Help desk
< July 19	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 21 >

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.

July 20[edit]

Use magazine's old name?[edit]

For the album pages I'm creating I include album reviews from Billboard magazine that sometimes go back as far as the 1950s. Many years ago the magazine had a couple of variations on its current name. In 1961 and 1962 it was called Billboard Music Week, and before that it used its original title, The Billboard. Since I'm linking one of these names of the magazine in my article to the article for the magazine itself, it seemed like using the exact name that was used at the time of the album review would be acceptable, but I've started wondering if there is a standard for this kind of situation that I'm not aware of. Does anyone know of guidelines that exist for this? Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you use a piped link from whatever the name was at the time, to the current article - e.g. ''[[Billboard (magazine)|The Billboard]]'' == The Billboard.

You should only wiki-link to a term once, within a section (WP:REPEATLINK). See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking). Chzz ► 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I think using the actual title the magazine went by at the time that the source material was written is correct. I don't know of any policy or guideline that directly addresses the issue, but many citation and sourcing polices and guidelines can be distilled to say that we should be precise in our sourcing, providing good enough attribution as to exactly what source was used, such that someone who wants to verify the information themselves can find the source. Providing the exact name of the magazine at the time the source material was published should help in locating the source material for that person, and so it seems the right path. (additional text removed as redundant).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a wiki entry[edit]

I found something on an entry about someone that includes some "colorful" personal opinions. I do not know how to change/delete entries but wanted to let someone know about it if there is anyone out there more comfortable changing info than I am. I did not read the whole article on her so there may be other entries like this.I found this under personal life and education. While I am no fan of Mr. Murdoch and the news happening right now I think its wrong to post things like that no matter how much you dislike someone etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng ] (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.198.224 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 July 2011

It looks like another user reverted that edit. For future reference, you can edit an un-protected article by clicking "Edit" on the top-right portion of the article. From there, you can undo another user's edit. For editing a protected article, you will have to register an account. You can find more information on registering here and more information on protected articles here. I hope I answered your question. -- Luke ^Talk 00:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed part of your first message, because describing any person in the terms you used is not appropriate (even if quoting); please review WP:NPA and WP:BLP.

Anyone is welcome to edit the article, in accordance with policies regarding living people, verifiability, and so forth. You click 'edit' and change stuff; it's quite easy. Your opinion of the article (and any potential bias) can be discussed on the article discussion page(s) - ie, Talk:Wendi Deng, Talk:Rupert Murdoch, and so forth but please read WP:SOAPBOX. Chzz ► 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prescient[edit]

I could not find a definition for prescient, can anybody help me with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.118.68 (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try consulting Wiktionary, which defines it at WIKT:prescient. —teb728 t c 09:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricci tensor[edit]

Why Ricci tensor is taken as Negative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.84.235 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Mathematics 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. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook integration[edit]

When i searched for FAcebook application ICON, after reading an interested topic, I couldn't find.. Please integrate WIKI with facebook.. Pls . Thanks. Gopal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.123 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but Facebook is a commercial website and Wikipedia can not promote anything. Notice one thing strange about this site? Yep. No ads. What's wrong with pasting a link into your status update? Please also see what Wikipedia is not.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nanded airport[edit]

The elevation AMSL of the Nanded Airport is given as 2300mtr/7545ft,but actually its the length of the runway.The actual elevation AMSL of Nanded Airport is 373.995mtr/1226.7ft.

Subhankar Behera Civil Engineer Nanded Airport Pvt Ltd Nanded Phn-+91-9325009708 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.0.203 (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, but this is "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", so you could have just hit the edit button at the top of the page, and changed the elevation figures to the correct values. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestra JB[edit]

Dears sirs,

I am a contributor to wiki, and one particular page, somebody keeps removing info on me in an article and do not know why!

I was instrumental in making of his album as well as co writing tracks and performing harmonica and backing vocals. I also was the one who put the article up in the first place.

How can I stop somebody from removing information which is not only relevant, but important to the article?

thanks

BB

torro20092009**** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torro20092009 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should only contain material that has already been published in reliable sources. Any editor may remove unsourced material, and then that material should not be re-introduced without a source. See WP:BURDEN.

And, since you reveal here that you are writing about yourself, you should also read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI before editing the article again. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing own talk page[edit]

I noticed a user who has been blocked for promotion/spamming (see their talk page). The notice they were given says that they can add {{unblock}} below the notice, but I noticed that the block log entry on their contributions page says "account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page". Am I missing something? —Akrabbim^talk 12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there is a contradiction. This could be because the option to block talk page access was not intentional (this blocking parameter is placed by checking or unchecking a box which can be toggled on or off by accident) or it could have been intentional based on the edits, but the block notice not tailored as an oversight. I noticed that you didn't leave a message for the blocking admin, so I alerted them to this post.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Talkpage was intentionally disabled (was rused multiple times by that user as part of the spam pattern). I merely used the default block template (twinkle doesn't appear to have a flag for the notalk=yes option) and didn't bother to look back to customize given that it seemed like a hopeless case. DMacks (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Vandalism- Marash / Kahramanmaraş[edit]

There are a number of authors who are giving a culturally biased and skewed perspective towards the history of this region. On a factual basis some edits were made to the page with links to other Wikipedia articles as proof to support the historical timeline. Because of a cultural conflict any mention of the original ancestry has been removed by nationalists. Please review this article and draw your own conclusion to what is acceptable. Otherwise there will be a one-sided totalitarian overview of the regions history as told in retrospect, rather than through historical fact.

Kind Regards, The Oxford-Harvard Affiliate — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Oxford-Harvard Affiliate (talk • contribs) 12:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but Wikipedia can not be used to cite other Wikipedia articles. Please provide a reliable source for your edits. Especially as they are controversial.

The Hittite origin was also unsourced. I have removed both. Do not restore unless you can provide reliable sources to back it up. Your username may also be in violation of Wikipedia's Username policy.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible inaccuracy in article[edit]

HMS Amazon (1799) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HMS Belle Poule (1806) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:HMS Amazon (1799) pursuing possible Belle Poule.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have identified a possible inaccuracy of fact in an article, which I want to flag-up. I can't edit it because I don't know what it should be - all I can say is that I don't think it is correct as stated and hope that a more knowledgeable person can investigate. How do I do that? If I describe the specific issue it might make my question clearer: There is an image 'HMS Amazon (1799) pursuing possible Belle Poule.jpg' which is used in articles 'HMS Amazon (1799)' and 'HMS Belle Poule (1806)' (and maybe others). The title and captions do indeed indicate some doubt about the Belle Poule being a subject in the image but I think the doubt is stronger than that. From the articles (above), both ships were frigates of similar size ca. 38/40 gun, yet only the left-hand vessel, presumably Amazon in pursuit, resembles a frigate - the right-hand vessel, although close inspection indicates three masts, looks much smaller, perhaps a ship-rigged sloop. If so, either the tentative identification of Belle Poule is wrong, or more seriously, the article on that ship is. So, how do I bring this to the attention of that vast body of knowledgeable people out there who might otherwise not happen upon it themselves but who might be interested in resolving the matter? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.187.140 (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would head directly over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships and post about this at the project's talk page. I will alert them to your post here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The caption is as used by the holders of the image, the National Maritime Museum - 'The Frigate Amazon pursuing an unamed French ship (possibly the Belle Poule)' [1]. The archivists there are experts in their field, and acknowledge that this is only a tentative identification. Unfortunately we don't know what they base this on, and can't know what Pocock intended his drawing to represent, as it looks like this is just a rough preparatory sketch. Possibly he did not know Belle Poule's design when he drew it. The article on Belle Poule is right about her design, the captions on both articles clearly state the NMM's line, that this may only possibly be Belle Poule. I don't think we can embark on a critical interpretation of the image without engaging in original research. I personally don't think there is anything that needs to be changed. Benea (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert, but in my opinion it's perspective. It is merely a drawing after all. A date can also be seen clearly at the bottom - 13 March 1806. The date of the capture of Belle Poule.

The only other ships (beside the frigates HMS Amazon and Belle Poule) directly involved in the Action of 13 March 1806, were the much larger ships-of-the-line HMS London and the French Marengo (the only other French vessel in the engagement). HMS Repulse and HMS Ramilles (also ships-of-the-line) joined later but only against Marengo. The Amazon was the one pursuing Belle Poule. Seeing that all other ships are even unlikelier to be the one depicted in the drawing, the possibility of it being the Belle Poule is actually quite strong.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say that the original IP poster asked the question in a very good way and while it appears that it would be original research, the willingness to do the level of research prior to asking the question, I think would make him a good wikipedian. I hope he chooses to register an account and stay.Naraht (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Good point.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet - Incorrect Rendering to PDF and PediaPress[edit]

The wiki page "Bullet" when compiled in Print/Export under Book Creator does not render correctly. The page renders as one big paragraph. Normal paragraph, headings, pictures etc do not display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmills56 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm this. The rendered PDF contains no pictures and is one continuous paragraph. I suggest you report this error to the Help:Books/Feedback. They also have a live chat if you're interested.

The Printable version works fine for me, however. On a side note, I have also removed a duplicate paragraph in the article.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the assistance of PediaPress I validated that the "Bullet" rendered correctly in their program. PediaPress provided the following, "You can check the layout of the book with the preview function on the pediapress.com website. If there is a problem rendering the articles, it will probably show in the preview. However, the preview shows only the first articles (~25 pages) of your book; so you should put the article in the front of your book - at least for this test. If everything looks fine, you can rearrange the articles in the way you please." So the problem is only in the PDF rendering. GatorJim (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

Hello,

I am researching on how to create a new article on Wikipedia. I saw that the "How to" page said that I should not create a page about my business. I am wondering why is this.

I do not need to create a page for marketing purposes.

It there any way that I can create it?

If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apachepower (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged - it is very hard to be neutral.

If the company meets the notability guidelines, someone else will, eventually, create it.

However, whilst we don't recommend it, it is not totally forbidden. If you do decide to go ahead;

a) It would be best to edit some other articles first, to get used to Wikipedia
b) Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
c) It is possible to create a non-live draft, and get it checked - by using the Wizard and choosing "create submission for review" - so that another person will check it. Chzz ► 14:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M2 Browning - Incorrect Rendering to PDF and PediaPress[edit]

The wiki page "M2 Browning" when compiled in Print/Export under Book Creator does not render correctly. The page renders as one big paragraph. Normal paragraph, headings, pictures etc do not display — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmills56 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the response to your first question above. This seems to be a problem with the PDF export in general.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the assistance of PediaPress I validated that the "Bullet" rendered correctly in their program. PediaPress provided the following, "You can check the layout of the book with the preview function on the pediapress.com website. If there is a problem rendering the articles, it will probably show in the preview. However, the preview shows only the first articles (~25 pages) of your book; so you should put the article in the front of your book - at least for this test. If everything looks fine, you can rearrange the articles in the way you please." So the problem is only in the PDF rendering. GatorJim (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-upload before posting?[edit]

I have a question regarding posting to Wikipedia. Is there any way to pre upload and save the article it as a draft before officially posting to Wikipedia?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.244.68 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many benefits of creating an account is that you can create a user subpage, where you can work on an article until it is ready to publish. —teb728 t c 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As TEB728 says, you can only create user subpages, when you have an account. However, if you have an idea for an article and do not wish to create an account, you can submit your idea at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disable Moblie Wikipedia[edit]

I am using wikipedia on my blackberry and clicked "Disable mobile site permanently". Well, I am not happy with the other version. How do I enable mobile wikipedia? Thank you for your help. James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.72.158.28 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Enable mobile version. —teb728 t c 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendi Deng - Birthdate of last child?? It says 2005 for Chloe, but in Ruperts wiki page it says 17 July 2003 ???... I think Ruperts wiki page is correct (i.e., it should be 2003)[edit]

Wendi Deng Birthdate of last child??

It says 2005 for Chloe, but in Ruperts wiki page it says 17 July 2003 ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.213.191 (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I think Ruperts wiki page is correct (i.e., it should be 2003, not 2005); see a quote from a 2005 article: "... Married his third wife, Wendi Deng, in 1999, with whom he has two children, Grace, four, and Chloe, two... " from [1]</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.184.71 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.184.71 (talk)

I agree; I've replied at Talk:Wendi Deng. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quraan surah[edit]

Hi , i have noticed that in the islam section , mor enotably the quraan section there are a few chapters of the quraan that you are able to read when you click on the arabic pdf and also allows you to save it . Unfortunetly i noticed that not all the chapters of the quraan are on the pdf format , is it possible to have all the chapters in this format .

you can contact me via email : [Redacted]

thanks sooo much for taking the time to read this query — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.37.181.82 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to? We haven't an article called "quraan surah", but Quran has links to articles on all the individual suras. There is no particular reason why Wikipedia articles should link to the full text of the chapters: they may do so, but Wikipedia is not a collection of links. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning message at top of post[edit]

How do I get rid of a dead end warning message at the top of an article I created? It says

"This article needs more links to other articles to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text."

I have added more links but the message is still there. The page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappy_McGarr

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.43.110 (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removing this [2] template at the top of the article in the edit screen but, only after the mentioning requirements are meet. Mlpearc powwow 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, the article still reads like a promotional cv (and I have tagged it for deletion as such), and is an orphan with no qualifying incoming links. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]