Help desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

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.

March 5

Issue

What should I do if I have proven things wrong and found clarification through Original Research? Us441(talk)(contribs) 01:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more specific? Wikipedia:No original research is a policy and an important one at that. If you have to resort to OR to prove something there's little chance it can have an effect on an article. We can only use information published in reliable sources, be it true or not. Rehevkor ✉ 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know your research is original? If you have found a result independently, you could search for published instances of it. Needless to say that can sometimes be very hard. Lots of people have published lots of things, not all of them are visible to search engines, and you may not be using the same terminology that other people used, which may make it difficult to find the right search terms. If you can't find any published sources to cite, you could ask on the Reference desk if anyone has heard of the result you believe you found. --Teratornis (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here. We should be bringing public knowledge onto the pages of the encyclopedia. Ideas presented should be relatively well known. If you're having to search for published sources to justify the fact that your inclusion is not OR then it probably should not be included. After all: Wikipedia is not an academic journal. Even if you do find three or four papers about what you want to add; you still have to meet the notability criteria. For example, I'm a mathematician, I contribute to the maths reference desk, and I create maths articles. Every article I've ever created covers a mathematically well known topic. I see maths articles getting deleted all the time because they don't meet WP:N. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing what the questioner claims to have found, all we have is conjecture. It's true that only a small percentage of all random facts are suitable for Wikipedia, but who knows whether the unknown tidbit is or isn't in that subset? Let's open the box before ruling on Schrödinger's cat. --Teratornis (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is original because it is a video game article, and I have played the game. 173.168.137.179 (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given this clarification (without specificity of the actual article and issue), I suspect that the existing text may be uncited and you want to change it to comport with what you think it should say, which also does not have a source. If so, even though you should not add your original research, you can remove the uncited existing text you think is wrong under WP:BURDEN. If you told us the specifics, we could all be more concrete and not be fumbling with what may be the case.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that someone else discovered what you discovered and wrote about it in a reliable source. Try searching Google books. Also, you might want to post what you discovered on the article talk page and ask if anyone knows of a reliable source to support it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Since we now know the subject is a game, see WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT for additional limits on what game-related facts are suitable for Wikipedia. There are several alternative outlets where gamers can get their cruft on - i.e. where no game-related detail is likely to be too trivial for inclusion. For example StrategyWiki appears to be far more sympathetic to gamers' sense of what is important than Wikipedia is. That's an option to remember if working the detail into Wikipedia is too difficult. --Teratornis (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report SomeBody ..

Hi . Where Can I Report AnyBody Besides Notice Board For Vandalism. 173.178.93.250 (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)__[reply]

Our various notice boards are listed at {{Noticeboard links}}. — Satori Son 02:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non en-wiki rules

I know the rules are different for every Wiki...but, in the case of non-en-wikis, do editors there ultimately have to abide by US Florida law as far as legal things, like copy vio, libel, etc? Or do local and national jurisdictions override this -- David Able 04:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so since the Wiki servers are based in the US. But I'm not sure. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Take over" a username?

Hello, is there any way to "take over" a user name that has no contributions or history. Basically an unused account. I'd like to change my user account from User:David Able to User:Quinn, but the latter already exists, though has no edit history that I can see. Is there anyway to request an usurptation of this account name? -- David Able 05:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS-I don't care one way or the other about retaining edit history on my account. Either way is fine. David Able 05:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USURP. Dismas|^(talk) 05:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone check some edits?

The article in question is Kelly Monaco. Given the nature of Monaco's work with Playboy, I'm hesitant to check the recently added source due to the fact that I'm at work. I'd rather not set off any alarms with my company's IT department.

So, could someone check this edit and the source to which it is referenced? The URL of the ref seems like one that would be used at a fan site. And given the editor's colorful talk page, it seems like they've had some trouble in the past in determining what is and is not a suitable reference. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fansite, and at the bottom of the "Biography" page from which some, at least, of the information added to the article was taken is the notation "Source: Wikipedia, IMDB, TV"; so I'd say no, not an RS. (The bio page does, however, say that her family moved to the Poconos for a more peaceful environment, not a "more peaceful argument".) Deor (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It's now hours later and I'm home. It's a fan site and not a WP:RS. Dismas|^(talk) 12:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cheque

I want to reissue refund order of Moil IPO against second holder ,As It is being issued with name 1st holder,AND BANK A/C is of 2nd holder only,there is no joint a/c in bank and now it is not possible to for joint a/c in bank for ,I am facing problem during it's deposition in bank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.6.144 (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IPs

So, I came on this morning and was surprised to discover that my IP address had been blocked for something that was nothing to do with me. It took me a while to find that out too, I noticed some of the edit tags had disappeared, but others were still there, and discovered the block only whilst attempting to ask why. Now, it says on the message that comes up that I will have a post on my talk page explaining everything, including how to argue against the block, but there isn't one. So, I have no idea how to go about contesting this.

A few moments research has led me to believe that all IPs begining 148.197 have been blocked here, I know that extends all the way up to 148.197.120.206, and beyond, which seems to me a rather large number of people, a sizeable portion of the city, or at least the entire building, which by strange coincidence has the same name as the person administering the block. I begin to suspect some sort of conspiracy.

So, I would like to ask, how am I to go about fixing this, and why is it that perhaps hundreds of people are forbidden from editing this site for what seems to be one offence?

For the record, I was actually intending to create a new username here some time soon, but read that this is considered bad form whilst blocked, so I dug around a bit and revived my old username, that I had hoped to have nothing more to do with. It doesn't say anything about that, at least not anywhere I have seen.

HS7 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RANGE discusses block ranges of IP addresses. The list at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption/log includes registered editors who have been caught in range blocks. Wikipedia:IP block exemption notes that normally, long-term blocks of IP addresses or ranges do not affect logged-in editors. However, it is occasionally necessary to block both anonymous and logged-in editors in this way to prevent disruption. Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption#Removal discusses IP exemptions to registered user names (and it appears in the editors logs as in this). However, it is not clear as to whether your actual IP address can receive an IP exemption from an IP range block. Post on your IP address talk page explaining how you believe that your IP address should not be block and ask why it was blocked. If it was blocked as part of a rangeblock, ask for an IP exemption and the admin should direct you as to what you need to do. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block is for unregistered users only, so block exemption is not applicable. And it's only until later today, so there may not be enough time to deal with it. However it does seem a rather extreme block, though I don't know the background to it. The whole of the University of Portsmouth is blocked.[1]. You should ask the blocking admin on their talk page why it's necessary to block so many IP addresses. Make your complaint known to him. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent sexism in some categories?

I was just reviewing an article on a female poet from the Phillipines for the DYK section when I noticed she had been added to two categories that seemed to imply a sexual bias: "Filipino poets" and "Filipino writers". Now, a female person from the Phillipines is properly referred to as "Filipina", NOT "Filipino". I have, therefore, changed the categories on the article on Ivy Alvarez to reflect this and inserted appropriate redirects - but they still take one to the pages "Category:Filipino poets" and "Category:Filipino writers". I believe these category names should be changed so they don't show a sex bias - to something like: "Category:Poets from the Phillipines". Do others agree with me? If so, can someone please either make the change or tell me how to do it? I can't figure out how to move the pages. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed. For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr|ProposedName}}. A prior CfD here mentions the Filipina Filipino issue, but doesn't seem to focus on it. The only non redirect categories using Filipina are Category:Filipina ballerinas and Category:Filipina beauty pageant winners. There's Category:Filipino women writers and Category:Filipino women by occupation. If you pursue this at CfD, you might want to propose changes to make these all consistent. Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality may provide some guidance. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino is common for both men and women. Outside the country I think women are more often called Filipino than Filipina. I don't think we should have separate gender categories merely to be able to say Filipina. Category redirects are not to be used like piped links just because somebody thinks another category name would look better on some articles. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Category redirects. The current change of Ivy Alvarez to Category:Filipina poets means she is not shown in Category:Filipino poets. She is only shown at all if the redirect on Category:Filipina poets is avoided like in http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Category:Filipina_poets&redirect=no which cannot be wikilinked. Category redirects can be used on renamed categories so history versions still have functioning category links, but they should not contain articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English, "Filipino" is invariable, like all other national adjectives, at least for most speakers. (Evidence: In the OED, searching for 'Filipina' goes to 'Filipino', which lists "Filipina" as another form; The Corpus of Contemporary American English has 1160 hits for "Filipino", 118 for "Filipina") --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent Category:Filipina poets for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 7#Category:Filipina poets. – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Britons born outside the UK

Hi. I've just created a basic biography for a British person who was born outside the UK, and was just wondering if there's a particular category for this type of person. The individual is Jo Good who was born in Kuwait. What is the procedure here? Should I add people from Kuwait (a category we don't currently have) or is there something else to cover this kind of situation? Thanks. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Kuwaiti diaspora. Add her to a subcategory. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, cheers. I've created Category:British people of Kuwaiti descent as a subcategory and added her to there. She is evidently an "RAF brat" so there's probably lots of cases of this sort of thing where people have been born abroad because their parents were serving in various parts of the world.. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely that she is "of Kuwaiti descent" if a father was a British serviceman. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first post was apparently based on false assumptions. If she was born as a British citizen of British parents with no Kuwaiti descent who just happened to be serving in Kuwait at the time of birth but not permanently living there, then it shouldn't be used for categorization. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do, I wonder? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've created Category:People from Kuwait after finding Hannah Whelan, who was born in Singapore but is from Stockport and is included in Category:People from Singapore. That seems like the best solution to this. As I said before, there are probably numerous people who fall into these sorts of categories. I wonder if we need a British citizens born overseas category or something like that. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most general answer to this issue is that we don't usually categorize people by place of birth. In numerous discussions, there has been a broad consensus that place of birth is not particularly defining for a person. It is information that of course should be included in an article, but we don't categorize by it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So all those "People from..." categories don't/shouldn't refer to where a person is born? – ukexpat (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't, unless of course the person is "from" the same place that they were born. The "People from XXXX" categories are intended to be for people who resided in that place, not for people who were just born there but always resided elsewhere. How closely this is followed is a matter of some debate. Undoubtedly there are many examples where people are put in these categories even if they were just born there, but whenever the issue has been discussed, there's been agreement that these "should" be used as residence categories, and not as birthplace categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page

Help - just spent all afternoon on a page and it seems to have been saved to cyber space... can't find it on Wikipedia. Where's it gone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarrer (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it still exists - see here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit while logged in, check your contributions to see what you have edited, that has not been deleted yet. See Help:User contributions and Help:Page history. --Teratornis (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiat Ducato

Hi I have a Fiat Ducato 14 2.8JTD 2003 DIESEL and one of the tappets is noisy are they shimmed adjustable by spanners or hydraulic please.80.253.195.34 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Peter Pearce[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous 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 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. -- œ ^™ 20:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clue Bot III is archiving wrong

hello,

please look at this revision history. Everytime the bot moves my archive index to User talk:GreatOrangePumpkin/archive index/2011/March. How's that? Please can someone find the mistake? Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you asked it to do exactly what it does. Remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding infobox about an academic

I have been editing the article about John Clarke Slater. The infobox mentions just two of his graduate students. I assume this is for graduate students who went on to major accomplishments. Can I include (1) George Vineyard, who became Director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory and President of the American Physical Society, (2) George F. Koster, who made major contribution to use of group theory in solid state physics, and four or five other academics who did their Ph.D.s with Slater, became pre-eminent in their respective fields (verifiable from accounts of their work) even though they are not the subjects of WK articles? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation for {{Infobox scientist}} says you should not include these names:

Insert names of doctoral students supervised by the scientist. If a student does not have a wiki article, then comment the name out. It can be reinstated once such an article appears. The idea is to list only those students who are significant enough to warrant their own article

-- John of Reading (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am being cautious, so I did not put them in, so do not need to comment them out. But this raises another question. I knew/know dozens of research scientists and scientific administrators who meet my (inexperienced) interpretation of criteria of notability, who I think should have links from existing articles by dint, e.g. having been knighted, made a Companion of the Order of the Bath and so on. I realize that my interpretation of verifiable notability may not pass muster, but I would like to try getting these people into WK. What is the minimum I can do -- time is inelastic, and the reason I remember these people and know where to find verifiable information about their achievements is also the reason I have to be careful with what I spend time on. Do knighthoods, life-time peerages, vice-chancellorships, presidencies of major professional organizations typically sail through, or can these become contentious. Or is this a "how long is a piece of string" question? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is generally dependent on the existence of independent documentation about the subject per the general notability guidelines, news reports about the knighthoods and other honours conferred on the subject would generally be regarded as sufficient. An article in a reputable newspaper saying "Professor Higgins was knighted in a brief ceremony at Buckingham Palace today in recognition of his lifetime of work in linguistics....", would most probably pass muster. Citing the subject's own works cannot be used to substantiate notability and are also subject to certain limitations described in the guidelines on self published sources. Roger (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the knighthoods, regrettably the recipients are no longer with us, but I can refer to Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society and obituaries in The Guardian. But this leaves the question, can I start an article for such a person by just writing a lede, without any sections that follow? Meta-question: how could I have found out without asking? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bug in Indonesian version of the SUL template

Hi! I think there may be a bug in the Indonesian version of the SUL template, at id:Templat:User SUL

A user named id:Pengguna:Wagino 20100516 is trying to use the template, but the template links to http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Wagino , which doesn't exist. The correct location is http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Wagino+20100516 . Would anyone mind looking at the issue? The English version of the template is at Template:User SUL Box - The English template, if it was placed on his userpage, works correctly. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It fails to encode the url when it makes an external link. I'm not comfortable editing templates in a foreign language but try replacing http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user={{PAGENAME}} by http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user={{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the assistance. It has been resolve (replacing the {{PAGENAME}} with {{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}}). Cheers — Tjmoel^bicara 13:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PAGENAME should only be url encoded when it's part of a url, and that only occurred in the one case I gave. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]