Help desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

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.

January 27

Mepirodipine and Barnidipine

Are they the same and should they be redirected?--GZWDer (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their chemical structures, as shown in their WP articles, are the same – except possibly for their chirality, which I don't know how to interpret from the diagrams, which use different ways of indicating it. Maproom (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Andrew Publishing (1 December 2006). Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. Elsevier. pp. 527–. ISBN 978-0-8155-1856-3. lists them together, saying barnidipine is a trademark of the patent holder Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical.
Sakai, Toshiharu; Teramura, Toshio; Okamiya, Hideaki; Inagaki, Osamu (2007). "A Review on Barnidipine: A Novel Calcium Antagonist". Cardiovascular Drug Reviews. 15 (4): 273. doi:10.1111/j.1527-3466.1997.tb00336.x. Barnidipine was once called mepirodipine, and some of its chemical and pharmacological profiles were described in a previous review under the name of mepirodipine.

The authors of the review are from Yamanouchi. Hope it helps. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niall_Sheehy_(actor)

Why is my article an orphan? What should I do? Here's my link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Sheehy_(actor)#External_links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karin Phan (talk • contribs) 11:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the banner says, its an "orphan" because no other articles link to it. The way to address the concern is to find articles that do or legitimately should mention Sheehy, and add his name as a link. But do not spam his name into other articles where he is not an appropriately important aspect. Note that because of the disambiguation , you will need to WP:PIPE the name in the articles. (and also note that it is is not "your" article-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The first sentence in the box at the top of Niall Sheehy (actor) says "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it." The words "orphan" and "link to it" are in blue, indicating that they are links. If you follow the links, you will find the information that you need. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive picture linked to a Norwegian sportsman's page on Wikipedia

I have discovered that on a wikpedia page which is about my father, the Norwegian ski jumper Reidar Andersen (deceased) which my children and I have "liked" on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Reidar-Andersen/103775482994207, the Nazi Flag (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg) is linked to the Profile.

We are very upset about this as my father was active in the resistance movement during the WW II and would turn in his grave to be linked to Nazi Germany. I do not know whether this link is due to a malicious intent from someone or it is a technical error due to the fact that he did participate in the Olympics in Garmisch Partenkirschen and this is mentioned early in the article on Wikipedia. In any case this link established the false idea that my father in some way was connected to the nazis and this is very disburbing to his children and grand children (who also by liking the page seem connected to the nazis..!)

I ask you to immediately remove this picture from the page about my father. If it is due to a technical error of some sort, I ask you to edit the article so that the mention of the Olympics is put further down in the article.

Thank you, Best regards Vibeke Elm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.150.226.76 (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia article Reidar Andersen has no such flag. The corresponding article fr:Reidar Andersen on the French Wikipedia does have (as a small icon in a table) the flag which was current in Germany at the time of the 1936 Olympics. We here at the English Wikipedia have no control over the French Wikipedia, nor over Facebook, so if you have requests they ought to be made to them directly. It certainly seems strange that Facebook have chosen to display text from the English Wikipedia and an image from the French one. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vibeke, since the problem is on a Facebook page and not on a Wikipedia page (even though the linked Nazi Flag is indeed linking to French Wikipedia), I think you need to report the Facebook page. You do that from the scroll down menu to the right of the edit button. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

132.150.226.76 - It appears that the file https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg is shown in Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Reidar-Andersen/103775482994207 with the text "wikipedia.org" vertically displayed on the background red field of the flag. The merge of the flag and the wikipedia.org text likely is happening within Facebook. Since the Wikimedia Foundation holds a trademark on "Wikipedia," you may want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation to see whether this is something they want to deal with. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English article Reidar Andersen has no image. The host flag of the 1936 Winter Olympics happens to be the first image at the French fr:Reidar Andersen (apart from an illustrated stub tag). That's probably why an automated procedure at Facebook picked the image. Do you have a photo of your father that can be released under a free license? If you upload such a photo at commons:Special:UploadWizard or request it at Wikipedia:Files for upload then we can insert it in Reidar Andersen and reduce the risk of something like this happening again. I don't know whether it would eventually affect the existing Facebook page. It's made by Facebook and we have no control over it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally hit Esc in edit mode and it undid my changes, how do I redo?

I haven't left the page yet and would like to do undo this undo....Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Shevat 5774 12:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esc should not do that. You could try CTRL-Y (but it might not work).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tested the Esc key and it did remove an edit in the edit page. I used CTRL-Z and the removed text returned in the edit page. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried ctrl-y and then ctrl-z already, when that didn't work. Thankfully I had pressed preview earlier so I was able to recover the work and just recode it. I will avoid esc like the plague in the future.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Shevat 5774 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MCB Arif Habib Savings and Investments Limited (MCBAH)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to get my company's information also published on Wikipedia. Kindly let me know how to proceed in this regard.

Regards, Aliya Irfan

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.119.75 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory or advertising platform. In order for a subject to qualify for an article, it must have been covered in a significant manner by reliably published third party sources. If you have such sources discussing the company, you should provide them in the WP:RA process. Neither you nor your employees or agents should create or directly edit the article itself, if it gets created. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In WP terms

WP terms, how would you call a change to text such as this:

From: Lord Curzon, a British cabinet member, wrote... concerning policy

To : Lord Curzon, who later succeeded as foreign secretary, wrote... concerning policy

Considering that at the time his view was a minority view, which was voted down, and later when he came into the position of foreign secretary, his view haven't effected the British policy in that regard. So basically it used to misleadingly imply that what he wrote had more significant impact that what it did.--PLNR (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if I understand the scenario correctly, it would fall under the intersection of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE - placing content in a manner that implies a conclusion not explicit in the sources (SYNTH) which gives UNDUE weight/validity to an event the subject participated in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --PLNR (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request at Resource Request to have someone there look at the reference and revise the article sentence as needed. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Newman, cricketer

It has been brought to my attention that my home page contains a photo of myself that is totally unsuitable. Please can you tell me how it can be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.253.76 (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed[1] the file File:Paul 'Judge' Newman 2014-01-24 20-48.jpg from the Paul Newman (cricketer) article since the file is not encyclopedic and is not useful in this encyclopedia. While English Wikipedia can remove the photo from its articles, the actual file is posted in commons.wikimedia.org, not en.wikipedia.org. Commons.wikimedia.org feeds photos to all the different language Wikipedias, so the request to delete the photos (rather than merely removing it from articles) would need to be made at commons.wikimedia.org. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the photo for deletion from Commons. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_'Judge'_Newman_2014-01-24_20-48.jpg Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change username

How do I get in touch with a bureaucrat that can change my username?tessa_KnowHub (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing username discusses how to request a username change. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However tessa_KnowHub , with only four edits, it would be easiest just to abandon this name and create a new one. --S Philbrick (Talk) 14:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hook

Dear Sir/Madam

I have creted a wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_hook

As I had forgotten to put a capital H in the name, I created a new page, with amended name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Hook

As a result I got a message telling me about the duplicated content across both pages.

I have deleted the first version, which is no longer needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_hook).

Please let me know if this is the right way to do this or if there is anything else I should be doing.

Kind regards, Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpsmariette (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Cpsmariette:. It appears that the astute administrator Peridon has deleted the problematic article (the lower-case hook), so the issue appears to have been resolved. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been resolved this time and nothing more should be done but the correct procedure would have been to move the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are those 8-tuples of 4 hex digit numbers in Wikipedia article histories and how can my own edit show up like that?

At times when you display a Wikipedia article history, instead of the Wikipedia user name (for registered users) or the IP address (for non registered users) you get something like this 2605:a601:448:cf01:d857:6ccf:a737:a59d. (I take it this is a sequence of 8 numbers in 4 hex digit format).

What are those things and how can I get my own edit to be displayed under such a token?

Contact Basemetal here 17:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an IPv6 IP address. RJFJR (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) They are IPv6 addresses. What you call IP address is actually IPv4 addresses. See also WP:IPv6. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) I'm not aware of any way to use such an address short of switching ISPs, and I'm not even sure if that would do anything. ~Hue Sat Lum 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editor

What is the correct venue/procedure to report a disruptive editor whose edits show clear signs of mental illness or deficiency - their writing consists entirely of incoherent nonsense "word salad"? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest going through the process of adding increasingly severe user warning templates to the user's talk page, and then raising a notice at WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Astronaut (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought at first you were referring to the same person, who is either a very odd troll or else someone with genuine serious mental issues, who posted on my page. But said account hasn't been active since posting on mine on Saturday. Is it the same account, or a different account appearing to be the same user, as this one here: User_talk:MatthewVanitas#Pass_subject_on_the_dieth_not_in_hell ? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the one. I had just reviewed and declined their draft and nominated it for speedy deletion as nonsense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that that it not a mentally ill person trying to communicate, but some automated process. Maybe we are in the early days of the Singularity. Maproom (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside link to Wikipedia

Hi, I have an external webpage and want to hyperlink many articles to your site. The site is built on WordPress. Can you give me any idea, as well as, permission to do this? or is this generally OK to do? Also, I am listing you as a non-profit partner and am asking visitors to our site to contact you and consider providing a donation. Do you have a specific logo/hyperlink address. Sorry this may be pretty basic, but before creating this page I had NO Background in website development.

Thanks!!! Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.113.13 (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is generally allowed to link to Wikipedia articles; there is no need to ask for permission. However, I'm not sure if "non-profit partner" is appropriate unless you actually have some special agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that runs Wikipedia and related sites). --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It is permissible to link to Wikipedia. In fact, I can't think of a single site that doesn't appreciate links to it from related pages. As for logos and things like that, you can start with Wikipedia:Banners and buttons. Best of luck with your site, Dismas|^(talk) 20:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About donations: A direct donation URL is http://donate.wikimedia.org/. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

I just have a couple of questions. I have seen this a few times and want to know what it means:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The neutrality of this article is disputed.

This section requires expansion with: section.

I just wanted to make sure I understood what these mean before making any edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinebright5522 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shinebright5522. Wherever you see these words, several of them will be in blue, which means that you can click on them and it will take you to a page that explains them. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But to give you a bit of a direct answer: that is a 'tag' that some editor has added to the article to indicate that in their opinion there are problems with the article which should be corrected. Anybody who thinks that the problem has been corrected (or disagrees that there was a problem in the first place) may remove the tag: if somebody disagrees with that removal, they should resolve their disagreement by discussion on the article's Talk page: pick the "Talk" tab at the top. The important one there is neutrality: all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They can (and usually should) summarise what the sources say on both sides of any controversy about the subject, and should not use any evaluative language at all (see peacock words) unless it comes directly from a referenced, reliable source, independent of the subject. Does that help? --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may also be something written on the talk page by whoever added the tag. RJFJR (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution is a Sham

Already discussed and closed at DRN, no need to continue the argument here. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As a philosopher of science, I attempted repeatedly in many Wikipedia articles and "talk pages" to edit various relativity articles which claim (as per "mainstream relativity") that the size of objects and the distance between them varies with the frame of reference from which they are measured (called "length contraction.") For instance a popular example is the claim (in special relativity) that a 20 foot pole will fit into a 10 foot barn because high speed (whether of the object or the observer) shortens objects, and their lengths depend on the relative speed of the object relative to the observer. Still the obvious fact is ignored, that such an object will not fit into the barn under any circumstance. So special relativity has created a fictional version of science in which the length of objects depends on the velocity (and direction of travel) of the theoretical observer. My intelligence was repeatedly insulted for posing this challenge, because no such serious criticisms of relativity are allowed, because no sources critical of relativity are considered "mainstream." I asked for "dispute resolution" and all I got was more insults from the editors with whom I had the dispute, and no intelligent discourse with the dispute resolution volunteer, Mdann52. So the dispute was ended with no resolution. Wikipedia is NOT a volume of human knowledge as long as the fiction of shrinking objects, as per special relativity prevails as "mainstream science." My user name was LCcritic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.249.157 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The theory of special relativity does indeed claim that moving objects are shortened along the direction of motion. And almost all contemporary works on physics favour special relativity over the Newtonian physics which I assume you prefer. Wikipedia attaches (rightly or wrongly) great weight to published works from reputable sources. Maproom (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WP:DRN, and it wasn't clear whether there was a content dispute. WP:DRN is for the resolution of content disputes. Is there one? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for you to express your original research intuitions (e.g. "...such an object will not fit into the barn under any circumstance."). The fact is that special relativity makes predictions about the results of measurements that have been repeatedly validated, despite your philosophical misgivings. For example, the Elastic Proton-Proton Scattering results presented on page 14 of this PowerPoint are completely incompatible with Newtonian Mechanics, but are consistent with length contraction combined with time dilation as predicted by Special Relativity. Experimental fact trumps your original research philosophical musings. There is good reason why original research is disallowed in Wikipedia. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Maproom, I do not favor Newtonian physics, as you assume. General relativity is certainly a better predictive formula for gravitation than the old Newtonian model. (Yet there is still no ontology of spacetime to clarify "what it is" in the physical world.) Physics must either explain the mechanics of physical contraction or let metaphysics pretend to be the new physics, and all different observers see a different world... "all equally valid." Anti-realism. I really don't see any "help" from the last "helper" above with the long difficult name... just repeating the textbook party line, tolerating no criticism. That is what the dispute (unresolved) was about in the first place. Same here. The "science" of shrinking objects rules. It all depends on how you look at them! Einstein said so. 71.34.249.157 (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you come here to ask a question about how to use Wikipedia, which is the purpose of this Help Desk, or to complain about non-receptivity to a criticism of relativity that appears to be original research? Robert McClenon (talk)

This is not a forum for you to discuss your misunderstandings about relativity, and article space is not intended for your original research. Three-dimensional Euclidean space allows one to rotate a 20 foot pole so that one can easily carry it through a 7 foot doorway. Four-dimensional spacetime allows one to rotate a 20 foot pole so that it fits in a 10 foot barn. That's all there is to the pole and barn door "paradox." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a volume of human knowledge. Basically, it just strives to summarize what others have already written. Most people outside of Wikipeida write that a 20 foot pole will fit into a 10 foot barn and some write that a 20 foot pole will not fit into a 10 foot barn. Wikipedia strives to summarize all of it in proportion to what is written outside of Wikipedia. If you want to argue to include something in an article, use the language at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria such as by arguing that it is a major facts or detail or that the information is needed in the Wikipedia article so that the article provides a representative survey of the relevant literature. Some people may agree with you and others may not. Let talk page consensus decide and then move on. Try to not get too caught up in any one issue. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving a dispute

I placed a {{citation needed}} tag on the article TeslaTeam for a fact that I would like to see a source for, as well as a {{reliable source}} tag for a surprising claim whose only source does not seem reliable. Another user removed these tags after I added them and continues to remove them if I add them back. I've tried to start a discussion on the user's talk page, but s/he refuses to discuss it. I don't want to just keep edit-warring, but I'm unsure how to proceed. What should I do? Mr. Granger (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Granger. I've re-added the tags (and added a couple more) and warned the user to discuss. I will keep an eye on the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found that several of the English-language citations did not actually support the statements they were cited for, and have changed them accordingly. I suspect the same may be true of the Serbian-language sources – but I know no Serbian. Maproom (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give me my bloody page back you blood sucking scum!!!

Yesterday I spent several hour creating a wiki page for my newly founded surname. I created a page called Zertophf (surname) and I feel this page has been deleted with absolutely no good reason! Today I was coming back to edit the page and start another page for my band and have now discovered the page that I put so much time and effort into has completely disappeared! I am extremely pissed off! I did nothing wrong and I want my page back now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZTOPHF (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to your contributions log - Special:Contributions/ZZTOPHF - the very rude post above is the only thing you have ever done on the English Wikipedia. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before you do anything else on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has Zertophf (surname) in his deleted contribs, as well, which is what he's referring to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only Admins can see deleted contributions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a would-be joke, one whose production might have taken all of five minutes. PDFTT. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read What Wikipedia is not, and especially Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. If you are intending to write an article on your band, read WP:BAND and WP:COI first, or you will have more unpleasant experiences. --ColinFine (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Even assuming good faith (in spite of the tone of the above) an article about a "newly founded surname" would fail our notability and verifibility, and probably our original research policies. Wikipedia is not the place to publish newly invented or discovered things. DES ^(talk) 01:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big if. The user is probably not editing in good faith because (1) the accusative behavior/personal attacks displayed in the post above and (2) the user's wanting to promote themselves (they want to "start another page for [their] band"). Epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a COI for the surname, too. Only one name comes up for a "Zertophf" search, and it starts with a Z, like the username here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One's own search history

Is there a way to access my own search history on Wiki.I have need of some info that I researched but no way to remember subject name of search. 23:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguide1 (talk • contribs)

I'd be worried if there were a way. But no, there isn't. However, your own browser software may provide this option. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to wait 50 years, the US government will possibly declassify that sort of thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Sotero

Who is Barry Sotero? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.145.176 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This page is for questions about using or editing Wikipedia,. General knowledge questions should be asked at the reference desk. However, for such a general query (and since there does not appear to be a Wikipedia article on this person) you should simply ask Google. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean Barry Soetoro, in which case see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Oh, and the answer to your question is probably best answered by the following Snopes article: "The Occidental Tourist".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At State Elementary School Menteng 01, "We knew him not by the name of Barack Obama but as Barry Soetoro"January 31, 2007 -- Jreferee (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]