Help desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 22

Pronunciation of English words: IPA hover-key and phonetic respelling

Despite all of the great things that can be said about IPA, most people aren't interested in learning it when opening a wikipedia article, and a standard IPA pronunciation key isn't much help to most people. I was very pleased when I learned about the two methods of helping people that: the Pronunciation respelling key, and the IPA hover key which shows the pronunciation of each IPA symbol with an example when you hover over it. My question is, though, why aren't they more commonly used? I rarely find them in articles that have difficult pronunciations. Is there some sort of policy against them, or would it be alright to add them to every article that already has an IPA key? I can't see any downsides to including them; certainly not for the hover-key. Seriously, why isn't the hover functionality just there by default? Strange Quirk (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but I know there are others who disagree. The hovering text seems like an elegant solution, but unfortunately it conflicts with WP:ACCESS (see WP:NOSYMBOLS point #3) because some computers can't render it and, more significantly, TTS text-readers don't read the text so blind readers are left in the lurch. I think that in the few places where you do see it, it is redundant information so blind users aren't disadvantaged. -Thibbs (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Pope TV Producer

wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jeff_Pope Jeff Pope British Film and TV Producer was born on October 2nd 1961, not in 1959 as currently stated. This posted by me, Jeff Pope. 203.45.89.8 (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a website or do you know of any books/magazines/etc where this fact appears? The previous date (1959) has been removed, but to add your correct birthdate we need a reliable source. -Thibbs (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

link to a virus

I don't know how to delete anything here, and I don't know where else to post this, since I can't find somewhere to post about a wikipedia link that leads to a trojan horse site (according to my anti-virus software).

The link that contains a trojan horse is an external link called: Jack D. Schwager, The Unofficial Fan Website. That link can be found at the wikipedia page for Jack D. Schwager

Thanks in advance to anyone who kills the link, A_Concerned_User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.26.5 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My anti-virus software did not verify your concern. — O'Dea (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

setting up an online curriculum for high school students - advanced learning

Hi, My niece is in high school and is interested in history, however their curriculum is very elementary and does not challenge her. Is there a way to set up an online reading assignment where I can assign topics on a weekly basis and she gets email notification. If there is an option to set this up, then I want to propose it to her high school, giving other students to join the list. My goal is to create an online independent study program for those motivated and wanting to further their knowledge base but don't have the direction or resources. Currently high schools here don't offer advanced level classes and I wanted to introduce that but via electronic independent learning. Using wikipedia and its articles to set up a curriculum. Thanks Ajay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docajay (talk • contribs) 03:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not offer such a facility. — O'Dea (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles William Paddock's nickname/byname is "CHARLEY",,, NOT `Charlie` !

We CAN'T seem to correct our grandpa's name, on the title from `Charlie` to the Correct name "CHARLEY"

We have proof!!!...We have a bunch of his autograph's, on books and photo's ...And he ALWAYS signed his name "CHARLEY" !!

Pleaase help us (The Paddock's) fix this error, on the title...We already changed the contents, but we CAN'T change the title!

Here is the page with the error:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Charles_Paddock

We Thank you.

[OFFICIAL Site For: Charles "Charley" Paddock] www.CharlesPaddock.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.148 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph posted at that website (I could not verify if it is "official" as claimed) shows the name spelled Charlie". — O'Dea (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That particular photograph and some newspaper articles do refer to him as Charlie, but many also use Charley. The website is consistent in using Charley, but I was convinced by the articles he wrote for Collier's Weekly, which all have his name as "Charley Paddock". I've gone ahead and moved the page. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 12:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the duplicate text from your question. There's no need to ask it twice. Astronaut (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa wife of Paul Burlison and former Playboy Bunnie in Chicago, also Lisa was a Diplomatic Courier for the Fifth Corp, 70's out of AG Farben Building, Germany

Lisa Burlison widow of Paul Burlison, Lisa also a former Playboy Bunnie in Chicago and she was also a Diplomatic Courier working out of the AG Farben Building in Frankfurt rhine Main, Germany, At this Lisa became a good friend to Kris Krisstopherson in the '70s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.4.221 (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No! Seriously? — O'Dea (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to create an article about Lisa Burlison, then you are encouraged to create an account for yourself and then start editing. You should note that multiple reliable sources will be a must if you want the article to survive deletion and also the topic of the article must be notable in it's own right. So Lisa's connection to Paul Burlison shouldn't be the basis for her notability. She must be independently notable. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to simply expand coverage of her under the Paul Burlison article. You will still need reliable sources for reference, though. -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing a redirct

Here is my issue. I am working on an article, List of equestrian statues in the United States. I was entering a work by sculptor Electra Waggoner Biggs, whom I was pretty sure that there would be no article about, and I was prepared to do a stub. However her name came up as a link, only it is a redirect, a link to one of her works - interestingly enough, the one I was going to enter on the list. The article that she is redirected to, Riding Into the Sunset is not a good article and needs some serious work, which I can do. Later. For now I'd like Electra Waggoner Biggs to be able to have her own article and Riding into the Sunset can also have an article. I don't know how to undo or remove a redirect. Do you? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to its viewable history, it has only existed as a redirect. Your choices seem to be to Wikipedia:Be bold, edit the page removing the redirect, replacing it with the biography, or to develop the article and then list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, requesting endorsement of the change. Dru of Id (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this help desk section and the two other articles you cited are as yet the only ones which link there. Dru of Id (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dru. I don't mind being bold, I don't like being stupid. I got the redirect out and put a little placer in that will do for now. Life is good, Carptrash (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your change. An article with no significant content is likely to be deleted, so I've reverted to the redirect until you have time to write an acceptable article. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trans terms

Trans terms are, by their very nature, extremely ambiguous. Instead of woman, man, etc, it's person, people, etc.. For many articles, ambiguous terms are fine. For others though, there seems to be a gray area. I reverted an edit on one of those potentially gray articles this evening. The user was clearly trying to make the article more Trans friendly (given their previous edit). The one edit should be reverted as it was addressing a specific woman in the study. The other one is the reason I made this post.

In my opinion, given that the article is about a product that affects those of the population who are biologically female, the switch to ambiguous terms seems unnecessary and a bit confusing, considering we're talking about a medical issue here and transgendered persons are still very, very rare. But, should it be ambiguous? I'm just thinking about all the articles something like this could affect (pregnancy, breastfeeding, menstruation, ejaculation, testicles, etc) and I'm just not sure where the community stands, as a whole. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 05:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity. Dru of Id (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question at all. That addresses specific people, not people in general. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 06:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very basic guidance from the introduction of Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Dru of Id (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: When rolling over a link to an article, display a small summary of the article in a tool-tip.

It would save lots of time when reading an article with many links to other articles if I could roll/drag over the link and, after a half-second delay, see a small 1 or 2-sentence summary or definition of the term or article that it links to. It might also save Wikipedia some bandwidth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.243.111 (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is already available. If you register an account, which is free and quick, you can enable "Navigation popups" which does exactly this. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHO HAS ACCESS TO ARTICLE 18 USC SECTION 2257

Who has access to article 18 of the USC section 2257. I have written a registered letter to one of the custodian keepers as displayed on the website but this was returned unclaimed due to it being an insufficient address...how is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.59.150 (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain "ARTICLE 18 USC SECTION 2257". — O'Dea (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia built by volunteers from all over the world via the internet. This help desk is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia itself. You might want to ask your question again at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, which is the right place to ask knowledge questions. Best of luck. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested from what I can gather, 18 USC Section 2257 refers to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, or some portion thereof. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012RIQUIER

2012RIQUIER existe bel et bien...!!! Voir son article dans le Journal de l'IBNS 2012 Volume 51, Number 1 pages 47 & 48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2012RIQUIER (talk • contribs) 08:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation via Google translator:

2012RIQUIER does exist ...! See his article in the Journal of the IBNS 2012 Volume 51, Number 1 Pages 47 & 48

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help re Leila Berg, author, who died 17/4/12

Re: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Leila_Berg

My mother Leila Berg, author, died on Tuesday 17 April 2012. A few days ago.

It has only just occurred to me to look at her entry in Wikepedia.

I have not visited this entry for years but it seems to me that it is vastly changed since I did.

The content is far shorter, inadequate to her achievement, contribution and influence on children's literature and re alternative education.

Biographical information is totally inadequate.

We, my sister and myself, have been mystified by the lack of response from press about her death.

I have seen from the statistics that there has been a clear jump in visits to the page, but nothing like the size to be expected.

I am therefore assuming that the press response has been influenced by the contents of the page, and feel very distressed about it.

I am absolutely in shock, on top of still trying to deal with her death, at what is happening, or more accurately, not happening.

Leila was an important children's author. Her papers re work for children are being archived at Seven Stories archive of British children's literature attached to Newcastle University http://www.sevenstories.org.uk/. Her papers re work for adults are being archived at The Institute of Education, University of London http://www.ioe.ac.uk/services/.

She has her own (admittedly primitive) website which I created myself years ago at www.aspects.co.uk/~leilaberg.

We have not been contacted by anyone about editing her page and do not know the people who have meddled with it.

ParamBerg (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, every sympathy for your sad loss.

If you go to the Article you have linked and click the "View history" tab at the top, you can see a complete list of all the revisions that have been made to it since its creation: each entry includes the User ID of the Editor who made the change, and links to both the resulting "Cur"rent and the preceding "Prev"ious versions, with the changes highlighted, so none of the information ever entered in the article is inaccessible, even if it has been deleted from the visible article itself.

Each "History" entry includes the overall resulting size of the article in bytes, and these figures show an overall steady increase in the article's length from 3,577 bytes in October 2005 to 4,599 as of 20 April 2012. This suggests that you are misremembering the previous state of the article – perhaps you are conflating it with an article you saw somewhere else. Although I have not examined every revision in detail, I do not at first glance notice any obvious evidence of any vast changes or inappropriate meddling, but only good-faith attempts to improve the article.

Wikipedia is intentionally "The Encyclopedia anyone can edit" so there is no reason for anyone who has edited the article to have contacted its subject or her relatives/representatives before doing so – if there were, the Encyclopedia would probably be much shorter! However, all contributions (or deletions) are supposed to be based on cited, verifiable (i.e. published) sources, so that both false information (which people sometimes insert maliciously as "vandalism", or mistakenly through genuine belief), and unnecessary deletions (which may be made on judgements of style, appropriateness, etc) are minimised: other interested editors usually evaluate article changes and revert or modify them if they think them inappropriate, and overall this "mutual policing" approach works quite well, although it can never be perfect. Unfortunately, but necessarily, it also precludes true information added on the basis of a contributor's personal knowledge without independently verifiable proof.

As someone with a lifelong active interest in fiction writing (and a former professional non-fiction editor), I can understand your distress at what must seem an inadequate immediate press response to your Mother's death, but my own experience is that most writers, though important to us for whatever reason, are not so prominent in the minds of the public as a whole (or the press's interpretation of the public's interests), and only really major and current "household names" receive extensive, immediate coverage in the daily press. It may very well be that more considered, in-depth articles about Leila Berg will appear in due course in weekly or monthly periodicals.

In due course you may want to contribute improvements to the article, which you can do as readily as anyone else. However, if you do, please first look up and be mindful of the policies surrounding possible conflicts of interest, and the need to provide published references for any information.

Once again, I am sure I can speak for everyone in expressing my sympathies for your loss. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.5 (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I echo 90.197.66.5's comments and I am sorry for your loss. Regarding your capacity to improve the article, ParamBerg, 90.197.66.5 is correct that you need to be mindful of WP:COI if you are editing the article, but one very good way to avoid COI problems is to limit your contributions to the presentation of reliable sources about your mother. Being so close to the subject of the article you may be an invaluable source of leads regarding books, magazine articles, academic papers, and other sources that have covered her and her work. The sourcing for this article is currently rather scant and it would be extremely beneficial to the article to get up some good solid sources to verify the information currently present and to bolster new information that would enable the article to grow. Again, my deepest sympathies for your loss. And thank you for your interest in Wikipedia's coverage of your mother. -Thibbs (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ...

hello! where can I find a list of all the "Comparison of ..." wikipedia webpages? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.61.165 (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this search of some help? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comparisons and its subcategories might be what you're looking for. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 12:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or this. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 13:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defining several parameters of a specific template

Is it possible to define more than one problem when using Template:Unsolved? In an article where this template is used, I would like to state more than one unsolved problem relating to the topic of the article. Should I simply use more than one instance of the template (which is not what I would prefer) or is there a possibility to define several problems via a single instance of the template? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the template supports that, but you can use a wikitable to produce something like this. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 13:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in X
Y
Z

Thanks, but I don't really like that solution. I think I am going to create a new version of this template that supports multiple parameters. I guess I need to experiment a bit. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

appearance/skin for unregistered user in FireFox

Normally, wiki.riteme.site is the default home page on my Firefox browser, which I use as an unregistered user unless I want to edit a wiki page. Before I installed Mcafee, I ran something that deleted some information including some cookies; now, my default home page is without frames: it has a "navigation" and "search" linked way down the page. If I log into Wikipedia, everything is fine, using the skin specified in my user preferences. I just want a non-mobile skin as an unregistered user in Firefox. From Microsoft IE, as an unregistered Wikipedia user, wiki.riteme.site looks fine. Logging into our computer as either my wife or kids, in either IE or Firefox, wiki.riteme.site looks fine as an unregistered user. What was deleted and what can be restored to have a better appearance as an unregistered user in Firefox, my browser preference? Dagordon01 (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clear your entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It worked. Not sure what got deleted in the process, but thank you. Dagordon01 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE VOICE UK FINAL CONTESTANTS KATE READ

Hi there, my names Clare Read, Kate Reads mother who is currently part of the voice uk. We noticed that under Kate's name it says she was part of some group named the Kittenettes.. This isn't actually true- infant we've never even heard about any of this. Can you please delete this false information as its Kate's reputation. Please ackownledge by email & confirm that you have done this to <email address removed> , thank you.

Clare Read — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClareRead0610 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced material has been removed. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Rule

I'm a bit confused, and it has been a while since I've dealt with it. Does a BLP require at least one source which can be an external link or does it need to be an inline citation? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP states that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". So the answer to your question depends on whether you are seeking to add an additional external link to a BLP to generally improve it or whether you are trying to use a generic external link to source "material challenged or likely to be challenged". You should probably try to use an inline citation if possible, but if you are just adding a helpful external link then BLP's external link guideline can be found at WP:BLPEL. -Thibbs (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that WP:N also applies, and in order to demonstrate notability of the subject, "multiple [reliable] sources are generally expected". So I think you should aim for a bare minimum of 2 independent sources and really you should try to get more than the bare minimum in order to be truly safe from the deletion squad. -Thibbs (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I was specifically referring to the BLP-PROD. If an article has nothing but a single external link, can it still be deleted under BLP-PROD? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the short answer is yes. If the link is identified as an "External Link" (i.e. it is located in the "External links" subsection of the article) then it is not being explicitly used as a reference. General references must be located under a "References" (or probably "Citations", "Sources", etc.) subsection in order to be considered verifying material. Of course some degree of critical thinking should enter into the decision, though, as new editors may have mistakenly called the "General Reference" an "External link". Malformed references, if reliable, are sufficient to meet the burden of Verifiability. If possible I'd change the external link into an inline citation and properly ref the BLP before PRODing it. But in the case of BLPs, Wikipedia tends to err on the side of caution so I think that if in doubt you might be more often correct to nominate it for deletion than to let it slide. A possible alternative to the PROD is just running it through the normal AfD process if reliable sourcing is evident through an external link. -Thibbs (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is appropriate content for an article?

My question can be formulated generally, but arises in a particular context.

General formulation: Is it a goal of WP articles to widen the reader's grasp of a topic by relating it to context? Is this aim strictly subordinate to brevity and simplicity of explanation? How brief is brief enough?

Specific context: In the article Wavelength I have attempted to insert a brief reference to the connection of wavelength to the Fourier series representation of a function periodic with a given wavelength. Another editor with pronounced views about "bloat" objects to this addition as a digression from the main topic, and two other editors also appear to have this view. None of these editors chooses to address the value of widening a reader's awareness of this ramification of wavelength. A See...also link at the end of the article is inadequate to make the connection for the reader.

It is a matter of opinion, of course, as to how central a particular topic may be to an article. However, it would seem that unless an WP:Undue argument can be supported, it is an aid to the reader in broadening their sense of a subject to include brief reference to matters that connect the topic to others.

It would seem that "majority rule" is the de facto governance of such situations, whether it be to support or to deny inclusion of such connections. What guidance is there on WP in handling such matters? Brews ohare (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative workspace that operates through consensus. This isn't a foolproof system, but it generally produces fairly decent results. If you have a content dispute that cannot be solved through discussions leading to a new consensus, then you can take steps listed at the Dispute Resolution center. Taking the case to dispute resolution may engender hard feelings, though, so I would only escalate the dispute to the "dispute resolution" phase if A)You are convinced that your non-consensus view is correct, and B)Discussions in talk have reached a complete impasse. -Thibbs (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus presumes some dialogue intended to adapt text to some compromise acceptable to all. I understand that process.

However, it seems, once things go to dispute resolution, "consensus" is used only to establish majority opinion among participants about editor's conduct and subject matter is neither here nor there.

Is there another approach to this matter? For example, can it be insisted that a WP:Undue argument is necessary to reject a valid and sourced contribution that is viewed as a digression by some? Brews ohare (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution covers content disputes as well as conduct disputes. For information on content disputes see this section. Regarding whether WP:UNDUE can be used to exclude a goodfaith sourced addition, I think the answer is yes. If there is disagreement over whether or not the added material is indeed undue then a consensus-geared discussion must take place and if the discussion fails then editors may wish to escalate to content dispute resolution. -Thibbs (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your link to content disputes is helpful. I see that the idea of introducing a WP:Undue debate to force a true dialogue is a long shot. The best hope is to bring in more editors who have no personal history with myself. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

submission for name inclusion in list

How can I put my name forward to be listed in "List of Canadian Artists"?Manonelder (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be included in the list, a stand-alone article should exist on the person, and for that to happen, the person needs to be notable. Here see WP:ARTIST. However, generally an article should be created about the person by a third-party, who has no inherent positive bias or desire for promotion. Please see our conflict of interests guidelines. Nevertheless, I am posting below some standard advice about creating an article.

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Article

Sir, is there any standard article which can be used a as a template to write a new article over the existing text or picture or tables of the standard article? As is there in case of templates of power point presentations. If its there pl refer to me or it may be created to help new commers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokgoel121 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you start at Wikipedia:Articles for creation then you get some advice and come to an edit box with a little prefilled content: Two lines with a references heading and code to display the references there. There is no other common content of articles so I don't think there is much use for article templates beyond that. If you see an existing article with something you think would be useful then you can click the "Edit" or "View source" tab and copy the coding. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

How can I centre a simple table so it is not aligned to the left as by the default? Inter change able 17:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Table#Centering tables. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I guess you could also use the align="center" parameter, as can be seen at Help:Table#Mélange depending on the type of table you are dealing with. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Founder Parmesan

Hi my dad is mentioned in your Wikipedia. He introduced the Parmesan to he uk. His name is Nicos Harris. My name is Andrew Harris and his wife, my mother , is currently 89 and still cookes the original Parmesan . I would love to submit his picture nd perhaps some of his wife. Margarita Harris. Could you please tell me if this is feasible and how

Kind regards

Andrew Harris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.104.68 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can make the suggestion on the article's talk page. You should point to a reliable source that backs up your suggestion, WP:RS. Also, read the policy WP:COI. RudolfRed (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nicos Harris was deleted in 2009 as a copy violation of this website and CSD criteria A7. If you're interested in submitting photos to other articles, please start an account and see Wikipedia:Uploading images. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems this hasn't much to do with parmesan but is instead about parmo, an English regional dish, and the information about Nicos Harris is already in that article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roots

I have come across the Alex Haley book, Roots. I am over halfway through with it and am enjoying immensely. I just was wondering what Wkipedia could tell me more about it, when I noticed that there is a difference between your article and my book. Your article says that John WALKER bought Kunta, my book says John WALLER. That the family was the Wallers. Just for your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.100.175 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. An unregistered user changed it from Waller to Walker in March. I have reverted it to Waller.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ending a Deletion Discussion

I was reading how to end a delete discussion, but I don't quite understand. It says that after 7 days any user can move it to a part of the site where the admins will then review it and make the final decision. I don't get how you are suppose to move it to that area of the site. Was wondering if anyone could help. Please and thanks! --Shadow (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 World Tour. It's correctly listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 15 where administrators and others can see it. There is no moving involved. It will be closed where it is but it may take a little more than 7 days. You have participated in the discussion so you are not allowed to close it. Just wait for somebody else to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the "/old page" thing on the deletion process about? That's what's confusing me. It says anyone can do it, it doesn't say that people who participated can't (unless I missed something). --Shadow (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old is a listing of discussions that have gone on for more than seven days. No pages are actually moved anywhere to create the "old" page; instead, the listing is compiled by a bot.

The section Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures says that those "having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate" may not close the debate. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does it claim that anyone can do it? If it says that somewhere then we may have to revise the formulation. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they mean WP:NACD, but that's hardly a carte blanche for any passing editor to shut down the discussion. Quite a few very specific conditions still have to be met for non-admin closure, so I don't think we need to overhaul the rules just yet. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GTD, under closure: "After seven days of discussion, a volunteer will move the day's list of deletion discussions from the active page to the /Old page". Volunteer isn't exactly the most informative way of putting it. Then again, none of Wikipedia's rules are very helpful when it comes to understanding all of them. --Shadow (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the specific link and quote. The sentence is from 2005. I don't know whether it was accurate at the time but it's not today. I have changed it. Is [2] clear? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on a Move

I am trying to get Footprints of Eve to be moved to an article name of Eve's footprint, however it doesn't seem to work the way I was expecting. Can someone help me? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK to me. You moved it twice and this caused a double redirect. It was fixed by a bot in [3] after your post here. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't something wrong with this article?

MTV_Roadies_(season_8) I think that this article includes too much misc information, is it a encyclopedic article?Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 20:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to raise this question is at the article talk page of the article in question. If you wish to be bold, you could read WP:TRIVIA and arrive at your own conclusions, but be prepared to discuss with others if anyone objects to your editing. But it is proper to discuss the content of articles on the article talk pages. --Jayron32 22:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bridges

I would like to know the when the old bridge over the river nidd was built between the villages of killinghall and ripley north yorkshire england. also the pack horse bridge at knox over the oak beck in harrogate north yorkshire ,when was this built .

john robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.185.146 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the English Heritage listings, the former is "C17 [i.e., 1600s] or earlier with C18 and C19 alterations" and the latter is "probably C18 with C19 repairs". It doesn't sound as though anyone knows exactly when either bridge was built. Deor (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phishing email under wikipedia banner ?

Folks.

I have been sent the following email: " Wikipedia Someone (probably you, from IP address 244.202.112.174) requested a reminder of your account details for Wikipedia. The following user account is associated with this e-mail address: [redacted by me for condfientiality] This reminder will expire in 7 days. If you didn't initiate the request on Wikipedia, feel free to cancel this message,, http://carewelhealth.com/, and uncheck the "Reminder" checkbox in your account. Thanks, and once again Welcome! http://wiki.riteme.site "

We bleive this to be from "suspicious site".

Does it have any relevance to Wikipedia / Wikimedia ?

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.190 (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the correct wording of mails from Wikipedia/Wikimedia. The unrelated link to carewelhealth.com is suspicious. Ignore the mail. Below is a correct mail made at Special:PasswordReset. I redacted IP address and password. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (probably you, from IP address [redacted]) requested a reminder of your account details for Wikipedia (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Main_Page). The following user account is associated with this e-mail address:

Username: PrimeHunter
Temporary password: [redacted]

This temporary password will expire in 7 days. You should log in and choose a new password now. If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your original password, and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password."

Thanks PrimeHunter. It would seem that someone is definitely phishing for something. No password reset was requested, and my accounts in Wikipedia have been dormant for about 3 years. Perhaps somene is trawling for dead accounts ? Do the admins need to watch / issue a warning ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.190 (talk)

Anybody can enter any username at Special:PasswordReset. If the username exists and has stored an email address at Special:Preferences then a mail is sent to that address. This sometimes happen to users who didn't themselves request the mail. However, the wording of these mails is different from what you quote so in your case it must be a falsification. The real mails show the IP address used at Special:PasswordReset but the alleged IP address in your mail looks false. http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=244.202.112.174?showDetails=true&showARIN=false&ext=netref2 says it is in a block reserved for future use. If we get more reports of this type of false mails then we may add it to Wikipedia:Phishing e-mails. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The emails are not from wikipedia: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Phishing_e-mails — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrot70 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]