Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 May 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Help desk
< May 28 << Apr | May | Jun >> May 30 >
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.

May 29[edit]

Request for Feedback: Appalachian State University[edit]

A few editors and myself have been slowly working on the Appalachian State University page trying to improve it. The article had not been substantively changed for a long time and failed to reflect a lot of recent changes. I know it needs improvement still but I'm not completely sure what changes can be made.

I intended to use the peer review process, but I realized that it is for articles approaching Featured Article status, and currently I am tryimg to improve a B-class article to A-class or better, so it doesn't really fit that category. And I tried to click the 'request for feedback' link, and it redirected me here.

So basically, I want to have a general idea of where the article needs improvements so I can begin an overhaul of it.

Thanks, DavidSSabb (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Any help at all? Or is there somewhere else I need to go? DavidSSabb (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Did I put this in the wrong place or what? If so TELL ME. It's the only one being passed over on here. DavidSSabb (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Horse racing[edit]

For a horse race, which “sport” parameter should I use in the {{current sport}} template? Would “Athletics” be applicable? (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How about using the "image" and "event" parameters instead? Something like {{Current sport|image=Horserace 520133030.jpg|event=horse racing event}}, which displays as...
-- John of Reading (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. If you don't mind, I'm going to directly copy-and-paste the above template coding into the article. (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


i submitted a new page and have no idea on whether it was accpeted or not...can you help?

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysunsetswithyou (talkcontribs) 03:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your contribution record shows only your question above, so if you think that you submitted your new page under this account you were unsuccessful. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
To clarify what David Biddulph said: if you submitted your new page under this account, you did not succeed in submitting it, for some technical reason. This doesn't mean that it was rejected, but that it didn't get as far as being submitted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Image chosen for Facebook post[edit]

I noticed that a link to the Wikipedia article on the Strategic Defense Initiative ( posted on Facebook was accompanied by a portrait of Ronald Reagan, yet that particular image did not appear in the actual article. I was wondering how this image was chosen to be attached to the posting of the link on Facebook (and how the process is done in general).

You'll need to ask whoever made that post on Facebook. RudolfRed (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I own a Facebook account and stumbled upon this photo, and I was wondering if it could have something to do with what you were looking for. (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Facebook works with Bing for their map results. So it wouldn't be surprising if they used a Bing cached copy of the article to get the thumbnail. These two companies, Facebook and Microsoft, have nothing to do with Wikipedia. So it's up to them to do things how they want. Dismas|(talk) 05:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Facebook has many pages called "Strategic Defense Initiative" and you didn't post a link so I don't know which page and image you refer to. This stock answer may or may not be relevant to the unknown Facebook page:
Symbol move vote.svg Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia— such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Short references for two books with same author & date[edit]

I'm working on an article that cites two books by the same author. Here's how they'll show up in the "works cited" section:

  • Lichtheim, Miriam (2006) [1976]. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520248434. 

For the in-line citations, I'm using the Surname-Year format (e.g., "Lichtheim 2006, p. 1"). I'm not sure how, in that short format, I should indicate the distinction between these two books, as they both have a 2006 publication date. Should I do it by volume ("Lichtheim 2006, vol. I, p. 1") or some other way? A. Parrot (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer your question directly, but I did notice that both of the ISBNs that you quoted seem to be invalid. Try 0-520-24842-2 and 0-520-24843-0. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have problems with the difference between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. Because many of the books I'm using only have 10-digit numbers, I tried to make the number of digits consistent by eliminating the first three digits from the 13-digit number. I suppose I shouldn't do that, because it works for some books but not all. A. Parrot (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In many author-date styles of referencing, lowercase letters are used after the year numbers to distinguish different publications by an author in the same year (see the beginning of Parenthetical referencing#Examples). Your works-cited entries would thus be
  • Lichtheim, Miriam (2006a) [1973]. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24842-2. 
  • Lichtheim, Miriam (2006b) [1976]. Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24843-0. 
and the inline refs would be of the form "Lichtheim 2006a, p. 1". Deor (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. A. Parrot (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete USER[edit]

I created a USER for myself but for legal reasons must delete it (copyrighted name shown in "View History") - how can I delete a USER so that it is no longer on search-engines - thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How can a name be copyrighted? Do you mean a trademark? Accounts can be renamed but not deleted. See Wikipedia:Changing username. A rename will also change the name shown in page histories. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

how can i use logitech keyboard singns[edit]


i bought new logitech keyboard which has a rupee singn,how can i use it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Press the key and get the desired result wherever it is needed. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 09:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Symbol move vote.svg Have you tried the Computing 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. Tell them which operating system you have and what happens when you press the key. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Submitting an article on a renowned individual with the same name as one who lived centuries ago[edit]

I'm about to write a biographical entry on an individual who is renowned in his field, but have been hamstrung by the fact that someone with the same name who lived hundreds of years ago is already in Wikipedia. Thus, when I enter his name in the "Is it new?" box, this other person's name appears, and I cannot get permission/authorization to write the article.

What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmian (talkcontribs) 09:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the name of the person? --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
What you would do is disambiguate the two names. Dismas|(talk) 09:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Give your article a different name. So, if you are writing about the singer Engelbert Humperdinck, instead of calling your article Engelbert Humperdinck you would call it Engelbert Humperdinck (singer). Maproom (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Disambiguating articles on people with the same name is a common problem in Wikipedia. The standard solution is to add a profession or job description to the article title, in brackets after the name (e.g. George Washington (inventor)). Other less common solutions are including a middle name in the article title (e.g. Charles Galton Darwin), including a title (e.g. Sir Peter Parker, 1st Baronet) or adding dates to the article title (e.g. Winston Churchill (1620–1688)). Gandalf61 (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Or John Sherman (Ohio).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Addition of an Article[edit]

Hi Team

I had recently uploaded an article to be added into Wiki.

I do not see this article being added. COuld you tell me the criteria / procedures for an article to be added?

The article I had requested to be added is titled Dr Sita Bhateja.

Kindly advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr Sita Bhateja.--ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, change this SEMI-PROTECTED page?[edit]

Hello.I'm a citizen of Turkey.I request that you change the false information on the "Kurdistan" page.There is not a part of Kurdistan in Turkey, there wasn't and there never will be.Sorry to bother you but this isn't right.I'm even thinking to hire lawyers to change this situation.I hope that false information will get fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find there's fairly good evidence for the existence of Turkish Kurdistan. In addition, please retract your legal threat above immediately - per WP:NLT, such threats will lead to you being blocked from editing. Yunshui ?? 13:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


i am trying to add a page and cannot for the life of me do this...i thought i upoaded correctly, but i received a note i couldnt figure out, can someone please help? thanks! Mysunsetswithyou (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your contribution history shows no edits other than to this page, so you indeed did not succeed in submitting the page. However, it is hard for anybody to know what happened without more information. However the problem might be simply that you are not yet autoconfirmed: in that case, make another eight edits (anywhere) and wait for four days. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Submitted Changes but now not showing[edit]

Hi, I submitted my editing changes to and then they were all there for a few days, but now it is the old information. How do I get the new info to stick?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As the edit removing your changes states "removing blatant advertizing" - Wikipedia is not an advertizing medium and any such changes will always be removed. Arjayay (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Carpenter Bees[edit]

I would like to add a comment about a natural way to control Carpenter Bees. How and where do I make a suggestion that would be added to this category? Thx, Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You could add a new section to Talk:Carpenter bee, but please provide a reference to a reliable source for the information you want to add. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You can also edit the article yourself. Go to Carpenter bee, click "edit this page" at the top. Good luck. Cresix (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not quite clear from your wording what kind of information you are wanting to add. If it is a discussion about a method of control that has been studied or used and reported in reliable sources, then you are welcome to add it. But if it is original research, or if it is in the nature of a "how to" section, please don't, as it will probably be swiftly removed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


I created a new webpage today, when I went to go back and check on it, it kept redirecting me to a related webpage. Why does this keep happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amorrison24 (talkcontribs) 15:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It was redirected because her company is the only notable thing about her. You can see this. --Thine Antique Pen (talkcontributions) 15:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Spectreman production credits[edit]

On the Spectreman page there is a paragraph for the U.S. 1978 release of the show on TBS. I can't find any credits for the person or group who wrote the english language theme song either here on on the web. I thought that perhaps the person who originally wrote the article may have some ideas since they seem to have knowledge of other things the song writer(s) have done. How can I contact them? - dstaples111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstaples111 (talkcontribs) 16:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A better place to ask that question would be WP:RD/E. Cresix (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding COI with new article[edit]

I work for a small non-profit organization in Philadelphia, PA called Federation Early Learning Services, formerly Federation Day Care Services. We run eight child care centers, four after school programs and, until very recently when our grant ran out, assisted other child care facilities to identify and assist children with developmental and behavioral difficulties. This non-profit has been in existence for over 100 years and serves approximately 1,000 children a year. When we commemorated our founding last year it occurred to me that such a long standing local institution should have a Wikipedia article. This is of course where a few concerns popped up for me. Firstly, I know that Wikipedia volunteer editors are very sensitive to bias and to information submitted by company employees for obvious reasons. Second my knowledge of the coding language used to make an article look complete, i.e. inserting images, creating references, etc, is practically non-existent and we don't have anyone who works for us at present who could step in to help me.

I can provide unbiased information, sans superlative adjectives and preferential statements as I take Wikipedia's neutrality very seriously myself. However I don't have the skills to get the information on there and I don't know how to ensure the article won't get blocked or deleted by an editor who feels I may be a nefarious person uploading inaccurate info en masse? The Article Wizard suggests: "If you feel you, your organization, or your friend, band, or site are notable, please consider asking a neutral third party (ideally an uninvolved Wikipedia editor who has edited similar articles) for their opinion before proposing an article on the subject." So how do I do this? Is there someone to whom I can submit documents detailing our history that could determine whether it warrants an article or can create one for us if deemed worthwhile?

Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommCoor (talkcontribs) 16:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Requested articles.--ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


I see Wikipedia uses PHP. Does it use a parser like the parser.php in punBB? if so, could we have:

//(.*?) <!--$1-->

in the WikiText parser? EDIT: the thing doesn't want to be shown. just click edit this section. I also hope I got the page right... Finding a page to talk about this is hard. Can't talk on the main page, or questions... (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(I added 'nowiki' codes round your sample, so that it would appear). I don't know what you are trying to achieve by those - the first appears to be a regular expression and the second an HTML comment - but Wikipedia uses Mediawiki markup. It is completely irrelevant what language it happens to be written in, and what else might happen to be written in the same language. Mediawiki could be written in Perl, Java or .net and yet appear exactly the same.
If there is a specific technical enhancement you are asking for, WP:VP/T is a good place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My signature doesn't work[edit]

I recently changed my username from Hysteria18 to Arms & Hearts; I'm trying to change my signature accordingly but to no avail. My current signature is:

– [[User:Hysteria18|hysteria18]] ([[User talk:Hysteria18|talk]])

I'd like to change it to

– [[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]])

but keep receiving an error telling me: Invalid raw signature. Check HTML tags. Any ideas? – hysteria18 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's expecting the ampersand to be followed by a special character code. Try replacing it with &amp;Frankie (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, brilliant, thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Michele Marziani[edit]

I created a page on writer Michele Marziani by translating a page already exhisting on Wikipedia in Italian language. Why is mr. Dennisthe2 going to delete it by laking of sources ? isatam

Isatam (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

For that exact reason, there are no sources. You must provide reliable sources which establish that the person is notable. We can't just take your word for it. See also, WP:BLP. Also, if kept, the article should be moved to the proper title. Right now his last name is not capitalized. Dismas|(talk) 18:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The source of translated pages must be attributed. I have done this at Talk:Michele Marziani. See Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. The Italian and English Wikipedia have different policies. The article will be deleted if no sources are added. I have moved it to the proper capitalization Michele Marziani and made some cleanup but it still needs work and especially sources. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. English sources are preferred but Italian sources are allowed. I don't know Italian. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirming a user is the subject of an article[edit]

How does a user go about the process of proving that they're the subject of an article? Who precisely do they need to email? I'm thinking of the recent edits that were made to the page Krista Allen. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 18:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BIOSELF.--ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
However, I don't think it makes any difference to anyone whether an editor is recognizes as the subject of an article. There's no privilege or recognition. Salvidrim! 02:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ukexpat. That got me in the right direction. I think that page has been tweaked since the last time I read it. I remember the path to get to an actual email address being more labyrinthine. And Salvidrim, I didn't suggest that they would get any recognition or privilege. I was thinking more about someone trying to WP:OWN an article because it is about them. Dismas|(talk) 03:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That was mostly my point -- someone trying to prove he is the subject of an article (as your initial question appears to imply) gives the impression he is trying to assert ownership, or at least some measure of control, both of which are not beneficial to the encyclopedia, hence my worries. As it was unclear from the question, I just wanted to ensure you weren't encouraging or enabling that behaviour, but I now see you're perfectly aware of the possible pitfalls and apologize for any assumptions. :) Salvidrim! 03:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 - Correct citation of a federal court order[edit]

I'm currently in the process of correcting bare url citations on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 site. On source is an order issued by a federal court blocking the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA. What is the correct citation for this court order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talkcontribs) 19:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Does {{Cite court}} help?--ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not really, because I am not from the United States and therefore not familiar with the U.S. legal system. In this sense I don't know how to use {{Cite court}} correctly. An example: Do I have to mention all plaintiffs and defendants or is there a short version? So: What is the correct citation for this court order? --P3Y229 19:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talkcontribs)

Second opinion for images[edit]

This one...
or this one?

I'm planning on adding an image to the Charlotte Regional Medical Center article, and I need a second opinion on which one to use. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The second one looks much better to me both as to composition and focus. The first is blurry, mis-centered and doesn't show the name clearly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The second, but a cropped version focussing on the building itself. Let me know if you need help with that.--ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Cropped version uploaded. Was that what you had in mind? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Browsing History[edit]


Is there a way to view my browsing history on WP?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, use your Web browser history. --Jac16888 Talk 20:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

edits being deleted[edit]

twice i have added info on Michael Sheards page and both times it has gone missing. Why is this happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatanga1 (talkcontribs) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It is being removed because it is unsourced--Jac16888 Talk 20:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The answer to your question is in the History of the article. When your edits were reverted the editor left an edit summary. You can also use the history to find out who has removed the edits. GB fan 21:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Unauthrised Refacatoring[edit]

I received Rfc for Talk:Circumcision#1RR_proposal - I responded there!

I then found comments from Pass a Method on my talk page telling me that my response had been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#1_revert_proposal_for_circumcision.

It would appear that some are attempting to hold an Rfc by the back door and being naughty! I responded on the correct page as I did not wish to be dragged into the mess.

Who do I contact - and who gets a smacked bottom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talkcontribs) 22:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Must we parse this in terms of handing out spankings? I don't think you're going to be sitting down afterwards if we do. The RfC at issue clearly stated, with a link, where you were invited to post to respond to it, which was not at Talk:Circumcision but at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#1 revert proposal for circumcision. You nevertheless posted at that wrong place. The RfC creator, in obvious good faith, politely informed you that you had posted to the wrong place and asked you to move your comment. When you did not respond after an hour, he or she moved your comment to the correct place, without changing it. You're reaction has been to post a nasty warning to the user's talk page of a "breach off [sic] Community Standards", linking to WP:Refactoring. Did you read that page? It talks about good faith, and that refactoring is for "Relocation of material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate", and not that doing this is any sort of violation of the page which is a how-to guide. As far as I can see, no wrong was done to you at all, and no "breach" of WP:Refactoring occurred. Instead of looking for policies/guidelines/standards that have been "breached" (it's a bad idea to view and treat [most of] our policies and guidelines as statutes that can be breached), ask yourself what the intent was here. Even if the move was maybe a little too bold, because people can be sensitive to other people touching their posts, this was not someone changing your post to say something other than what it did or other chicanery – that's what people cite WP:Refactoring for, in the main. You should go strike your warning and apologize to the user for your overreaction. You could graciously register your disapproval by telling the user that though their actions were obviously in good faith, you really don't like to have your posts moved by anyone and to please not do so in the future. Meanwhile, you can always go remove your own moved post from the correct discussion page. Finally, please note that on Wikipedia we don't really vote exactly. We do have straw polls where people "support" and "oppose" and things in between, but it is intended as a discussion where you are registering your ultimate outcome first and then providing a rationale, evidence, etc. for that outcome. Accordingly, to post simply "support" as you did, means you might as well not have bothered as an unsupported "vote" like this is properly discounted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your response is most interesting - I ask "Who do I contact.." - and you do not answer that question.
I note that content has appeared on my user page that is out of sequence. I may have to deal with it through WP:Refactoring. P^)
May I question how long is an acceptable time period for another person to act outwith expected standards? Does that mean I can post on a talk page at 3.00 am and because by 4.00 am I have received no response I can do as I like? Where is the policy on WP:TimePeriod?
The hour referred to was my hour and not owned by any other person. Should I wish to ignore a message does that empower another wiki user to assume that I agree with them?
If I am not even aware of the message it is even more unacceptable and presumptuous. Is such presumption covered by WP:Presumptuousness?
Is that if someone has been about Wiki for a long time, they are defended even when they behave unacceptably?
What do I do about cleaning out the multiple unsolicited emails - parts of Rss feeds that I have had foisted upon me by the conduct of this person? My computer usage and automatic interaction with Wiki are my choice - and it is not acceptable to be buried under Dross because another wikian wishes to push an agenda. Where can I find WP:Unsolisitedjunkmail?
I also note they have been canvassing rather heavily! Jimbo Wales page too! Funny how they say "I need..." and not "Wiikipedia needs..". It does indicate a certain bias!
I asked where is the correct place to have the conduct addressed - not for an opinion, critique or view to be expressed. Could the help desk provide a direct answer?
I also note that the person concerned has not Apologised - but has told me that I was in the wrong! How interesting!
I did look for assistance through Wikipedia For Dummies - it seems that it had the right answer after all.
... and some wonder at the Parlous state of editor retention and concerns about cabals and bureaucracy across Wikiland ! I find it amusing that I was perusing some recommended reading within Wiki Land only today. A case study! There is so much more too!

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
It appears I am wasting my breath. If you would like to know where to post about this "incident", my best advice is nowhere since you are in the wrong on your talk page and here. The refactoring of my post on your talk page is about the definition of disruptive editing to make a point. But if you want to know where you can report actual problematic editing, you can do so Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That is where people seek administrative intervention for problematic editing that is not of the simple vandalism sort. You should not do so, and if you do it is sure to boomerang back on you because of the lack of merit and the increasingly tendentious nature of your recent edits, but that is actually the answer to "Who do I contact"?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the belated answer to the original question!

You're response has been so informative in my ongoing research into Wikipedia, and why it needs reformation.

Is the help desk subject to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? I would like to raise a few issues and pointers with the right people! Where is the correct place to do that?

I have already discovered The wub.

Please note it is a direct question that requires no opinion - just notice of the correct WP:policy/practice/procedure and a link to the most suitable page. Simples!

I also would welcome any direction to the correct place to look up WP:veiledthreat - WP:bullyingInWikipedia - WP:Beurocrat - or any similar or even synonymous resources. Suggestions welcome!

Thank you for the link to disruptive editing to make a point.... but I already have read all about that. I also discovered this link too Advocacy Editing, for myself. It's a shocker!

And some wonder why there is a need to replace the WP:helpdesk with a better alternative?

WP teahouse logo 4.png
Hi! Help desk, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Look me up - you can find out more!

Look up WP:IRONY too ..... it does make me giggle! P^)

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Brick wall old.jpg Please go do something constructive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your enlightened response! So which option would you prefer? I walk away and write about just how Technocratic and Systemically biased Wikiland is..... or should I stay and make it batter it? OOPS why would I ask that question on a Brick Wall?

Have you noticed any issues around here with bias?

I did! Have a look here ... sorry if the WP:IRONY is lost on you!

By the way! Did you notice that ""You"" failed to answer the direct questions asked of you.....and you responded with a brick wall!

How telling is that? ... oh! ...and you are the Wikipedia help(?) desk.


Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sigh. The Teahouse is not replacing the help desk. There are many help boards/pages here that are all used for different things. A place like the New Contributors' Help Desk, for instance, is for, well, new contributors. This help desk is a good place for anyone of any experience level here to ask questions about editing or using Wikipedia. The Teahouse is designed to have more of a personal feel. That's why there are "hosts" and "guests" there. The hosts have bios with info about themselves, which helps to foster the personal feel. It's geared toward new editors, I think, but I suppose anyone could ask a question there.

I don't feel this is the venue to continue this discussion, but why do you find Wikipedia (or, as you phrased it, "Wikiland") "Systematically biased"? - Purplewowies (talk) (How's my driving?) 05:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You ask why I find Wikiland systemically biased? Point 1 it is a recognised issue! Wikiland says so of itself. 2. There is so much running around doing wiki things and being wiki oriented that it just gets brushed aside and ignored. It is Ironic that Wikiland says:

"Thus, the idea of systemic bias is more troubling than intentional vandalism; vandalism is readily identified and corrected. The existence of systemic bias means that not only are large segments of the world not participating in the discussion at hand, but that there is a deep-rooted problem in the relationship of Wikipedia and its contributor editors with the world at large."

Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Why it matters and what to do

And it's ironic that for such a big issue - one that is "..more troubling than intentional vandalism", does not even have a barnstar.

You have barnstars for focusing on that globally significant subject "Emo Music" - and many other issues such as Gaming .... both of which have a global place - and yet there is no Barnstar for Systemic Bias. It would seem that Wikiland is Systemically Biased against Tackling Systemic Bias. It just has not noticed! ... that of course is a whole issue in itself.

Why has it not been noticed for so long? It's the equivalent of a group being aware of racism - standing against racism - being ever so happy that they are against racism - and then it gets noticed that Talking The Talk is not the same as Walking the Walk. Of course when that happens there is that old Knee Jerk reaction of It can't be right!

It's fascinating to do a quick google search and find out how many pages have been tagged with {{systemic bias}}. It's even more fascinating to visit some and see why they have been tagged. I suspect that some have been tagged for Political Reasons. Some don't even have an explanation - so unless you have a very high level of expertise in the actual subject you are left in the dark. Some have used it correctly and there is valid discussion of the subject - the concerns - ways to deal with it - sources that have to be sought from other places - even translated. But they are so few as to represent about 1/100000 % of all wiki pages. Hmmmmmm does that agree with "..more troubling than intentional vandalism"?

Of course, one is about acting and being seen to act ( I have a bot and will use it I have anti-vandal barnstars and can prove through them that I am Wiki motivated in the extreme ) and the other is far more subtle, takes great care and balance to address, and even needs balance to make sure that further bias is not introduced.

I did like one ironic comment about the absence of the Countering Systemic Barnstar. "True irony would be to propose one for those showing it." Source.

It's also Ironic to see the Proliferation on Nationalist Barnstars, and yet someone missed the most Obvious one "The Global Barnstar". Hmmm......

So Barnstars have evolved into separatist and highly focused identity badges that are carving up Wikiland into little domains - control areas - fiefdoms and owned subjects ..... and yet Wiki has a globe as it's Icon! Isn't it odd how people think and behave?

I'm still wondering why there is a barnstar for editing pages about Oklahoma? There is no explanation as to why it was needed and just had to be created! I looked at the Wiki page for Oklahoma, but the subject seems to not be noteworthy enough to feature on that page! In fact the word barn does not feature.... odd given the number there are in the state. P^) I wonder if there is some odd bias towards Oklahoma that needs to be looked at?

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to answer some of the questions you posed in this last thing before this got archived. I won't answer all of them, because I'm not sure I can (and some require thinking for a bit). In the case of {{systemic bias}}, if you can't see a reason for the tag, you can remove it (unless you feel inexperienced enough about the subject that you don't feel comfortable doing so). There are only thirteen articles transcluding that tag, which, while not as good as zero, is very small compared to the number of articles tagged with other cleanup type tags and the number of articles as a whole.
Honestly, on the issue of barnstars, I have a love-hate relationship with them. They a nice way to deliver praise, but sometimes they're given out far too trivially. I'm pretty sure I've even trivially given some out, but I feel deserving of the one I have. I see you've proposed that there be a systemic bias barnstar, which was a good thing to do if you felt it needed to exist and wanted to get consensus on it. Barnstars are for specific things to make it clearer what to award for. If the scope were too broad, it might be too hard to determine why a person should get it, but if there were a clear criteria for a global barnstar (I dunno - "outstanding contributions to articles dealing with global affairs" or something, I don't know) I don't see why it couldn't be made.
As for the Oklahoma barnstar, that's a barnstar related to WikiProject Oklahoma. Other WikiProjects have their own stars as well, and WikiProjects that do not have one could probably propose one. The Oklahoma barnstar been awarded to users, but it's supposed to be subst'd so I couldn't tell you exactly how many. Wikipedia-related things (like barnstars) about Oklahoma wouldn't necessarily be featured on the article about the subject (unless the Wikipedia-related thing was sufficiently notable, like Monmouthpedia in the article on Monmouth). - Purplewowies (talk) (How's my driving?) 21:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Format/style of Biographies—guidelines?[edit]

I see some biographies of living persons have a section called Biography while others don't and instead they have sections like "Early life", which would be found under other pages' Biography sections. Are there standards to follow in editing biographies? Or should I just go by featured articles that are biographies? Mrtea (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mention your example but see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
My practice is not to have a "biography" section - the whole article is a biography so in my view such a section is redundant.--ukexpat (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
There's no general rule, but you can look at how similar people are handled in other articles. Just do it in whatever way makes most sense to cover their life. Depending on the person, you may want to treat their life chronologically divided into periods (like Winston Churchill), or treat life and work separately (like Plato or Vincent van Gogh), or treating different facets of the life separately if they were notable in more than one field. If you separate life and work, then having a "biography" or "life" section is sensible, otherwise not so much. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

sonac boom[edit]

Growing up in Chicago in the sixies i remember jet(s) flying over head breaking the sound barrier. Now my older sister (4yrs older) is saying it never happened. I grew up on Ridgeway ave 28 hundred south. So what I'am asking how do I find out who's right and who's just getting old. I'am sixty and remember things that my sister has forgotten.thanks foe any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions on how to use Wikipedia. You should post your question on the reference desk at WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)