Help desk
< June 10	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11

JSTOR Access!

Is JSTOR giving access to their site to some Wikipedia editors for free now? --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book search

I want to find a copy of 2 older history books, probably printed in England in the 1920-30's. How do I go about finding thrm - they have not shown uo with a "google book search" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.163.155 (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 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. RudolfRed (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Created an account at Commons... and found that I inadvertently created a new account here

I've been active on EnWiki since 2009 as User:Buffalutheran. I decided today to create an account at Commons and I inadvertently created a new account here. I don't want to be accused of being a sock, and I want to keep editing EnWiki under my old account. Is there any way that this account (the one I am using now) can be merged or deleted, without destroying my new Commons account? BuffaLutheran (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the BuffaLutheran to the original account. If you are logged into the original then visit another Wiki you should be logged in there with the same account as here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check Unified login for more information. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rendering problem on New Stevenston?

Resolved

I've looked at New Stevenston in two different browsers (Safari and Firefox) and both show an odd problem with overlapping text for the coordinates above the infobox. Is it working in other browsers? If not, can someone fix it? RudolfRed (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were two sets of coordinates listed on the page, in the infobox and in the template at the bottom of the page. I removed the template and the overlapping has gone.Sarahj2107 (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. RudolfRed (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can a title be changed?

I found a page with an inaccurate title. Can it be changed and keep referenced links?

is: Plane Driven PD-1 Roadable Glastar

should be: Plane Driven PD-1, roadable Glasair Sportsman

CliffGerber (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MOVE for how to move a page to a new title. RudolfRed (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna

I have posted a proposal on the Madonna (entertainer) talk page a while ago and no one responded. I then deleted said proposal and re-posted it for good measure. Yet still no one has responded. Why is this? Considering Wikipedia is said to be a place where you can "Ask questions, get answers." and "Make proposals." I believed that were true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.62.167 (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refering to Talk:Madonna (entertainer)#Charity and Controversy? If so, it may take some time for interested people to respond, so wait a few more days. Meanwhile you can read the manual governing biographies of living people which has strict rules regarding the content allowed in articles about living people. Roger (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Enquiry

Hi,

Could you tell me how can i send a wikipedia to my email? I need to send someone's wikipedia to my email. Pls help.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.125.199 (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly you want to email a copy of an article to someone. The easiest way to do that is to first download it as a pdf file - the print/export menu in the left margin has the option. Once you have the pdf file on your computer you can email it. Roger (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if you're using FireFox, under the "File" menu there is a "Send Link" option which will attempt to open your email program and automatically prepare an email with a link to the page you're currently looking at. Other web browsers probably have similar functionality. This is more efficient because less data needs to be sent; it also means that your recipient will see the updated version of the page, not how it looked at the time you were looking at it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate University of Wales article

Hello there,

Recently I attempted to apply edits to the largely erroneous University of Wales Wikipedia article, only to discover they'd been undone almost immediately by an editor who offered no explanation why. The fundamental change I was trying to affect in the article was to convey that the University of Wales is still fully operational, and is not "abolished", as the article in its current state would have you believe. One only has to visit the University of Wales webpage to find overwhelming evidence to support this - www.wales.ac.uk. The University is, in fact, within the next 12 months to enter into a merger with the University of Wales: Trinity Saint David and Swansea Metropolitan University.

I would therefore greatly appreciate if you could offer me any advice on how I should go about applying amendments that actually stick to the article in question. Much of the information currently displayed is not only inaccurate, but also carries the potential to cause much harm to the University of Wales brand, as well as its commercial operations, not to mention a lot of confusion and upset to prospective, current and past University of Wales students.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Do not hesitate to ask if you require further evidence to support the above.

Warm regards,

Jocelyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jocelyn88 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jocelyn88. I went to check your edits and found that the the edit you made removed a large number of references, thus violating the policy of verifiability. I hope I have addresed your issues. Thanks and regards, Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The bulk of what you were trying to remove seemed to be supported by references which appeared to be to reliable sources. You provided no edit summary to justify your edit. I would suggest that you explain on the article's talk page why you think that the existing content is incorrect, and that you give there new references to published reliable sources to support your statements. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the post merger university is at University of Wales, Trinity Saint David. Perhaps a few hatnotes would help clear up the confusion. Roger (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must point out, however, that fuss about harm to the "brand" of a university is not likely to be taken seriously by most of our editors. Wikipedia is not an advertising venue nor a trade directory. --165.189.32.4 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the articles, these are legitimate public universities: so the use of phrases like "the University of Wales brand, as well as its commercial operations" seems grossly inapppropriate and oddly askew. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all your advice, as you suggest i'll discuss this on the University of Wales Talk page. Jocelyn

Francois Lamore

Hello!

I just created a wiki page for an artist (painter, sculptor and poet), who is still alive and so I have to have reliable sources, the only web (internet) source that I have is his official website: www.francois-lamore.com, For the newspaper/magazine publications I wrote under the mention the source (like 'in Le' Figaro, by 'name of the journalist' n°80, May 31 Paris.) As I wrote in the article, he is a French-American artist, and his work is exhibited all over the globe, especially at famous Maeght Gallery in Paris, and in Beirut Lebanon. Please let me know if his official website is considered as a reliable source, Best regards, CC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegocc (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Francois Lamore (with the correct capitalisation), but it is likely to be deleted. One of the links you added is (as you say) the artist's own website (and therefore not independent), and the other doesn't mention him. Without published coverage in independent reliable sources, he doesn't get a Wikipedia article. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help required immediately. What should I do now? Whom should I approach?

It was noticed when an IP user says in the article that the information given are terribly wrong. Here. I checked whether there is a anything reasonable and found that he was right as the articles have a conflict of information. Hence I checked the references and found that they were of 2009 but is given as of 2012. Thus there must be some big vandalism occured. But it will take some time to find the real vandalism as all the edits are dome by IPs and without any edit summaries. What I did was that I put the section in the comment tab... I mean inside . So that no one will see it (it may affect the trust-ability of Wikipedia). But I donot know what to do and was I wrong. Please help me and the article because it is almost impossible to find the real vandalism and a real good constructive edit in this article. List of religious populations. Is there any method to find the rivision history of only one section so that I may find what changes a particular section has undergone. Section tab in editsummary wont help as it can be removed or the full page itself can be edited. Vanischenu m^Talk 16:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Please tell me was I wrong to hide the section because it had incorrect information.Vanischenu m^Talk 19:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back you'll see that the vandalism was in a succession of edits by one IP on 4th June. I've reverted it now. Best not to hide sections that have been vandalised; if you can't find where the vandalism was you'd be better tagging the section and/or putting a note on the article's talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind and clear reply. I really appreciate and thanks you for reverting the vandalism. I was very much confused that I thought the vandalism might have been done by multiple IPs.
Please clear me this too; if I talk it in a talkpage, it will take very much time to have a reply, particularly if the article is less watched by editors. At the same time the tagging and the incorrect information may affect the faith of readers on Wpedia. Is that just my speculation or in the other case, can I have any other alternative?Vanischenu m^Talk 21:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you find something wrong in Wikipedia, obviously the best thing to do is correct it; but often we are not able to do this: we may not have the necessary knowledge about the subject, or we may just not have time. In this case, it is surely better to tag the page so that the reader is warned that there is some doubt about the validity, rather than just leave it unmarked. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I read entries WITHOUT the distracting blue links and citation numbers

Is there a way to read entries WITHOUT the distracting blue links and citation numbers? I am often put off, badly, by the Wikipedia format when I just want to quickly glance at a subject. The links and numbers clutter the page, much like the endless ads on commercial sites. Surely there must be a way to click the links and numbers on or off, as the reader desires. Thank you greatly. I love Wikipedia, but . . . . . 50.34.40.181 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the toolbar on the left hand bar you could select "printable version" which shows the page without any links or anything (although the little numbers are still there)--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can also download an article as a PDF file, where all the links and citation numbers are rendered as plain text in black, like in say a scientific paper. Just click on Print/Export (if it is collapsed, which would be indicated by the small triangle pointing to the right, otherwise, if the triangle points down, don't click it). After that, click on Download as PDF. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science articles

I sometimes try to read articles of scientific interest. I'm not a scientist, but I am a very well educated (2 BAs, 2MAs, 1 PhD) layman, and I'm accustomed to reading difficult material outside my immediate field. I regard an encyclopedia as a source for clear information on any given subject, and have written many articles for other major encyclopedias. I have recently been reading a large book on physics by American academic Brian Greene, and I have found it a model of clarity and intelligent explanation. But next to all of the science articles I have tried to read in Wikipedia are gobbledegook to anyone not already knowledgeable in the subject. Can something be done to provide guidelines for science editor to show that this is not the place for articles aimed at fellow scientists, but that they have to learn from Brian Greene Greene or Brian Cox and many others how to explain their subject without resorting to jargon and in-references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis MacEoin (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known problem with Wikipedia science articles. We would appreciate any help you could give. --Jayron32 16:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, when I was a Wikipedia newbie I read a guideline somewhere that said articles should be aimed at a reader with only a high school level of education in the topic. I think that was possible back when many articles were about fairly basic concepts. As WP grew new articles became more specialised about narrower topics their "reading level" inevitably increased to the extent that understanding some science articles require at least a Bachelors degree in the subject. Roger (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User abuse on vandalism flagging/reverting

Hi, I don't really know where to report this behaviour: User:Mdann52 is using some sort of tool or script to flag as vandalism and revert edits made by other users.
Even on their own talk pages, see mine here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maxxyme&action=history
And I can't even discuss with the guy, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=497079755
How do I handle that? Many thanks. PS: you can try cleaning my talk page by yourself... Maxxyme (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Mdann was being a bit overzealous here, I've left him a note to ease it back a notch, and you're free to remove whatever you want from your talk page. And for future reference when you want to contact someone you need to go to their User talk page, not their User page (i.e. User talk:Mdann52 not User talk:Mdann52)--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the message you left. By the way I noticed the mistake I made by confusing his user page and his user talk page. Not really used to all that WP-behind-the-walls stuff. Maxxyme (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia search

Is it possible to do a case sensative search? Id like to search for words like "facebook" in lowercase only as part of a typo cleanup. Currently search seems to return any case as far as I can tell. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to use an external search engine. Oddly enough, our internal search engine is not case sensitive, even though articles titles are! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a solution to this once before. See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 June 26#Case Sensitive search on Wikipedia?. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

digital signal processing

The basic definition is muddled and needs improvement. Since there's no "edit" box for the basic definition, how do I enter better information? Striznauss (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the "edit" tab at the top of the article, you should be able to edit any part of it, including the lead section.--ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also you may put one for the lead section (basic definition) by switching it on from [Your prferences]. Go to My preferences > Gadgets - Editing, then select Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page. And click save!Vanischenu m^Talk 00:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

Is there the potential of an issue occuring if I am adding the same external link to multiple pages? The link is to a university map collection concerning state geography/history of Oklahoma. I have identified certain pages that researchers would benefit from using this external link. I am not adding it to random pages. Please let me know what I need to do so that any problems are limited. Can I avoid the issue of these links being considered spam? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athiker99 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, only adding links to one site falls under Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts (note that that's not necessarily a bad thing). The 5th one threw up a warning tag, and they were all reverted. The link to an educational institution, for historical maps, should probably have been given more consideration, and discussion, but I don't see whether you answered the questions asked at your post here in November: are you affiliated with the university, specifically with the maps? and what value do you think they add to those articles? User:Orangemike's questions to you near the bottom of the page. Dru of Id (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes,I am connected to the university library and the McCasland Digital Collection of Early Oklahoma and Indian Territory Maps project. I am a graduate student/intern. To answer the second question. Would this link contribute? I would say "yes". This collection is housed and being digitized at Oklahoma State University. It is currently the largest digitized collection of Oklahoma maps in the state and growing. Close to 4,000 digitized maps. If a Wikipedia visitor is searching a historic/geographic page concerning Oklahoma they could find maps that are not available anywhere else. Primary sources like maps are invaluable to researchers. If there are other question please let me know. If you have advice for me I would appreciate that as well. Thanks.Athiker99 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that it's possible for someone to be spamming academic library links, but I'm confident that this isn't it. Athiker, please be careful only to add these links to relevant pages (county articles, city articles, regional articles, historical articles, etc., but not articles on things only remotely related to Oklahoma history), but you're definitely helping as far as I can see. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure to radiation

how much of the human capacity expose in radioactive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.82.212 (talk) 20:48, 11 June 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.--ukexpat (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make for Thomas W. Jones born in 1841, but a different Thomas W. Jones born in 1956 already has a page.

Hello Wikipedia,

What is the etiquette and procedure for making pages if two famous people have the same name?

Thanks,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.144 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Dismas|^(talk) 20:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Waxman (physician)

My article was published but with a 'weasel words' banner at the top. I asked for help in getting it removed, and an editor kindly removed a few offending words and recorded an item on the Talk page saying that the banner would be removed in 24hrs if there was no objection. That was on Thurs 7th. I'm not sure if objections have been raised but the banner's still there. Can I remove it myself? Many thanks. Francesca w (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it for lack of any objections. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

Hi

I am wanting to put up a new article with sources and want it reviewed to see if it is ok, before publishin, how do I do this . I am new here — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryofMod (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create it in a user subpage, and submit it for review. I suggest you look at the Article Wizard to begin with. --ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against Ron Paul

I'm just wondering why Wikipedia is participating in the blackout against Dr. Paul? I posted some very good news about his campaign today with THREE links confirming, and here it is 20 minutes later and it's gone. This is outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.26.147 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my writing this, the last edit to the article on Ron Paul was made on June 5th. You did not add anything to it today. Nor to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012. Maproom (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was on the front news page, not a particular article. Although I should add it to those as well, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.26.147 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Portal:Current events were reverted by User:Chrism with the comment "Tools for Justice is a campaign group, not a news source". If you want to insert that information, find an independent source that reported it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]