Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 January 15

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.

January 15

renaming a title

The wiki entry title for Wills Eye Hospital is incorrect. The name was changed recently to Wills Eye Institute. I'm having difficulty making the change.

roger baronePhotosfromphilly (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid your article [1] had much bigger problems than the name. It was an advertisement clearly written by the subject against Wikipedia rules such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, so I redirected Wills Eye Hospital to the old target Thomas Jefferson University. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

.mw-tag-markers

In common.css, there is a .mw-tag-markers that styles tags. I put that in my common.css on my wiki and it is not getting styled like wikipedia's styleing. How do I get it styled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btilm (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is for help with the English Wikipedia. You want mw:Project:Support desk. Algebraist 13:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

crew listing of battleships during second world war

to who it may concern i have been looking for a relitive who was on a battleship during WW2,what i get is listing of battleships nothing of the crew!this making it rough on trying to find him on weather he survied or was kia.the familey historin has passed on without putting any thing down on paper or recording it voice recorder.please help thank you 01:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdmanmacaw1 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and complete crew listings of ships are beyond our scope.

Have you tried the Humanities section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. They will have to know at least the name of the person to search for information. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For more details please visit WP:NOT. South Bay (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed an article in poor condition, but something is wrong.

I am new to editing Wikipedia articles, but I have no reason to make games of it. I only change for what I truely know, and recently I've changed an article of the novel Betrayed by P.C. Cast and Kristin Cast. I read the headline above the sypnosis of the book and it stated that it needed an editor to change how it was written, tone-wise. Unfortunately, the article was in way worse condition than that, as such it did not describe the novel in a correct mannor. I have read this book many times, including all of the others in the House of Night series. If I ever edit anything else having to do with this series, I am completely informed of what these novels have to do with. Anyways, I expanded and edited the article. Feeling proud of myself for not being someone who changed articles on Wikipedia for the worse, I clicked "Save Page". Something went wrong. Everything is elongated, even though I'd meant it to be seen like this:

Zoey Redbird, a 16-year-old third former("freshman") vampyre fledgling, had succeeded in settling herself in the Tulsa House of Night, or the vampyre finnishing school. She accepts the elemental gifts her Goddess of Night personified, Nyx, had given her, and she earned a new tattoo going from her neck down to her back. Zoey finally feels like she belongs - with her friends: Damien Maslin,Shaunee Cole,Erin Bates(the two before mentioned stated to be "Twins") and her roommate and best friend Stevie Rae Johnson, beside her. She also has two boyfriends, Erik Night, a fifth-former("junior")vampyre fledgling, and Heath Luck, her human ex-boyfriend with whom she has Imprinted.

Soon after, killings of human teenagers take place, with all evidence pointing to the House of Night. As humans associated with Zoey from her unMarked passed life become endangered, it comes to light that her amazing powers threaten those close to her. In her most urgent time of need, her best friend Stevie Rae rejects the Change from human to vampyre and dies in her arms. Shaken by this, she is shoked to find that Heath is the next of the string of kidnapped, soon to be killings of human teens. Using her Imprint with him to track down where exactly he is, she rides on horseback( with the help of her equestrian studies teacher Professor Lenobia) to where she finds him to be in an old abandoned depot on the edge of town. Using the directions she got from Heath, she finds old Prohibition era tunnels underground. She finds Heath and a big surpise - Stevie Rae is alive. But she isn't how she used to be. She's lost most of her humanity and is the true stereotype of vampyres - red eyed,cruel,and blood thirsty. There were others like her, others that died and undied. She recalls seeing two of them along a wall of her school, believing them to be ghosts. She is forced to kill one of them with her affinity, or connection with fire trying to attack Heath, as they find human blood enticing. Zoey still finds a bit of the old Stevie Rae inside her, the Okie twanged country music and Roper jeans lover that she was, and obviously trusting Zoey, she says that Neferet (the vampyre High Pristess of her school, and her mentor as well) did it to them. Neferet comes and makes Zoey and Heath forget all that happened in the tunnels. She uses her power with the elements air,fire,water,earth, and spirit to clear the mind block from herself. She doesn't speak of the other fledglings, only saying that a crazy man took Heath, to her friends. In the end she makes a vow to come back for Stevie Rae.

Could you please fix this? I'd never meant for this to happen, and I am very confused for why it is so. And for some reason, this happens in the Help desk as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.98.39 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't start lines with a blank space. To indicate a paragaraph, use blank lines, like this:

Paragraph 1.

Paragraph 2.

--Jc3s5h (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've fixed the article for you, so don't worry about that, the problem was that you had (as Jc3s5h notes above) opened the paragraph with a space, its easily fixed and causes no harm. Thank you very much for your contribution, its greatly appreciated. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Other language to English Wikipedia or Commons

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Help desk! So another editor asked me and now I am asking you guys. We are tying to grab a handful of images from the Hebrew Wikipeida for use on the English Wikipeida. I thought that throwing them on commons would be best. I could have sworn I did this before but maybe not. Is there a tool to drag them into commons or should I download them to my machine and then upload them? Thanks for any pointers.Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a TUSC account you can use CommonsHelper or CommonsHelper2. Other methods are on Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Nanonic (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks!Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Push for Commons is useful too, because it searches for images on the source Wikipedia which have the correct licensing for Commons. Note that a lot of images on the various Wikipedias have screwed up descriptions or licensing which sometimes messes up the tools. --Teratornis (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I had created a page on Strategy Execution but when I type in Strategy Execution, the article did not appear.

I had created a page on Strategy Execution but when I type in Strategy Execution, the article did not appear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Speculand/Strategy_execution

what should I do next to make it go "live"?

07:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tongkat Ali (talk • contribs)

The page you created wss called Strategy implementation but User:cquan then changed the page to a redirect to Strategic planning: Cquan's edit comment was "essay/OR, redirecting", indicating that your article was an essay and/or original research, neither of which is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. --ColinFine (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem editing page for Tower Hamlets College

Problem editing page for Tower Hamlets College - says it has changed, then I look next day and reverts to old text! I hvae tried doing it from a 'logged in' account, and also not as a 'logged in' account and this seems to make no difference. Any ideas? Needs to be changed as there are both grammatical and factual errors in the current version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.120.102 (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the "Page history" tab at the top of Tower Hamlets College you can see all the previous edits, including your own [2]. Your previous edits have been reverted by other editors because they are (a) taken verbatim from the college's website, which is a copyright violation, and (b) not encyclopaedic in tone - they sound like an advertisement and are full of peacock terms. Your help to improve the article is greatly appreciated , but contributions need to be neutral in tone and written in your own words, not cut and pasted from another website. They should also be verifiable; that is, they should be supported by a reliable source with citations wherever possible. Karenjc 11:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day

Happy Wikipedia Day guys! Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 12:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Auit Machine covers

We are a small commerical Georgia state bank. We use the SHARP Electronic Audit Machines, Model BE2510L as Teller Machines. We appreciate and enjoy these 'Teller Machines" for there ease of use and reliability. Our problem is that all the covers for these machines are falling apart.

We would like to order at least five covers for these machines. Could someone at this Internet address provide us with ordering instructions.

My phone number is <blanke>, our Internet address is <blanked>, our mailing address is <blanked>.

Your assistance will be most appreciated,

Richard Skates CEO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.249.166 (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly 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 left hand 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. TNXMan 15:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A request please....

Hey, I use wikipedia a lot. But... There's a huge irritating problem that i face. That is removing all the hyperlinks along with numbers like [1], [2] and so on Please.... I need a shortcut....???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarrocks (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it was you who posted at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 January 9#A request please... The numbers are references and are meant to be included. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They could also be links to external site such as this [3]... – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume from what you say that you're cutting and pasting Wikipedia content into other documents, and don't want the citation numbers. Reusing Wikipedia content is absolutely fine, provided you follow the rules, but bear in mind that teachers or lecturers won't be impressed with anything cut-and-pasted from the site. Better to rewrite in your own words, and follow the citation links for confirmation or more info - it's what they're there for. Karenjc 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You can do a plain copy without links by using Printable version in the left toolbar. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I work with a library/archive and we have a project that we have been working on and were hoping to post links on the appropriate pages on wikipedia to it. However, after doing a few in a row I receive messages stating that I am "spamming" the site which I am not doing at all. Is there a way that wikipedia can know who I am so I will be allowed to post these links as we think they are useful, educational links for wikipedia users to have without being told that I may be kicked off the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda.nelson12 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment by User:DuncanHill on your talk page. I think the warning was a little hasty and bitey. I suggest that you seek further advice by asking your question at the external links noticeboard. – ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Amanda, I agree, the links are not spam, but the action you are doing is regarded 'spamming' here on Wikipedia. There seems to be some opposition to adding those links into the external links section, and I do say, I do agree with that part. I do believe that these links can be used in a better way than 'just an external link'. Please read the suggestions on your talkpage, and see if you can help improving the articles, instead of just adding links. I'd suggest you have a look at the external links guideline, the spam guideline, the conflict of interest guideline, and the advice for the cultural sector.

In the meantime, just stop and engage in discussion and see if you can work it out with others (just continuing with what you were doing may indeed result in you being blocked). If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is, unfortunately, very strong resistance from some on Wikipedia to links to archives held by libraries, universities and other repositories of learning. I believe that this undermines Wikipedia by depriving editors and readers of access to material which can be used to improve the encyclopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One other suggestion -- you may want to consider donating your materials to Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that is an option, as all the archive material carried the warning: "This transcript may not be quoted, reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part by any means except with the written permission of the American Institute of Physics." --Taelus (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• May the user at least post relevant links on the article talk pages, and then allow the Wikipedia community to decide what to do with each? Policy for such cultural groups tells them to: Start editing now! Don't be afraid of making a mistake; anything that you do can be undone., and there can be little issue with placing them on talk pages. Personally I think it would be a shame if Wikipedia were to reject good content as "spam" like this. --Taelus (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggested to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and donate the list, and see if there are people willing to use the material, in stead of only linking to it. By the way, it is not the content that is rejected, it is the way of linking which is/may be/could be 'problematic'. Another by the way, it is the American Institute of Physics who is editing here, they could give their written permission, so they would be able to donate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It will be of more use to editors and readers on the article pages than hidden away on WP:BIO (who in their right mind would go there for resources on a physicist they were reading about?) DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We cannot donate the material to wikipedia. Over the past few years, we have had to gain permission from each of the 500 physicists or their heirs to be allowed to post the articles online because the original copyright agreements did not entail the internet as many of the interviews were conducted before the internet was invented. So sadly this is not an option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda.nelson12 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a notification to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#External links discussion. Maybe editors there will chime in. The resource looks good to me and Wikipedia could consider making a specific source template for better uniform formatting like other templates in Category:Specific-source templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Amanda.nelson12 has given the link to the archive index here [4], and indicated that Wikipedia has lost the chance of future offers of help. I don't blame her one jot. DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• 500 links?! Thank you but no, this is clear linkspamming. I know its hard to turn down good-faith offers of help like this, but the behaviour would have been disruptive and would have overly-represented that site on Wikipedia, and also would have created a cleanup headache. If you want to spread encyclopedic knowledge, next time please directly write the relevant content into the articles and link the interview transcripts as references, as they are reliable first-party sources. I note that the transcripts are not unavailable to any other interested editors who may want to cite them appropriately. ThemFromSpace 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The links to AIP oral history of physicists are valuable and should be retained. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC).

@Themfromspace: 500 "oral history transcripts with prominent physicists and astronomers of the 20th century" created by the American Institute of Physics. How does a resource like this differ from repositories like PubMed or Rubicon Foundation, which provide sources for many times that number of wikipedia articles? Is anyone in any doubt that this is a reliable and distinguished source?

Yes, of course, the content would be best used as a source for article text, as an inline reference, but we cannot expect a new user to begin editing with full expertise in editing, citing, etc. This encyclopedia is a collaborative effort, and the job of senior editors is to help new editors with these sort of difficulties, not snub them. If new editors provide a good source as an external link, what is better: To remove that link, so other editors never see it and have no chance of subsequently making better use of it? Or spend that time working the source into the text? Or even simply leave it alone, in the certain knowledge that someone will come along and incorporate it eventually? Where's the rush. --RexxS (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with adding even legitimate links to the External links sections of articles is that it encourages other editors to mimic what they see by adding their progressively less useful links. See WP:SPAMHOLE. It's much better to introduce sources as footnote citations, but that is way too complicated for a new user to figure out quickly. Too many people try to edit on Wikipedia without reading the friendly manuals, which is understandable because the manuals are extensive. The result is that Wikipedia often seems like an incredibly hostile place to someone who approaches it with some arbitrary goal in mind, which may be an achievable goal, but only if they manage to avoid all the pitfalls and figure out just the right way to do it. For almost any task more complex than correcting typos, Wikipedia is only usable by people who are willing to commit a lot of time to learning how things work here. That is unfortunate because it seems a majority of new users guess wrong about something, get frustrated, and leave before they contribute much. Only a low percentage of our 47,327,911 registered user accounts have stuck around long enough to get over the initial hurdles and make substantial contributions. I don't know whether this is good or bad, but clearly this is a natural consequence of the way we (the persistent users) have constructed Wikipedia to be. Making Wikipedia a lot friendlier to new users sounds like a good idea, but it's hard to know what the effects would be since Wikipedia has never been anything like that. Look at Deletionpedia which displays over 60,000 of our deleted articles. That's only a fraction of the articles we have deleted. Deleting articles seems very important to the Wikipedia community, much more important than caring about the people whose contributions we somehow encourage, and then obliterate. The main problem is that Wikipedia is very easy for people to misunderstand. The software gives a user incredible freedom, and then only after hours or days does the user get any feedback from other human users about whether their work was acceptable. I don't know any way to fix this. It obviously doesn't matter how many warnings the software displays. New users may see the warnings about how their contributions will be "mercilessly edited", but it often doesn't register until it happens to them. --Teratornis (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

re articles about Dovestones Revervoir, Greenfield.

The correct title for this reservoir is Dove Stone Reservoir. It was named Dove Stone Reservoir in the Act of Parliament which gave permisson for its construction. The brown tourist signs to the reservoir are correct but the OS map and the sailing club name are incorrect. How can this error be corrected? The engineer ,MTB Whitson who oversaw the construction of this reservoir ,was concerned that there was a tendancy for the Dove Stone titled to be altered. He asked me ,when I became the Water Supply Engineer for the areaa, to ensure that the correct name was used.

Thanks you for your suggestions for improving the Dovestones Reservoir article. This error can indeed be corrected, if there are reliable sources which show it to be properly named as Dove Stone rather than Dovestone. The Peak District National Park Authority refers to it as Dovestone Reservoir as do Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, the Planning Inspectorate and National Parks. I found a few instances of "Dove Stone Reservoir" being used, all at the Peak District National Park Authority - but not at any other gov.uk sites (all of these are official Governmental sites - either Local or Central Government). I could not find enough evidence to indicate that "Dove Stone" is the correct title. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

In any case, a redirect from 'Dove Stone Reservoir' is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nested reference syntax

I need to add a cite to a footnote, but I can't seem to get rid of the big red cite error. Here's the tag I'm using: <ref>While some authors use the terms DDS and NCO interchangeably <ref name="latticeSC"/>, by convention an NCO refers to the digital (discrete-time, discrete amplitude) portion of a DDS.</ref>. Of course I'll need to add a cite to the last part as well once I figure out how. Can you help me with the syntax? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're getting an error, you're using a named ref without having defined it. This has nothing to do with nested refs. Algebraist 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy. I'm new, still trying to figure this stuff out. JPatterson (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the problem is fixed now at Direct digital synthesizer. You're doing good work on that article. I hope you don't mind me reminding you that it's easier for others to assist if you provide a link to the article when requesting help. Happy editing. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Logging in

Why do some pages say there is no contributor called ~~ when I log in with this name and my correct password ~~? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentorsmentor (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is at another site. What is the url when you try to log in and this happens? Do you enter Mentorsmentor as username with that capitalization and no space? What exactly does the error message say? I suspect ~~ in your post is a misplaced half signature and not part of the message. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit within A Template

I am trying to add references to the "Transtheoretical Model" entry. I am unable to do so. Please advise.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philciaccio (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you having technical problems using the references tags and templates? See Wikipedia:Footnotes for information on using the <ref> tags, and Wikipedia:Citation templates for information on using the preformatted citation templates. --Jayron32 20:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't figure out the manuals, or don't have time, you can leave your references on the talk page for the article (Talk:Transtheoretical Model) and ask another editor to add them to the article. But when you say "edit within a template", are you trying to put footnotes within a template such as an infobox or a navbox? Sometimes a citation template may interact badly with a containing template such as an infobox. I have found in such cases that it may work better to put the citation template into the body text of the article somewhere (usually the body text will repeat everything in the infobox, so you can find a duplicate location), and use a named reference tag in the infobox. If that's not what you were trying to do, what I wrote may not make sense. Another trick is to create a user sandbox page (such as User:Philciaccio/Sandbox) and experiment with templates there. That way you don't have to worry about temporarily destroying the article with a template mistake. --Teratornis (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature help

Here it is currently Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) I want there to be something with this link [[5]] and saying post here if you joined cfpmedia. Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) ([click here if you joind cfpmedia ]) 20:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as a form of spam and I suspect you will end up being blocked if you pursue this. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

External links in signatures are explicitly forbidden. You know well that Wikipedia is not MySpace, and you're dancing on the proverbial line with regard to unconstructive behaivour if you choose to go on with this. (Not helping this, of course, is the fact the majority of your edits are still questions on the reference desk, and that - as far as I can tell - you still haven't made any effort to edit an article.) Xenon54 / talk / 20:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you clicked it you would see that it isnt an external link. Its a link to a page ON wikipedia.Accdude92 (talk to me!) 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not a completely truthful statement. It is a link to a page on Wikipedia that exists for the sole reason to link to an external site. -- kainaw™ 21:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is, i never once stated that it was "a link to a page on Wikipedia that exists for the sole reason to link to an external site"Accdude92 (talk to me!) 21:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If your signature contained a link to User talk:Accdude92/Post which contains an external link, it wouldn't be violating the letter of the rule at Wikipedia:Signatures#External links, but it would be violating the spirit of the rule, and you would be asked to change it quickly. Instead, just put the link on your user page if you want. --Mysdaao ^talk 22:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you comprehend that the purpose of sigs is not to direct traffic to an external website. Therefore, there is a rule that you cannot link to an external website with your sig. You are blatantly attempting to subvert that rule by making a sig that links to a page that contains nothing more than a link to en external website - which makes the purpose of your sig nothing more than an attempt to direct traffic to an external website. If it is too difficult to understand why what you are attempting to do is not allowed, simply accept that it is not allowed and move on with other constructive work here. -- kainaw™ 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted the deletion of this thread. Please do not delete threads under discussion. When they are resolved they will be archived. – ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Link

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed in the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (frontier exploration and development)," which can be found at this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_industry_in_Canada_(frontier_exploration_and_development), has a wrong link. On the second line of Section 1.1, it mentions Sir Alexander MacKenzie. When you click the link on his name, it in fact takes you to a page for Alexander MacKenzie, but the WRONG Alexander MacKenzie. This is the incorrect page that the link currently points to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Mackenzie. The correct link should be for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_MacKenzie. I didn't even think that URLs were case sensitive, but in this situation, they seem to be. If my copied and pasted urls do not help you, the correct Alexander Mackenzie is referenced in the article "Norman Wells, Northwest Territories" on the first line of Chapter 2, History. 140.98.210.243 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done fixed in this edit. Next time, please be bold and make the fix yourself! – ukexpat (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical derivations

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If we do a mathematical derivation in an article, must it be sourced? Isn't mathematics considered a source to itself? I.e. would I have to source the statement 1+1=2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs)

Normally we don't do mathematical derivations, we just present the final result, which comes from a reliable source. Simple arithmetic (such as converting units) is allowed. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations. I don't know whether you have something specific in mind but if you think you discovered a new result then don't add it to an article just because you think the proof is simple. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused. Take this article for example. They seem to be deriving results from first principles. It's verifiable in the sense that the equations can be worked through by anybody who understands this stuff (not me). Are they breaking the rules or is this ok? Thanks JPatterson (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, any non-trivial result would be cited to a specific on-line source or a particular page in a book. These are known as in-line citations The article you mention has general citations, but few in-line citations. This might be just barely acceptable if the material can be found by consulting the index or table-of-contents of the general references, but is unacceptable otherwise. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If it the article is written correctly, similar material will appear in the sources listed in #References, given at the bottom. That article appears to use the style of simply citing a few well-respected general texts instead of using in-line sourcing; fiber bundles are pretty well established as a mathematical concept, so I think this is acceptable if less than ideal. Also, if you have not found it yet WP:MATH details the syntax for writing mathematical formulae; if you are familiar with LaTeX it is pretty easy to pick up. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! JPatterson (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement / Notability Distinction

After editing an article marked with "This article is written like an advertisement." and "This article may not meet the general notability guideline." distinctions how long does it take to have the new content reviewed and indicators removed?

Beatportmikel (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no formal process for reviewing. Depending on how confident you feel, you could:

• remove the tags yourself, if you think the article meets the criteria (somebody else might disagree and put them back)
• look in the page history to see who added the tags, and leave them a message on their talk page asking them to review it
• list the article on WP:RFF

--ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt assistance. Beatportmikel (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)