Help desk
< August 31	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 2 >

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.

September 1[edit]

Steve Sandvoss Section Blanking[edit]

This question relates to one of those areas where Wikipedia policy is unclear (to me). An editor tagged the Sandvoss article back in April as needing additional sources. Then, today, he blanked the section on Sandvoss's early life (which had no sources at all). The issue is whether the blanking is appropriate. BLP policy states that all unsourced "contentious" material should be removed immediately. However, it doesn't say what you are supposed to do with unsourced non-contentious material. The editor who removed the material didn't challenge the statements in the section. In my view, even with a warning tag, unchallenged material should not be deleted wholesale without first attempting to reach a consensus on the Talk page of the article pursuant to WP:NOBLANKING. Mind you, I have no stake in the material. I didn't create any of it. However, the truth is that many articles about BLPs have unsourced, non-contentious material, and no one removes it, at least not an entire section. I was going to revert the change but decided to pose the question here instead to see if anyone has any comments on the issue generally and with respect to Sandvoss in particular.

As an aside, what causes some section blankings to be tagged and others not?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I've never seen that essay before. There's some rather extreme cherry picking going on there to reach a large brush conclusion actually unsupported by canonical policy. Please see WP:BURDEN. This is part of one of our core content policies and cannot be overruled. Yes, negative, unsourced material in BLP's needs to be removed immediately, and yes, any contentious unsourced material (whether positive or negative) and all quotations must be sourced using an inline citation, but in addition, i.e., separate and apart from this,

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them.

While the user did tag the article as a BLP needing additional sources for verification, it would have been better if the user had added something like {{disputed-section}} or fact tags at the end of each paragraph he was disputing, but he absolutely can simply remove, and the burden is on those seeking to add it back to source it. This is fundamental and really, without it we are lost, for lack of sourcing is our number one problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN leaves a fair amount of wiggle room, too, actually. In any event, if an editor can remove unsourced material, even if it's not contentious, then the BLP policy should be changed to say so. I understand when you add material to a preexisting, well-established article, the burden is on the adder to source the material. However, if an editor can simply create that burden on a subsequent restorer by removing material, that's kind of cock-eyed. At this point, you might as well delete the entire Sandvoss article. There's only one source in it. The rest has nothing. I might also add that although I sympathize with your statement that lack of sourcing is a major problem, if we were to let loose a bot on Wikipedia whose sole mission was to remove all unsourced material, we'd save a LOT of disk space. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between blanking vandalism or a bot simply removing unsourced material willy-nilly, and a WP:V challenge to material on the basis of sourcing, and subsequent removal. They are very different things and must not be conflated, which is exactly what's wrong with that essay. Contentious is anything a person challenges. That is how it has been long interpreted. The proof of the soundness of the policy is that whenever an unsourced article of any length, with particularized facts is sourced, it is always found to be wanting. It always has mistakes, misleading material, half truths and so on. When we look at WP:BURDEN in practice, it cannot be used to simply blank entire articles because we then know the challenge is not in good faith. I have seen this play out. There's a balance that's reached, but without the wide stretch of this section of policy, we would be forced to show any unsourced material we wanted to remove was not true, negative evidence, often impossible to find, would be the only basis for removing seemingly neutral facts. This would destroy us.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the word contentious can be interpreted to mean challenged. However, removing existing material because of a generalized challenge (meaning no explanation as to the reason for the challenge other than the material is unsourced) is effectively the same as my extreme example. I'll just change my scenario slightly. We send a bot out to tag all unsourced material. The bot waits four months and then removes any of the previously challenged material if it has not been sourced. Going back to Sandvoss, what is the appropriate period to leave the warning up? Three months? One month? A week? And what must be sourced? What about the person's birth date? Birth place? Let's take a BLP who's far more notable than Sandvoss. In the Early life section of the Julia Roberts article there's a tag from March 2008 (!) about lack of sourcing. One unsourced sentence in the section says: "Her mother re-married to Michael Motes and had another daughter, Nancy Motes, who was born in 1976." Putting aside the grammar problem, shouldn't that sentence be removed? Should all the unsourced passages in the Roberts article be removed? There are 301 watchers of that page (as opposed to Sandvoss who has fewer than 30). If I started picking unsourced sentences and removing them, I might be shot.:-) By contrast, if someone added unsourced material to Roberts, and I reverted it, few would disagree. Maybe the only reason the Sandvoss article can be blanked is because no one cares that much, or maybe it's a little selective enforcement.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no timeframe that someone must wait before removing unsourced material. It is best to give a reasonable amount of time, (unless it is negative info about a living person then it should come out immediately) but reasonable is up to each individual editor and what the information is. I don't agree that an editor making a decision to remove unsourced information is no different than a bot tagging unsourced statements and then at some preset time going back and removing them. The bot, as far as I am concerned, would be vandalism, because there is no thought going into what goes and stays. If there is tagged unsourced info that you feel should come out of Julia Roberts then remove it or try to source it if you think it is helpful. If no one has bothered to source a statement in over 2 years it is one of two things IMO. One no one can find a source or two, no one cares enough about the info to find a source, either way it should probably go. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Sandvoss case, I see no difference between the editor's tag and removal and a bot's tag and removal. The editor gave no specific reason for tagging or for removal. The bot could easily be programmed to do the same thing. As far as your suggestion about Roberts, you have an excellent point, but I'm not taking the bait. :-) I don't feel like having rocks thrown at me. My point was that there is a significant difference between unsourced material being caught at the time it is added and unsourced material being caught much later. In theory, both should go, but in practice there's a presumption for leaving the preexisting material, or at least having more discussion before removing it, rather than just citing policy. My other point was that there's a difference between a relatively unknown BLP and a famous BLP in the way this issue is handled.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other possible explanations for the difference in how those two articles have been handled. One possible explanation is that different editors are watching the two articles and those editors handle the same situation different ways. It doesn't have to be about the popularity of the subjects or when the material was added. I know to me it does not make any difference. I probably wouldn't remove the text from either one of these articles, but that is just me. ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the popularity of an article affects how many watchers there are. When you have editors handling an issue in different ways regarding a popular article, there is a greater likelihood of disagreement and discussion (whether consensus is truly reached is a different animal), whereas in an article of less interest with fewer watchers, that kind of healthy debate is unlikely to take place.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an appropriate blanking. Source BLPs or don't include information, it's that simple. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you come across an unsourced BLP you should stub it. Best to have no information on BLPs rather than incorrect information. The burden for sourcing is on the person adding information not the person removing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the unsourced statements in Julia Roberts that have been languishing should be removed and the same goes for any article on anyone regardless of their degree of fame. I think you've fallen into the trap of looking at the status quo of hundreds of thousands of unsourced and poorly-sourced articles and thinking that since that's the case, we can't really mean what the policy says. Well we do. The problem is that it is the status quo and it's so vast, so everpresent, and there are so many users who do treat this site as a place to write down whatever they fuzzily think they heard somewhere, that the fact that it is a problem, it is wrong, it is not the way it should be done, isn't really known to many even longtime established users.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not sure I completely agree that the policy is as clear as you think, but you've been very patient with me, and I certainly understand the points you've made. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You just may avoid being one of the first ones up against the wall when the Great Wikipedia Unsourced Content Revolution comes;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Morgan[edit]

I created a page on Kip Morgan - a detective character created by Louis L'Amour. However, I mistakenly wrote "Kip morgan", instead of "Kip Morgan" in the title. Now, however hard I try, I can't change the title from "Kip morgan" to "Kip Morgan", i.e. I can't make the small "m" a capital "M".

Kazimostak Wikipedia contributor and reader (<e-mail removed>) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.40.141 (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to the proper name. Please note that the quotation in the article must have a citation provided. You can do so by adding <ref>description of source.</ref> right where I have added (and in place of) the tag that looks like this: ^{[citation needed]} I have already added the markup that will render that reference code a footnote in the article. In that regard, a Google book search indicates to me that this quote may be from The Hills of Homicide, but I cannot confirm. The best information would be name of work, author, year, publisher, page number and isbn.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your e-mail address to protect your privacy. Bk314159 (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Bath[edit]

I am posting this here, at the suggestion of the talk page for "Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Bath" (the text disappears if I try to link it)
Why does the top line on that page say

Classification: Wikipedians: by alma mater: United States: University of Bath

Last time I looked, the University of Bath was in England not the United States
Arjayay (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make a link to a category, you need to add a ":" after the opening brackets, so you get Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Bath. I have fixed the problem by adding "|country=England" to the template that produces that display. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

page deleted - Amotz Shemi[edit]

Hi,

If a page was deleted "Amotz Shemi" is there a way to restore it or do I need to start a new page?

Thanks,

Gili Silenseed (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! As an administrator, I can check deleted articles and I notice that Amotz Shemi is said to be the CEO of Silenseed Ltd. I strongly suggest that you do not write an article about this person, because your username makes me believe that you have a conflict of interest here. See WP:Conflict of interest for guidance. It would also probably be a good idea to change your username, because using a company name as your username gives the impression, firstly, that the account could be used for promotional purposes (which is not permitted) and secondly, that the account might be used by more than one person, which again is not permitted (see WP:NOSHARE). Bencherlite ^Talk 09:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page[edit]

Hi,

if a page that i did not create was deleted is there any way I can see it or place it again?

thanks,

Gili Gilifocht (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still talking about the same article as the section above, then it was deleted by WP:PROD. Articles deleted that way are supposed to be undeleted upon request. You can either request it from the deleting admin, DMacks or at WP:REFUND. It should be restored just by asking. ~~ GB fan ~~ 09:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Only administrators can see deleted content (to the extent it is not cached on Google or otherwise reproduced somewhere offsite) but you can ask for deleted content to be provided to you so that it can work on to improve (see Wikipedia:Userfication). However, only some content is suitable for this. For example, copyright violations and attack pages are never undeleted. All this is assuming we can find the deleted article. On that score, the deletion log is very finicky, requiring the exact name of the article that was deleted and is case sensitive. So in order for us to locate the article you either have to provide that exact name, or give us good identifying information such as when the deletion occurred, what administrator deleted it, what user created it, what user tagged it for deletion, and so on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Template[edit]

Why don't we have Featured Template?--Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content is an identification of material that is to be highlighted for our readers as fine encyclopedic work. Templates are behind the scenes material. Essentially, if it has no place being on the main page for view by the world at large, flagging it as "featured" is a non sequitur.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or Valued Template, Good Template. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything with "Featured" in the title appears on the main page: lists, topics and portals don't, for instance. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they could, the point being that they're part of the front end of the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Featured redirects. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome link!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track ISBN usage on Wikipedia?[edit]

How can I track how many times a source has been referenced? For example, if a book has the ISBN 0-19-511001-5 is there a way to determine how many articles it has been cited in, and also the names of those articles? Chicaneo (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a better way, but I just used a regular Wikipedia search for the isbn of a book I've used many times and it seems to have found many if not all examples.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had orginally provided a isbn that ended with a 3 but I fixed it now. I'll try your suggestion with the correct #. Thx. Chicaneo (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still didn't work, so I changed it back to the cloth edition # which ends in 5. Chicaneo (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK- tried it with different book & it works just fine. Thanks again. Chicaneo (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I just converted the reference to its isbn 13. By the way, a great tool when seeking proper hyphenation of isbns, and finding isbn 13 equivalents of isbn 10s is ISBN Converter. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes in an article[edit]

Dear Sir, Madam, The article posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC_Joint_Technology_Initiative contains many mistakes and inconsistencies about the description of our organisation. We need to replace this article with the correct descritpion of ENIAC JU. The description is on our website: http://www.eniac.eu/web/JU/aboutENIACju.php , you can see that it greatly differs from the article posted on wikipedia. Could you please advise how to remove and replace this article? Thank you, Regards

Claire Gerardin <blanked> —Preceding unsigned comment added by ENIACJU (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read our conflict of interest guidelines to understand why, preferably, you should not be undertaking these changes yourself on the said page. Do also read our copyright policy which might prohibit any Wikipedia editor from reusing contents from your web site. To suggest changes to the article, kindly use the talk page of the ENIAC article. I find one such message already in place. Do wait for a response and consensus on your proposed changes. Write back for any further assistance. Regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Dear Sir, Madam I work for the AMNRL and we would like to put a map with our teams on it with a link to their Wiki pages like the map on the NFL page. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.6.46 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are requesting any Wikipedia editor to help you create such a map for your internet website, this is not the forum to request such help. This page is only for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You could, and should, employ web designers to undertake what you desire. Please feel free to write back for any help you might require with using Wikipedia. Regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the poster is asking for help creating a map similar to the one at NFL#Current NFL teams. – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit a request at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop.--SPhilbrick T 14:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it when i add something to another article, the next time i check it, it is gone?[edit]

It is so annoying when that happens —Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaBloomMusaFloraLaylaTecna (talk • contribs) 15:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are spamming Wikipedia, attempting to introduce your email address into articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violin with Wilhelmj imprinted on back.[edit]

Can you give us any information regarding this full size (4/4) violin with Wilhelmj imprinted on back at the neck end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.187.12 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 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 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, we have an article about the violinist August Wilhelmj - and the Baiba Skride article mentions She plays the Stradivarius "Wilhelmj" violin (1725). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category sorting[edit]

hi i am rmplymouth1 and i have been updating the ben ferguson (footballer) page. However, when i go into the categories at the bottom of the section everybody elses comes up under the letter of their surname. for example, under 'A' it would come up with Simon Anderson, Mike Atherton, etc. I should come under 'F' but I am coming under the 'B' section. HELP!!! please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.87.143.3 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just needed a default sort key, which is done using {{DEFAULTSORT:Lastname, Firstname}}. I have added one, so Ben Ferguson (footballer) will be sorted under F in the categories the article is in. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you saying "I"? Are you Ben Ferguson? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks i'll try it - no, my name is charlie bond, the secretery of Okehampton Argyle FC. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.87.143.3 (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is philosophy of kaaba?[edit]

i know some one who keeps saying that kaaba is a black stone and arabs made it for their profit so that muslims travel there and they make money out of it. he does not accep the history or the basic information that everymuslim has.

so how can i make him shut up?

and when i wanted to research about this on the google, i found out that some websites says that kaaba is used to be a hindo temple and if muslimes says we should not worship the stone, they why they themsleves kiss and touch and worship the stone?

it made me think aren't they right that why we kiss the stone, we beleive that Allah is with us and in our hearts so why we go there saying its Allah's home or kiss the stone?

i will apprecaite if some one help me get out of this confusion.

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.227.23.44 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. TN X Man 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you read the Kaaba article? Perhaps that can help, or some of the 48 references, 10 "Further reading" items or one of the 5 external links may be of some use. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donate content of web site to article[edit]

Premission was give to donate the content of the web site to the page for Gar Francis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgrimme507 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read "Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia"? That explains how permission can be given to allow re-use of the web site content on Wikipedia. As you will appreciate, anyone can say "I have permission to use this content" - however, for legal reasons, the WikiMedia Foundation require more than just a user's word. Incidently, even with such permission, it is still preferable for an article on Wikipedia to be in the editors' own words, rather than a verbatim copy from a website. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pepperdine university article[edit]

The article has a rankings box which list Forbes as indicating that Pepperdine is ranked #363. The fact is that Forbes ranked the university in america's best colleges as #142. Please correct.

Thanks,

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgcannon79 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Bk314159 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bk, must've beaten you to it then? Thanks Chris for your contribution, good catch! Finger z 22:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I see an edit conflict warning, then? Bk314159 (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you click Save page with something identical to the current version then it's a null edit and you return to the page exactly like if your edit had been saved. It gives no edit conflict and no entry in the page history. I have also at least once replied with a claim that I fixed something when the page history credited somebody else. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess was wrong. The page history [1] shows it was fixed after you claimed to have fixed it, so maybe you failed to save. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entry Deletion[edit]

I recently added a whole new section to an entry on Wikipedia (Tourism, under the "Guam" entry). I checked several times after I entered the new section, and everything appeared in order. Last week, I checked the entry, and all the new information I had entered was deleted. Why? Should I just re-post?

Guamvisitorsbureau (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no record that this account ever edited the article Guam, which does not have a "Tourism" section. In any case, an organization such as the Bureau cannot have an account here, since only individual human beings are permitted to have editing accounts; and anybody working for the Bureau would also run grave risk of falling afoul of our restrictions on conflict of interest and neutral point-of-view. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Nevermind, beat me to it Orangemike. Finger z 22:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account was created 4 minutes before your post here. Without knowing the user name or IP address you used it is hard to find out what happened from your description. The page history [2] of Guam does not show any large additions recently. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is it. The tourism section was removed on 6 April 2010 in this edit by User:Atama. The rationale given was: Removed tourism section. It is redundant with the Economy section already describing tourism with proper weight and NPOV, and violated WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:SPAM. A quick look at the deleted material left me generally agreeing - it did read like a tourism advertising brochure rather than an encyclopaedia entry, although there were some facts in there that could have been salvaged. If you feel you want to try, the article's talk page is a good place to discuss changes. However, you need to change your username, because it breaches Wikipedia's username policy in more than one way. You also appear to have a conflict of interest, which makes it doubly important that you discuss changes to the Guam article with other users and reach a consensus on suitable wording, rather than just adding your contribution again. Ka renjc 18:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have another concept of recently than Guamvisitorsbureau. The tourism section was added by an IP in January.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page already exist?[edit]

I don't want to reinvent the wheel so I was wondering if the page I am thinking of writing, tentatively to be called Wikipedia:Finding online sources, already exists. It seems to me a hole that should be filled if it does not. The content is to focus on the location of free, reliable, online sources, how to use them, tips for searching and surrounding issues. Basically, the point will be to have a place to direct users for actual advice on the "how", after we give the almost ubiquitous direction to "go source something" for the many, many reasons we do so. Again, only looking for confirmation such a resource doesn't already exist. The only page I know of that focused on this general treatment at all, but not in a way I think was very useful, was Wikipedia:Reliable sources/temp#Finding good sources. This is not intended to be an index like Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EIW#Resource includes:

Dispatches: Find reliable sources online, Signpost, July 2008

PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great link thanks PrimeHunter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I search something on yahoo or google[edit]

It inevitably has a link to wikipedia. When I click on anything featured by your site I get automatically redirected to some site that I know must have some sort of virus/trojan/malware. Please look into this IMMEDIATELY. This only happens with your site. I managed to get onto wikipedia through putting the address into the address bar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.170.150 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a problem in your browser, not with Wikipedia. We have no control over search engine results, nor the links that the search engines provide. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I am betting you have a virus or piece of malware on your computer that is causing this. When I search almost anything I can think of using Google or Yahoo, one of the first results is, indeed, Wikipedia's article on the subject, and when I click on it I get taken to the Wikipedia article and nowhere else.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]