Help desk
< May 11	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 13 >

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 12

Deutschland

what are the conditions for a girl/boy,if she/he is studying in Germany and wants to invite his/her spouse from pakistan?Is there any condition of job in germany?Someone told me that if he/she is studying full-time then there is no condition.But if their study is part-time then they must have a job of 1200 Euro per month.Is this correct? My wife is in Germany.we recently got engaged,how can she invite me to Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yawar101 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia.
For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk. Chzz ► 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

problem in submitting the Article for review. "This page is only for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Science of Analytics. "

I am getting the error while I am submitting the Article for review. "This page is only for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Science of Analytics. "

What can I do to submit my article?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert.Analyst (talk • contribs) 05:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could try again. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Science of Analytics doesn't exist and your username only has the above question as its only contribution. I assume you went to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, followed the 6 steps in the wizard, entered "Science of Analytics" in the first text box of that last page and clicked the "Submit new article for review" button (although it might have been better to use "create a new userspace draft" instead), so it should work. Astronaut (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appopriate...

Is it appropriate to add a section to Burj Khalifa about a recent suicide? I suspect not, but an anon editor has accused me of whitewashing the image of the building when I removed the section they had added. Would this fall under WP:NOTNEWS? Astronaut (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single suicide, while a sad event, doesn't mean very much in the greater history of the building. Giving it an entire section, would give the event undue weight. I would only mention it, if it received significant media attention and leave the coverage at one or two lines summarizing it. --Mgm|^(talk) 07:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did receive significant media attention. I guess because it was the first suicide from the building. A line at the maximum... Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Physics project

I have just added my name to the list of participants for WikiProject Physics. I can't figure out how to introduce a concern. For example, I think two pages should be merged, and I would like to express this. How do I do this? On the main page it says "If you plan to be active in editing articles relating to physics, please add your name and your interests to the participants list. Concrete proposals, suggestions and activities are discussed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics page, and any and all interested parties are encouraged to join up and participate. "

So I added my name and interests, and then I try to go to the discussion tab on the main page, where it says "If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks."

I don't understand how to add a new topic on the discussion page. There is a way to edit the individual topics, but not to add a topic for discussion for the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceoftrades (talk • contribs) 06:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a header to separate your new question from my question just above. Astronaut (talk)

If you just want to merge two articles, you can read WP:MERGE for guidance. Is doesn't have to be done through the Physics Project. If you prefer to discuss your proposed merge and other topics with other project members, you can start a new discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics (hint: click the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page).

Incidentally, I have corrected the links to your user, user talk, and contributions list on the project members page, they were all pointing elsewhere. Astronaut (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk page message

Hello, I have just gone into your site and there is a message saying that I have edited something incorrectly or due to lack of authorisation. I have no idea what this means as I didnt even know that the general public could edit. I have no reason to edit anything on your site either. I clicked on new message and it told me to go to cluebot? No idea what it is talking about. This is the heading on the message I received "User talk:124.180.156.10". Sorry, but again I don't know or understand what it is a reference to. If I have done something I shouldn't have, please let me know what and how I did it so that I don't do it again. So sorry for any problems I may have caused. K 124.180.156.10 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can disregard the message, it was given out in 2010 to whomever was using the IP address you are using today. GB fan (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually Wikipedia is edited only by the general public, everyone here is a volunteer. To edit a page, all you have to do is click the "edit" tab at the top. Since you do not have an account the website identifies you by your IP address; it is quite possible that that message was meant for someone else who was using your network or (since the addresses can change) someone totally unconnected to you. It might be a good idea to create an account (click here to do so) as then you won't be getting messages meant for this other user. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I let evaluate if a source counts as third-party source or not.

In an article I am editing there are sources and it is not clear to me if these sources count as third-party sources per WP:THIRDPARTY. Where can I bring this up in order to receive clarification? Would WP:RSN be the right place in order to have the sources checked? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats the correct place. mabdul 12:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hello there. If I come across an article which I think doesn't meet the notability standards, how can I tag it for the attention of others? Thanks in advance. Styggron (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could add Template:Notability to the top of the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual code being {{Notability}}. – ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Where do I put the code? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Styggron (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again to the both of you. Styggron (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request restore of Deleted Article Zeta Phi Beta 1957 to user area

I would like Zeta Phi Beta 1957 restored to a personal page (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zeta_Phi_Beta_1957). I'd request the original admin who closed the debate, but that administrator User:Mikkalai has been banned as a sockpuppet. Note, if it can fixed and restored as an article, I intend to have the name as Zeta Phi Beta (Fraternity) (not sure if Fraternity as a disambiguation modifier should be capitalized or not). The fraternity is in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean, so I expect some of the same reference issues as for the Philippine Fraternities and Sororities, but not *quite* as bad. I also intend to use some of the information from the page for the Fraternity on the Spanish language wikipedia (es:Zeta_Phi_Beta) (yes, the interlanguage links will get odd considering that the Zeta Phi Beta articles on the two wikipedias will refer to different groups, but I'm sure that has happened somewhere before) but given the lack of references over there, I'd like to see if the article Deleted here had any secondary sources. (quite willing to take comments on my strategy as well as my request. :) )Naraht (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to ask for this is WP:REFUND GB fan (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now submitted it there, even though this case doesn't quite seem to line up with the criteria since it was a discussed AFD, but, if rejected for that reason, at least they'll tell me where to go. Any feeling on whether the restored article should be Zeta Phi Beta (Fraternity) or Zeta Phi Beta (fraternity) (capitalize the 'f'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 14:45, 12 May 2011

Since fraternity is not a proper noun it should be lowercase. GB fan (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word fraternity shouldn't be used in a disambiguation either way since any other article by the same name is likely going to be about a fraternity as well. Isn't this a national chapter of Zeta Phi Beta? I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, but I seem to remember that unless a local or national chapter is particularly notable (as determined by impartial people), there should not be an article for every such chapter. --Mgm|^(talk) 14:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Phi Beta is a sorority, this is a fraternity in Puerto Rico by the same name. It should be Zeta Phi Beta (fraternity), but it needs a lot more references to establish notability. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global editor survey

When are the results from this survey (also here) going to be released? The Wikimedia foundation does a terrible job documenting what they do, and the pages haven't been updated since April. Buddy431 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that it says "Every registered user (editor) will see a notification once to participate in the survey. Anyone may click on this link and participate in the survey." I don't believe that I ever saw such a notification, so this is the first I knew of the existence of the survey. Was I the only one to be omitted? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The results from the editor survey are going to be shared in a staggered manner starting June. A detailed announcement will be coming soon. Yes, every registered user saw the notification to the survey, no one was omitted :) May be you missed it since the notification was shown only once to control for sample bias. Manipande (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

downloading and using the wikipeda archive on pc

i had the archive on my ipod touch but it was stollen i want the same thing but for my pc how do i get it if it is possible and once iget it how do i use it? and how much space would it take up?

There's some information at Wikipedia:Database download. The smallest usable download is around 6 Gigabytes and uncompresses to over 30 Gig; that doesn't include any pictures. And using these downloads is not easy, either. So I'm pretty sure that whatever you had on your iPod was not a full Wikipedia archive. Can you give a fuller description of the software/data that was stolen? Then perhaps someone here will be able to give better help than this. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup template for overly long further reading section

Is there a policy or guideline regarding Further reading sections that indicates how long a Further reading section should be? Also, if a further reading section were found to be overly long according to that policy or guideline, is there a specific cleanup template for such sections? I looked through the cleanup templates but was not able to find such a template. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Further reading and Wikipedia:Further reading, but note that it is proposed, and up-for-debate.
{{Further reading cleanup}} might be a suitable template to use - but, probably better, would be to try and boldly fix it; ie prune away. If you're a bit unsure about if some are appropriate or not, consider explaining things on the article talk page (even copying over the ones you removed), so others can always stick them back if they disagree. Chzz ► 16:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Chzz. The article where this occurs is Wolstenholme prime. After rewriting parts of the article, some references there became unused, and therefore I moved them to Further reading. I am going to add Template:Further reading cleanup to the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about List: Some red, some blue.

In the article http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Elmore_Leonard In the list of his novels some titles are in red while some are blue. What is the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.61.208 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click them. The blue ones link to existing articles (such as Hombre (novel)), the red ones are articles that do not yet exist (but probably should) - maybe you could write one. See WP:REDLINK and perhaps Wikipedia:Why create an account? and WP:FIRST. Chzz ► 16:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company Page Created by Unreliable Source

To whom it may concern,

Could you please remove the Wikipedia page for Guru Studio (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Guru_Studios) has incorrect information about our organization which did not come from a reliable resource (our organization)? We are unable to trace the source who created the page in order to modify the page with valid information.

Important information, i.e. the Page title (Should read “Guru Studio”—not “Guru Studios”), as well the logo is inaccurate, and as a company we are unable to edit this information since we did not create the page. Our company website which sites the correct information can be found here (www.gurustudio.com).

We request that you please remove the following page (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Guru_Studios)as soon as possible so that Guru Studio can create a new, and correct page under our own profile.

Thank you in advance! We look forward to your reply and we really appreciate your help.

Regards,

Guru Studio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.196.195 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page (to rename it), to Guru Studio.
I'll change the logo, shortly
I've removed all the unreferenced stuff.
Note, articles are not related to anyone's log-in name. Anyone can edit any article.

You should not create a user account called "Guru Studio" (or anything like that) - doing so is against our username policy.

Before editing the article, please carefully read about conflict of interest, and, especially, the business FAQ.

Chzz ► 16:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've changed the logo. But, the article has been tagged for deletion (by another editor), as there is nothing to show why the company meets the notability requirements - please refer to WP:VRS and WP:CORP for information about that. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your organisation is not a reliable source (except for uncontroversial factual information). A company may be expected to present information about itself in a favourable light, which may include omitting or misrepresenting unfavourable events or criticism. This is perfectly reasonable behaviour for a company, but it is not acceptable for Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refrence link is broken

To whom may concern,

I happened to work for one of the references that pertains to the wiki page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Condylactis_gigantea One of the references listed is "http://life.nbii.gov/details.php?id=65741&cat=Corals" which is broken. I believe when we built our new site the old links ended up broken.

The correct link should be http://life.nbii.gov/dml/mediadetail.do?id=4837 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.11.40.226 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, http://life.nbii.gov/dml/mediadetail.do?id=4837 does not work for me either - it says "Whoops! Something isn't right here.... Session expired!". Chzz ► 18:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same thing you did, Chzz; but when I tried it again just now, the URL worked. Deor (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consistently get the "Session expired" message the first time after not having been at the site for a long time, or if I try in another browser. It always works when I then reload. The site must be set up to give this error if you go directly to this subpage from an external site. I have added an ugly note to the article.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User adds false information to articles

There is a user who adds unverifiable and false information (supposed facts that I cannot verify) to articles. At first, I thought the user was attempting to make good faith edits without giving sources. But I could not verify the false information the user added. The edits, while annoying, are not very disruptive at this time. Is the addition of unverifiable and false information considered to be vandalism? Or something else? It appears that the user has stopped being disruptive now. Where do I report the user if he or she becomes more disruptive? I rather not name any names or IP addresses now. Thanks for understanding. Bye Starionwolf (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted to discuss with the user in question? Please post some diffs so we can take a look at the edits. – ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor did place a notice regarding the non-constructive edits. I did find some possible vandalism at:

[2] As I said above, the IP address seems to have stopped being disruptive. There is no edit warring going on, nor is there any real conflict of interest. I would like to know what to do if this user / IP address becomes more disruptive by adding more false information or removing large amounts of text as in Chipmunk_Adventure. Other revisions that may be helpful [3] [4] - There is no episode called "fifi white & the 20 dwarfs" in Tiny Toon Adventures. Sorry for the formatting issues: I'm not used to typing onto pages likes these. Starionwolf (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor and I have left notices regarding test edits and how to be a constructive editor. The user has not edited Wikipedir since May 9. I did find another edit that this IP address made: [5] I cannot find any evidence that the episodes "cinderella mouse" and snow white mouse and the 5 dwarfs exist.

Bye Starionwolf (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's user warning templates you can place on the user's talk page. If they get too many of those in a short time, they can be blocked from editing for a while. To request a block, WP:AIV is the place to go. However, the vandalism must be recent and ongoing, and they must have been sufficiently warned for admins to do anything. Be prepared to back up your claims with diffs if necessary. Astronaut (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the advice. The user seems to have stopped inserting false and random thoughts into articles. Bye Starionwolf (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamps

Is there a way to configure my signature so that instead of the day month format I get the month day format instead? Right now I'm typing them out myself by hand. Thanks. Yoshirocks8 (talk) 20:11 May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Go into "My Preferences" and under Date/Time you will be able to set how dates appear to you. It is preferable to let the website format it for you as it displays instead of forcing everyone to see your signature date in your format (which may not be how they want it). -- kainaw ™ 20:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that SineBot and the various archiving bots need to decode the timestamps. If you don't use the standard format they may get confused. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did that already, but that only seems to affect server generated times, such as those in the page history. Actual text times don't seem to be affected. Yoshirocks8 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insert the current date permenantly?

How do you insert the current date permenantly (i.e. like {{date}} but without change). - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 21:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By substitution. — Bility (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this work in a template? - Presidentman (talk · contribs) (Talkback) Random Picture of the Day 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you'd have to add <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> so it doesn't get subst'd when you save your template. — Bility (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballowharf

Can someone clean up an article I started called Ballowharf about a town in Northern_Province,_Sierra_Leone? I started the article but it needs for more info. Neptunekh2 (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you start it? Is it notable? Is it spelled "Ballowharf" or "Ballo Wharf" (I've seen both)? How many people live there? Maybe one of the Wiki projects could help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, geographical locations (towns, cities, countries, etc) were inherently notable. However, before you start an article, you have to make sure that you have more information than is currently in the article. I'd recommend finding a suitable wikiproject and ask them to create a sizeable article. - Mgm|^(talk) 06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you check? I looked for notability guidelines for places and didn't see them. Of course, they could be buried somewhere I didn't look. Also, Neptune describes the place as a "community", whatever that means. At some point, a place can't (shouldn't?) be notable (neighborhood, a particular street).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very difficult to clean up an article that contains no information, has no sources and (after searching the web) is about, as far as I can ascertain, a remote village in northern Sierra Leone which is not in the least bit notable (only reference I can find is in French, an Amnesty press release from 2001, where there is a passing reference to the villages of "Barbara, Barlo Wharf et Konakridee."). Oh and the correct name is Ballo Wharf or Barlo Wharf.
Can some other editor(s) confirm that this justifies a WP:CSD under A3, no content? And, if so, kindly tag it? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to know why Mgm thinks every place is notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]