Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 August 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< August 5 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 7 >
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 6[edit]

Bad link on "List of Futurologists" Page[edit]

I was just reading through the "List of Futurologists" ( and saw that under George Orwell there was a link (George Orwell - Complete works), to a website ( When I clicked on this Chrome warned me that the website contained malware. I figured that wikipedia wouldn't link me to anything with malware so I told Chrome to proceed however no website loaded and my anti-virus software notified me of several attacks coming from the website. I know this might not be the right place for this and I should probably remove the link but it's past 1am here in the UK and I shouldn't really be up this late anyway with work tomorrow so I don't really want to go through the effort of creating an account or whatever you have to do to edit wikipedia pages so I'm leaving this here hoping that someone will see it and act on it, if it's still there tomorrow evening I'll come back and get rid of it.

Please note I'm not criticising wikipedia, I love this website as one of the cornerstones of the internet, I just don't want someone without internet security to get screwed by whichever genius decided to create a website about George Orwell as a virus host.

Keep up the good work!

Will Trewinnard — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done [1]. This URL was added in 2008[2] so it is likely the site has simply been compromised. BigNate37(T) 04:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
And you could have fixed it yourself without registering, although there are advantages to doing so.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Foundary factory[edit]

Dear Sir, I am looking for Foundary Factory in Shah Alam. Is it possible to get a list of the foundary factory? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Symbol move vote.svg This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer 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. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


I recently was accused of an edit war but I was only trying to rvert vandalism. How do I make the reason vandalism on the revert edit page, many thanks: Danjel101 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked over your edits. See WP:VANDALISM. You seem to be using the word vandalism to mean "Something I do not disagree with". Instead, there is a clear disagreement between yourself and another editor over the proper content of an article. Since both of you are acting from a place of trying to make Wikipedia better, neither of you is vandalizing. Since both of you are trying to make Wikipedia better, you need to talk it out on the article talk page. That is what it is for. Stop trying to force your own ideas through, and instead discuss the matter in a civil manner. Give the discussion a few days, and if after a few days it doesn't get anywhere, seek extra help at some place like WP:DRN or WP:3O. Don't rush things. --Jayron32 04:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


For cite news, I'd like to find the location where the source was published, but can't find it. Help? Thanks, TBrandley 05:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is a newspaper, it should be the home city of the paper. What is the name of the source? --Jayron32 05:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. It is for various references. TBrandley 07:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is one example. TBrandley 07:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to write the location... You are simply very nitpicky regarding references; instead you need to carefully re-read the prose. As for your question: Simply search for it everywhere on the site. It is often found at the bottom of a page or in the About page. Regards.--Kürbis () 07:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Print publications need places of publication, but citations to online publications are completely different. You'd have to provide the city where the website's servers are located, which would be both extremely difficult to discern and quite irrelevant for someone who's trying to find the source in question, and that's the sole reason that we provide publication information in citations. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Though not essential, it can still be useful to know the location of an online source, particularly with a website that covers a certain geographical area or real-world institution, but you don't need to give the server location: instead if you think it's useful, give the city that's the main address of the editorial or publishing staff, or give the geographical focus. (For certain tasks like showing notability we need to know if something has local or international coverage, so having publishing locations is useful.) Only if it's useful, though: if you have trouble finding the location, it's probably not very important. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

List of rail-road related periodicals[edit]

May I suggest that it would be rather more belpful to your readers if the countrues were foirst srted by CONTINENT?

The are four A-continent headings plus Europe viz: Africa; Americas; Asia; Australasia; Europe You could split 'Americas' into 'America North' and 'America South' if you so desire.

I am trying to find a magazine dealing with Asian railways and your preent lay-out is something of a hotch potch.

Best wishes - Roger Lascelles — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A question/suggestion. Why don't you divide your title list first by continent and then by country within each such heading? It would make life much easier for your readers.

eg Africa; America North; America South; Asia; Australasia; Europe.

Best wishes - Roger Lascelles — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To help other editors the list is here: List of railroad-related periodicals. I think it seems reasonable for someone to categorise it by continent, although some may find the purely alphabetical listing is easier. You could make the change yourself, or ask on Talk:List of railroad-related periodicals or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What to do if you suspect an editor may be mentally ill or incompetent[edit]

What is the correct (and humane) way to handle a situation where one suspects that an editor is mentally deficient in some way and their edits are disruptive? How does one protect WP without harming the dignity (and possibly fragile mental condition) of the person concerned. Roger (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The essays Wikipedia:Competence is required and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy cover this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
To expand on what Uncle G said, use the email this user feature Although I'm not clear on who to email.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
In extreme cases where an editor's conduct is causing serious disruption and there are reasons for not addressing the matter on-wiki, a report may be made via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I also found this.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Block them. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As a mentally ill person I find this question and the way it is worded to be misleading and possibly creating unfair stigma if an editor is indeed suffering from a mental illness. There is no need to treat people with mental illnesses as any different from anyone else or to assume that we are somehow more fragile or indeed "mentally deficient". I hope I haven't responded in a way that is too direct, but I think this is an issue I must comment on because of the view of people with mental illnesses it presents

Move Title[edit]

Hi for all,

I'm interested to put a correct title in one article (link: EPortuguêse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)).

My question is that possible to put this tiltle "ePORTUGUESe" instead of the actual one "ePortuguêse", to prove this difference check this official website of this world health organization program ( link: )

Best regards, Jorge Costa - Portuguese Student of Integrated Masters Degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocostinha (talkcontribs) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The page you cite uses the spelling "ePORTUGUESe" three times and "ePORTUGUÊSe" eleven times, so I don't think you should claim it as evidence for the former spelling. Maproom (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Format?[edit]

Today I was introduced to a new Wikipedia page layout. The difference is shocking. I hate it. Biggest grief: it now takes one extra click to get to a search box. It used to be at the top of the page. Any chance you could revert to the old format? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The layout hasn't changed (for me at least), but you might have temporary problems because the site just recovered from a crash. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

I am not in the mood right now to mess with this any further. If someone wants to untag any one of those articles he or she should feel free to do so. It's not as if this were a BLP, NFCC or copyvio or anything that needs to be resolved timely, so I'll keep my hands off it for now. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlkctb) 18:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the use of primary sources in Delta Flyer and Animation International appropriate? I ask, because after I tagged Delta Flyer with {{Primary sources}}, another user immediately tagged Animation International with the same template. Are both of those taggings correct? If yes, how should I proceed? Should I try to replace the primary sources with secondary sources (if that is possible)? In case of Animation International, I think the only primary source is cite no 2 (I am not sure about no 3). In case of Delta Flyer, both of the cited sources appear to be primary sources. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlkctb) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You should try to replace them with non-primary sources (and yes,the taggings were correct). Mdann52 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
So in Animation International, I should replace cite no. 3 then? What I said above is probably false, I don't think cite no. 2 is a primary source (at least I don't think Hong Kong Trade Development Council is controlled by Animation International or vice versa). In Delta Flyer I guess both sources need to be replaced. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlkctb) 15:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Mdann52 keeps deleting a page I created that needs to be made[edit]

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a novice editor to Wikipedia, creating my first article.

Specifically, I am trying to create an article an article for the University of Louisville School of Medicine, one of the earliest M.D. granting institutions in the United States with MAJOR innovations (U of L School of Medicine created the first emergency room, first successful long-term hand transplant). The U of L School of Medicine Page originally just redirected to the U of L page. Mdann52 keeps reverting it back, and I'm such a novice, I don't know how to communicate with him.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE! What can I do to at least have an open discussion/vote/what not about keeping it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What I suggest you do is create a new section in our article on the University of Louisville. You can discuss your interest on the University's article's talk page, but please don't try to recreate it as a separate article. If at some point it grows disproportionately large at the UL page, it could then perhaps be spun off into a separate article. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing though. As the University of Louisville is separate from the University of Louisville School of Medicine, I don't think the "spin off" attitude is a very good one to have. People won't write about the Medical School's culture, elaborate on its accomplishments, etc. because the article is regarding U of L and NOT U of L School of Medicine. In order to see additions regarding U of L's Medical School, you need to have an article where these additions are appropriate. (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If we had a section on the U of L School of Medicine, we could also have a redirect to the subtopic on the U of L page so that users searching for U of L School of Medicine would find the section at the U of L article. BigNate37(T) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Like I said before, people won't write about the Medical School's culture, elaborate on its accomplishments, etc. because the article is regarding U of L and NOT U of L School of Medicine. Having the medical school as a subsection of the U of L article will engender edits that don't go in depth into the medical school.
Think about it pragmatically. If a person wanted to add details about Arnold Griswold and U of L's role in the creation of the first trauma centers, he/she wouldn't add it to a subtopic of the U of L article. It's way too specific and would be out of place for a general inclusion article. You're never going to get people to write a lot about the School of Medicine without an article for the School of Medicine! The precedent is there for other medical schools -- every single other M.D. granting medical school in the United States has an article except for the University of Louisville. That's a travesty!! You don't just add a subsection to encompass a 175 year old school! Regards, (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
A few suggestions:-
  1. STOP SHOUTING - you will not help your case by putting things in capitals
  2. Take time to understand Wikipedia's house rules - particularly WP:3RR, WP:RS + WP:NPOV
  3. Find some reliable secondary references - not the school's own website, which is prone to be biased
    Has the school received extensive coverage in an independant medical journal? - or on a course comparison website?
    If not, you need to understand the Notability Requirements
    You have included some (fairly vague) references in the talk page, but not on the article page itself
  4. Open an account and copy the article to your WP:Sandbox where you can work on it until it is ready for public criticism
Arjayay (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't have the time! (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That's okay; there is no deadline here. If it matters to somebody, they will do the work; if not, no harm is being done. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Silo - Information Was Removed[edit]

Hello, I am inquiring about as I represent and have been trying for many days (months even) to update our Wikipedia page and add in our content (once again) after it was removed on us for no apparent reason. Almost immediately after I updated the page recently, all of my content was removed and I would like to know why. I don't believe anything we are doing is wrong as we are not trying to remove their content, but just trying to have our content available as well on the wiki page as well. Originally we were listed on Wikipedia first (and our content was removed) and our paper and website have been established since before the other paper as well. Some clarification would be appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southy24 (talkcontribs) 18:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The comment for the undo says that the article is about a different paper than the one you are adding info for. RudolfRed (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Our existing article The Silo was created on 4 August 2011, and has always been about a newspaper in Lesotho. It is not "your Wikipedia page", and information about a Canadian publication does not belong on it, which is why it has been removed. If there was an earlier page about the Canadian newspaper, it may have been deleted at some point before this article was created. If you want to write about the newspaper in Canada with the same title, you will need to create an entirely separate article about it, perhaps calling it The Silo (Canadian newspaper) or similar. You can then use disambiguation to differentiate this article from the one about the Lesotho newspaper. However, there are two caveats. First, you will need to demonstrate that the Canadian newspaper is notable enough under Wikipedia's guidelines to be the subject of an article. The general notability guideline is here and the specific guideline for organisations is here; the newspaper must satisfy one of them. Second, if you represent the newspaper then you have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from writing about it on Wikipedia because of our neutrality policy. A couple of possible strategies are to assemble an article and citations and request it be created at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, or to draft it in a user sandbox and seek feedback before going live, declaring your interest as you have done here. Hope this makes things clearer - do ask for further help if you need it. - Karenjc 19:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

<math>\fint</math> in wikipedia[edit]

I'm trying to write a formula that includes the LaTeX \fint command. You can see it in here (page 28, left to the "\fint" command. It shows a large f in the size of an integral, which looks like an integral sign (\int) with a diagonal line (somewhat like \angle\!\!\!\!{\color{White}\_\!\_\!\_}) on it). Wikimedia's LaTeX renderer doesn't support this command, but is there any work around you can recommend? Thanks a million, (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess you'd need to contact the developers for this. I searched some archives for similar problems and found Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 36#Adding symbols to TeX. CBM states there you'd need to file an "enhancement" bug in bugzilla. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlkctb) 19:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The only immediate (and kind of awkward) solution I could think of right now short of filing a bug at bugzilla would be to upload the symbol (or better the entire formula containing the symbol) as an image file and add that at the spot in the article where the formula is supposed to appear (maybe transcluded inside a template). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlkctb) 19:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement about using Cite templates[edit]

I find myself disagreeing with a fellow editor about the correct way to use Template:Cite in inline references. The other editor is inserting an additional full stop/period between the closing braces of the cite template and the close ref markup {{cite|Source details blah blah}}.</ref> - for further details please see the discussion at Talk:Oscar Pistorius#Punctuation at the end of footnotes. Thanks Roger (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation should be appearing outside the <ref> tags, as appropriate. The references themselves will contain all the requisite punctuation as-is when displayed via {{reflist}}, so you should only be using punctuation in the sentences that is already necessary. BigNate37(T) 19:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point - the editor concerned is doing this in order to add extra punctuation to the citation itself because he believes the text of the citation should itself be a sentence. Please look at the discussion at the article talk page. Roger (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I did read that discussion. Perhaps my discussion of punctuation in the surrounding text was extraneous; I meant it along the lines of "this is the only punctuation in and around reference tags that you ought to have." No punctuation should be going inside the <ref> tags. BigNate37(T) 20:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The applicable guideline is WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What to do?[edit]

Guys, I really need help. The article Religion in Turkey has been temporary fully protected recently, so that the content dispute could be managed. Problem is, the protection requester doesn't want to discuss on the talk page, even after I literally begged. What should I do? I certainly don't want to vandalise Wikipedia by making my changes tommorow (when the protection runs out) without any discussion. Help, please, (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to ask an administraror the same question? (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If there's no possibility to help me, say so; don't just leave unanswered. (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You just need to be patient. If someone can help you, they will. RudolfRed (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You may wish to familiarize yourself with the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Per Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes, you should be discussing the matter and attempting to reach a consensus. Where that fails, the dispute resolution policy will guide you on what steps to take next. BigNate37(T) 19:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this wasn't helpful, since all the dispute solution ways assume 'extensive discussion on the talk page', which is currently totally avoided by user called Saguamundi. How can I notify Saguamundi that discussion is needed. Can you do that instead of me, since I'm not registered? Btw, it's content dispute, but it also could be user conduct dispute since the particular user keeps reverting (and requesting protection) without any discussion. (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You don't strictly *need* to have discussed it on a talk page (though if it's possible, it's preferred and helpful). You could post to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I did so once without there being a talk page discussion. You could also just start a discussion on the talk page even if the other user won't participate, so that a consensus could be reached on what content should go into the article anyway. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)



I am sorry but it does not look like the page was saved. Your account has made 2 edits, the one above and your feedback. Both were made today. DO you still have a copy of what you wrote? GB fan 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't SHOUT! at us. From your description it seems your article is Original Research which means it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Roger (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If you leave an edit page open for hours or days, it is quite likely that your session will expire, and you will not be able to save it. If it takes you a long time to create the page, you should save intermediate versions. If you work in your sandbox, nobody will trouble you (unless you commit a copyright violation). However, an article about your ancestors and their history is not acceptable to Wikipedia unless everything in it is referenced to independent reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Víctor Jara[edit]

Víctor Jara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since the page includes a) a listing of songs mentioning Jara b) a listing of theatre works about Jara c) a listing of tribute albums d) listing of documentary films; e) and an artwork by another artist, that you remove artworks (which restore dignity to Jara's life and work) by other artists is absurd, discriminatory, unethical and unprofessional. Rather than removing new or recently added art portraying Victor Jara, there anything should be a listing of art portraying the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiva K Segan (talkcontribs) 23:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We must respect the copyright of the other artists, as well as that of Jara. That's not discrimination, it's common ethics and professionalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)