. If the warnings are no longer appropriate, remove them yourself. Algebraist 15:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit, Wikipedia is created and reviewed by its editors. An editor is anybody who chooses to edit. All editors have the same rights and responsibilities: the only exception being editors who have been formally sanctioned in some way. This means that you have the same rights and responsibilties as an editor as anybody else, so you may choose to remove those tags when in your editorial opinion they should be removed. Another editor may disagree and put them back. You must then resolve your differences with the other editor, first by discussing it with that editor, and , only if you cannot agree, by using our other resolution techniques. When we get inot difficulties, we call on our administrators to resolve the difficulties. Administrators can take certain actions that normal editors cannot, but administrators do not have any more editorial authority than other editors. As an editor, you are strongly encouraged to avoid acting on a subject if you have a conflict of interest. In that case, please ask for help from another editor. -Arch dude (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewed[edit]

Can the back flap of the book be used to consider the book being peer reviewed ?

Take the hypothetical example of Harry potter and the goblet of fire

http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Goblet-Fire-Book/dp/0439139597/ref=pd_sim_b_2/182-8698939-3981463

Sorry for asking a stupid question but please answer.--Gnosisquest (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See peer review. This term is used in the context of scholarly work, and it means review by other experts in the field. Friday (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I doubt that a rear flap review would be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are all books mentioned on http://catalog.fcla.edu/ux.jsp?S=2171249488266140 considered as peer reviewed ?How to find peer reviewed books there ? --Gnosisquest (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context of your query? "Peer reviewed" is a technical term with a specific meaning. Books from university presses are generally regarded as fairly reliable sources, if that is what you are asking. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of wikinews as reference[edit]

Hi, an article I've recently started to improve and edit has wikinews as a reference for some of it's content, in particular this reference is an interview conducted by members of the wikinews community with the subject in question. Though wikinews is open-source and therefore according to wikipedia policy is unsuitable, the fact that its a primary source interview may supercede that. Not sure whether to remove it or not and I'm looking for some direction.
Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may get the best response at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. hmwith t 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that any source which is non-reliable can't therefore be relied on to reproduce an interview accurately. If we don't trust someone to report facts how can we trust them to report what the subject said? Olaf Davis (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews has been used as a reference before, but just be careful. Wikinews can be trusted no more and no less than Wikipedia itself. I would be careful, however, to use a permalink to the Wikinews article in the reference (if you do use it). Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 20:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy plug vrs North American plugs[edit]

I live in the U.S. and am traveling to Italy on vacation. I would like to know if the US sells any type of adapter so that I may use the plug in Italy? Thank you Stephanie Gordon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.216.48 (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. I can tell you from personal experience that places like Radio Shack and Best Buy sell plug adapters, but you will have to make sure that your US equipment can handle the 220v mains power used in Europe. – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Young Republicans[edit]

For the past week or so there has been an edit war raging on the Young Republicans article, with anonymous editors insisting a poorly-written, highly-POV, un-reliably sourced section about a controversy which erupted toward the end of this year's leadership election: the newly-elected chair of the YRs was caught appearing to laugh at racially inflammatory comments on her Facebook page. This made plenty of news, and I don't think anyone objected to the situation being referenced in the article. However, the section named Controversy[1] struck myself and others as inappropriate.

It also happened that this was not the only controversy related to the election; in fact, the other candidate had been convicted of election fraud a few years before, which also figured into the race and had received news coverage in its own right. So what I did was write a new section titled 2009 leadership race[2] which discussed both, while keeping to just the facts cited to reliable sources.

Anyway, this version has now been reverted (and reverted)[3] by perhaps two different IP editors working from a Sprint PCS card and claiming that this version is actually the one that is extremely biased, etc. Myself and another editor succeeded in getting one of these users to address the issues on the Talk page, but that has not accomplished much, either. In fact, amidst accusing us of bad faith, this IP editor announced: "I will check this every waking hour to restore it if necessary." I.e. to delete "2009 leadership race" and replace it with "Controversy".

As I am wary of running into 3RR, I am not going to change it back, but I hope somebody will. Moreover, is it time to temporarily semi-protect the page in hopes of discouraging these folks? In all my time here I've never been involved in getting a page protected, so I figured I would ask. Thoughts? WWB (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make a request at WP:RFPP for semi-protection. Write out the nature of the dispute in neutral terms on the talk page, making sure to post diffs in your summary to detail what occurred, and then ask for a third opinion as to the matter and possibly post a request for comment. The result aimed for is to get more editors involved to get consensus for which version (or compromise version that may develop) should be in the article. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, will do. WWB (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is there a way to get a deleted image back?[edit]

i am trying to get the Fontainebleau High School crest for a project i am doing. way back in the day (like around 2008) it was on the wikipedia page, but someone seems to have deleted it. i know that articles have a 'page history', but do images? and if so where can i get it. this is for purely personal use and i do not intend to upload it to wikipedia again. [4]

thanksCkety 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia without a fair use justification, or without the copyright holder (presumably your school) releasing it under a free license. See Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. Someone will probably undelete the image for you if you promise to provide a non-free image rationale. Dcoetzee 23:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just read the part about how this is for personal use. Deleted files are inaccessible to the general public - if you want a copy it's best if you contact the copyright holder, the school, since they're the only ones who are legally permitted to distribute the image. Dcoetzee 23:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I put a non-free image rationale and get it released? it would only be a plus that it could be put back onto Fontainebleau High School's page.Ckety 23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to include logos in Wikipedia under fair use rationales (see WP:LOGO), but I'm not sure if it will be restored just to provide a rationale since it's just a matter of uploading the image again with the correct details. You might find it here, which seems to be the official website. ≈ Chamal ^talk 02:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the image (File:Fontainebleau hs.jpg), added a fair use rationale, and added the image to Fontainebleau High School. hmwith t 03:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]