Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 April 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< April 17 << Mar | April | May >> April 19 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


April 18[edit]

NPOV/Conflict of Interest Second Opinion[edit]

I believe Southern Adventist University is the victim of a sneaky vandal but I'm not sure and was hoping for a second opinion and advice on what to do. Someone came in and added several negative quotes calling the about the university (calling it "Ultra-fundamentalist" etc), mentioned students who had died or had been threatened off campus, and also created a whole section based on a "Masturbation Controversy" from the 1980s. It just doesn't seem to be relevant to the article. I spent the day doing research on the university site and finding other articles that talked about recent events but I was reverted for having a conflict of interest. I am an alum, but I didn't wax eloquent about how great the school was. I thought I was NPOV. That was my intent at least. Instead of removing negative quotations, should I instead research positive ones to balance it out? Should I just talk with the editor who is doing it and ask for some balance? Any advice would be appreciated. I'm pretty new to this wiki-world.--Quixar (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This situation would be more clearly understood if one viewed the talk page where I have attempted to explain my edits. I noted the editor's conflict of interest but that is not the only reason for my reverts. Also, the edit reverted was mostly not referenced to any reliable sources and removed any mention of anything that did not paint a glowing picture of the school. Talk:Southern Adventist University has my full response to his accusations, until I have reason to do otherwise, I will continue to assume good faith and attempt to collaborate. BelloWello (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Merging 2 articles together[edit]

1. I think the 2 article Eskimo#Dialects and Canadian English should be merged together because there is a lack of information in Canadian English about the Northern Canada accent. Could someone help me do the merge?

2. I have 2 references that can be used for the character BK in The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) to show that he's gay: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32160866/ns/today-entertainment/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/ladies/characters/bk.shtml But I'm unsure how to add the references. Could someone help me/ Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you see ColinFine’s reply to your last post here where he asked you not to combine unrelated issues in the same question? —teb728 t c 03:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Why would you think of merging a variety of English with languages less related to English than say Sanskrit?! —teb728 t c 03:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Given the feedback already, I personally think that if you wish to go ahead with the merge, you should propose it and gain consensus. See Help:Merging#Proposing_a_merger for more information on what to do. CaptRik (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
As tec728 says, Inuit and English are utterly different languages, and while they may have some influence on each other, I cannot see what would be gained by trying to merge the articles.
See WP:REFBEGIN. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Right venue needed[edit]

Could you please tell me a good place - whether inside or outside Wikipedia - where I could report something wrong with the tool Article Revision Statistics? --Theurgist (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It has a "Bugs" link to User:X!/Bugs. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Theurgist, what is the issue that you are facing with the tool? Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wifione, as you are asking about it, I shall tell you. There is a slight error with the formatting of the table showing the top 50 editors. Suppose a user has edited a page ten times. Then the table will show the "Average time between edits" as the time between the least recent edit by that user and the most recent one divided by ten, which will be inaccurate. That period should, in that case, be divided by nine. Or if I can give an even simpler example, the "Average time between edits" of a user who has edited a page twice should merely be the time interval between the two edits, and not half of it as the table would show it now. Also, the table often lists more than 50 editors, which contradicts the section title above it, but I don't think this is something quite worthy of worrying about. --Theurgist (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Open proxies blocked[edit]

Resolved: Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I need to get over the Chinese government firewall, I frequently use open proxies, thus sometimes editing with them. Some of the IP addresses are blocked. Now, I can understand that since a lot of people could be using that same IP and it might result in vandalism (and similar things). However, I am unable to edit with a proxy even if I am logged in. Is there some reason for this or is it a technical issue of some sort? Thanks. Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The reasons are explained at Wikipedia:Open proxies#Rationale. Does Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall help you? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 06:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Editorial policy regarding a second secondary source to justify using a first secondary source[edit]

Instance: by No More Mr Nice Guy[1] "If it's referenced in 30 books, it should be quite easy for you to supply a secondary source explaining its relevance...." talknic (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying you think a Google search is a secondary source, you’re wrong. But if the search has returned one or more reliable secondary sources, you can pick one. It sounds, though, like as an underlying problem you need help with a content dispute. If so, that is beyond the scope of this forum, which is only for questions about how to use Wikipedia. So then the advice on how to use Wikipedia is to follow the steps outlined in dispute resolution. —teb728 t c 07:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
TEB728 - The question was to policy, not content. The Google search? No.
I gave a single secondary source. See the discussion above NMMNG's comment The secondary source I gave for inclusion in the suggested change in the article was chosen from an initial Google search because it is a secondary source. [2] Note the continuing dialogue in the book "Myers quite correctly points out that...etc etc"
After posting the suggested change with a single secondary source, I gave the Google reference simply to show there were some 30 books referring to the Epstein letter to the US President. I was in no way meant to be nor was it included in the suggested change for the actual article.
Seems Wifione has spotted the problem. Thx for your input talknic (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Talknic, perhaps you misread what the editor No More Mr. Nice Guy is alluding to. As per our reliable sources guideline, "material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." Books, in general, have problems in passing our RS benchmark because some of them might fall under our SPS issue. Many a time, there also is the Primary problem to contend with, in books. Therefore, in case a book has been vetted by the scholarly community, you can simply quote the book as being the RS. Otherwise, find an RS that quotes what the book mentions, rather than using the book itself. Does this resolve the question you had? If not, do write back. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Wifione -- Thx. You've nailed it. Seems NMMNG chose to attack the initial Google search in order not to have to address the actual secondary source in the suggestion. talknic (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Further questions on RS...

Am I wrong in saying any RS list is only for sources that have been pitted against the benchmark and;

under the guidelines as I read them, at a crunch RS is specific to particular events/instances even if a source has been previously categorized as RS? Whereas;

a source that has not been pitted against the benchmark cannot be categorically said to be either reliable or unreliable and in order for it to be categorized as reliable or unreliable, it must go against the benchmark? Thanks for your time talknic (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Overcoming a reverse, left-language carriage return POV, humorously[edit]

This is not a real problem (except with a search still showing corrected vandalism). So unless you want to read humor involving wikijargon and sesquipedalian prolixity, don’t bother reading the following post.teb728 t c 10:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Searching for a name, this search page is presented; happily, the one querried is redirected at the first entry, and provides me with the desired knowledge snippet for which Wikipedia is rightly well-known . Unhappily, unfortunately and surely unintentionally however, it also presents this particular person in a very peculiar OR light, which on its face is non-neutral, fringe, and opposite the consenual presentation that the very similar third entry is given along with most other people; This thus becomes an example of uneven presentation for which Wikipedia is occasionally accused. More clearly stating the complaint as presented and indicated on the search page, it notes that this poor guy died before he was born.
Despite the many opportunities available at Wikipedia to correct such blatant errors, like the simple editing pursued (first diff unfortunately not saved) toward a more neutral presentation, these attempts have failed to resolve the issue of what numbers go where; further attempts seem fruitless. AGF with common sense indicates that DR may be required to surmount and resolve what may be characterized as an overbearing format-induced ownership issue. While other noticeboards may be more familiar with the usage of these terms, this noticeboard seems most likely to resolve this issue, at a low level of violence and without mediation. Asking here informs the questioner and remains available for others' future reference if that needle can be found in the available haystack. Help requested for a link about how to fix it, or preferrably a fix at the page, which both makes the change, and illustrates how it works so it can be casually observed as either correct or not at the page itself, before it shows up on a search page. Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A comment on the technical question: you have changed the formatting of the first sentence of Sulayman al-Nabulsi, perhaps following the example of the third page listed at your search, Suleiman Mousa; but the search results page is still showing the older version of the text. This is normal; as noted here, the index used by the search box is only updated once a day.
I'm not sure how to reply to your mentions of POV, AGF, DR and the like. Do you see other problems with the article, or is this all directed at the formatting error in the search results? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Although as I noted here, yesterday, the index used by the search box hasn't been updated for 4 days - and counting.
Arjayay (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Those issues don't really exist John, you handled them; I had hoped you just would have responded grinningly. Anyway, I knew I edited the article, and understand your technical response more or less. But I'm not sure you understood my question. Just to check, I re-formulated the search using "was a Jordan ian", and got this search result; nothing has changed and the format problem remains. Our two subjects are now in reverse order at the 4th and 6th positions. Mr. Mousa is noted as living 1919-2008, but Mr. al-Nabulsi is noted as living 1976-1908; that is wrong and can't be. So why is his death-year ahead of his birth-year? What are the format differences that make that happen on one and not the other? Formatting differences are also indicated by moving a depressed cursor over the text on the search page and watching the highlight flicker as it passes over left-to-right and right-to-left formatted segments. Do you better understand my question? I guess, even if things are updated, the error will still exist if it is position and format-induced. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
For "Jordan ian" see Bug 22515. I haven't found a bug report mentioning problems with mixed left-to-right and right-to-left text. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

How to proceed?[edit]

I am currently on the article Khmer Ouk, or "Cambodian Chess". Now, all of my references are currently bare urls. One of these could benefit from a Template:Cite web, which I intend to add shortly. Another is probably not a great source anyway, and I'll soon remove it. One of them, however, (footnote 1) is an academic paper I found with Google Scholar. It does not appear to have been published in any journals, but it is undeniably a reliable source. Is there a citation template for this? If not, why? Is it not considered a reliable source? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 09:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You can use {{cite journal}} for papers— see the documentation. A search finds it listed on other academic sites, so it is probably OK, but you can as on WP:RSN. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, you could go through the following pages, in case you've not already read them up:
Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Sithman. I notice the paper's a Master's thesis. Our reliable sources policy says a Ph.D. thesis can be cited, and I'd guess that people would be unlikely to object to a Masters thesis in this case, since the context is so narrow that there probably aren't many other papers on the subject. The policy does, I admit, say, "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence," but again, I doubt this is a very controversial subject area, and I think it unlikely that anyone would have an objection. If you want to be doubly sure, you could also ask at the reliable sources notice board. If you do that, though, please mark this current thread as "resolved" by placing {{Resolved}} at the top of the thread, just after the section name. That way people won't be working in duplicate.

My two cents would be to go ahead and use the source, describing it as a Master's thesis. There's no separate template for that, as far as I know. One way to do what you want would be to use a PDFlink template within a cite web template. That's a little tricky to do; you can see the documentation at Template:PDFlink/doc#Use_in_citation_templates. It's only one of several possibilities, but it's the one I'd probably use:

Khmer Ouk', (known in the Western world as Cambodian Chess ) is a game related to Western chess which is played in Cambodia.[1]

  1. ^ Tang, Kim Y. K. (September 2003). "Automatic Generation of Board Games" ( PDF (1.6 MB)). Imperial College, University of London, Department of Computing. Retrieved 18 April 2011.  Master of Science thesis.

I see from the article that you already know how to use named refs, so I won't explain that here. You'll have to look at the preceding example in edit mode, of course, to grab the actual wikimarkup; for some reason "nowiki" gets defeated by part of the actual markup string. Good luck, and thanks for wanting to do cites well. Also, please note that I used the download target url identified on siteseer, rather than the url that you provided above for siteseer's cached version of the same document. I have no idea why, but when I used the somewhat unusually-formatted url you provided, the helpful Adobe/PDF graphic wouldn't show up.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

( Late edit/top-post: I revised the previous considerably from my original post, to correct one error I found and to incorporate Gadget850's helpful observations posted below. - Ohiostandard )

Comments on markup:
  • |date= should always be a full date— use |month= and |year= instead
  • Tang is probably the last name (this is published in a UK college), so it should be |author=Tang, Kim Y. K.
  • For a single page, use |page=
  • |accessdate= has an extra 2011
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The PDF icon shows only if the URL ends in .PDF— this URL uses a query so you need the PDF link. International style dates should not be formatted with a comma after the month. Title types such as Thesis should be included in parentheses after the title— neither {{cite web}} nor {{cite journal}} support this, but I am working on {{cite journal}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Seeing no further reply here, I've added the cite − as formatted above − to the article in question.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Would someone verify this target, please?[edit]

Resolved: courtesy of ArcAngel, CaptRik, and Toshio Yamaguchi. Thanks!

Hi all. I just added an anchor to a section name, after someone changed it; I wanted to make sure any existing incoming links to the section didn't break. But my browser's been all waggity lately; even clicking on a table-of-contents entry often seems to only "land" me near the targeted section. So would someone just do me the favor of clicking on this, and letting me know if it sends them to the section now named "Union Banking Corporation" on our Prescott Bush article?  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems good to me.  :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
And me :-) CaptRik (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
For me too =) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks you guys!  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

business research methods[edit]

Basic research is primaril concerned with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.86.149.62 (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Roger (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Putting his/her foot down"[edit]

Please help find the origination and meaning of the phrase: "Putting his/her/my foot down". I see the deer in my area put their foot/hoof down repeatedly as a warning to other deer of danger or as a way of communicating as in: "Shoo, go away, don't come any closer"! I just wonder if this might be part of the origination of this phrase. I live in a very rural area and I have interactions with a large number of local dear many times each day. Some times they like seeing me, and some times they don't. When they don't like me they start "putting the foot down" repeatedly. The older more dominant bucks and does will include some snorting with this routine. This can go on for 10-20 minutes, but I have learned to apologize immediately and reverse my course. ty greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.52 (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 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. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Symbol move vote.svg 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. GB fan (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the place to pose that exact question would be the Language reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

huge asteroid spotted flyby nov 8 2011 jpl nasa[edit]

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news171.html

huge asteroid spotted flyby nov 8 2011 jpl nasa

just google asteroid nov 8 2011 15 screens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.255.66 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you have a question as to how to use Wikipedia? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Algae Cultures[edit]

Hi I would like to grow algae culures please email me more details from Samson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.110.55.155 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Try asking this same question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. --Jayron32 16:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

IP user removing speedy template[edit]

Hello. So, an user creates an obviously speedyable article (A10, duplicate), tries to have it kept on the talk page and then suddenly an IP with no previous edits removes the speedy deletion template after the creator of the article has been warned about it. I reverted per WP:DUCK and WP:COMMONSENSE, but I wonder what you guys usually do about these cases? Zakhalesh (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what you did. If the IP address continues to remove the template, first warn them (forget the template, just type a short note telling them to stop, and informing them that they may be blocked) and if warning doesn't work, report them to WP:AIV. --Jayron32 17:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Zakhalesh (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Establishing verifiability of an otherwise unverifiable source[edit]

Guys, I recall seeing details sometime in the past of a procedure for establishing the verifiability of an otherwise unverifiable source, to deal with situations such as this one (if that wikilink misbehaves, search there for the text: I am the individual), where it needs to be confirmed that the editor writing there actually is the writer of the book mentioned, and that the numbers he is presenting here come from the reliable sources which he used to research the book. Can anyone here point me to a project page with info on that? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:RS/N. --Jayron32 20:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

External links to apps[edit]

An editor is wishing to add an external link to free mobile apps site for Parkour. Would this count as spam? Thanks Span (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd call a spade a spade here. The link may have merit but the way the user is presenting it suggests a conflict of interest at best. Rehevkor 19:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Possible COI issues aside, the question is whether the linked site adds to the understanding of the subject? In this case my answer would be "no". – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what we thought. Thanks. Span (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation page[edit]

I created User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Mother (disambiguation) (disambiguation), in order to get rid of that clutter at the top of the Mother article. A user deleted it with the argument, that disambiguation pages cannot be disambiguated, but per WP:DDAB I think this can be done. I think it is better that way than the clutter of disambiguation wikilinks at the top of the mother article. Could someone please clarify for me what the guidelines are in this case? (And yes, this case might be rare and borderline, but i think it is acceptable). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also I think WP:CSD#R3 does not apply, as it is neither a typo, nor a misnomer. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages of the form "Name (disambiguation)" aren't going to be searched for, so there's really nothing to disambiguate. Someone will use a link like Mother or Mom and will be sent to that word's disambiguation page. Either link should be disambiguated in an article anyway, but even when you want to link directly to the "Name (disambiguation)" redirect, you know why you want to do this and therefore which one you should link to. I don't think a disambiguation disambiguation page would ever be the best destination for any link and no one will be searching for a disambiguation page, so it's unnecessary. WP:DDAB is talking about another scenario, such as when Mom (disambiguation) is linked from the Mother (disambiguation) page. — Bility (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This reminded me of the amusing page name Disambiguation (disambiguation). I agree "X (disambiguation) (disambiguation)" is a poor idea. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The whole idea of disambiguating disambiguation pages really might not be worth the work put into it. I will abandon this idea. Thanks for the input. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
PrimeHunter: At least it's not Disambiguation (disambiguation) (disambiguation) .
Related topic: What about Signature (disambiguation) ? Several kinds of signatures are mentioned there, but then it links to another disambig of signature in mathematics? Should these be merged as well?
I'd propose to change the list structure, moving all mathematical meanings to the end, if that's allowed. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 11:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding color to infobox for writer[edit]

Hi, can anyone please tell me how to add background color to the infobox for writer? Many thanks! Nell 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talkcontribs)

The template doesn't come with any color modification parameters, it adheres to a single style for consistency across the wiki. If you'd like to suggest a color change, you can do so on the template's talk page. — Bility (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Nell 07:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)