Help desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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

May 7

Chunky Chicken Noodle Soup Not good.

To whom it may concern.

Several weeks ago I bought two cans of Chicken Noodle Soup, I was dissapointed that it had very little flavor. In fact it tasted like someone had pored water into it. I was hungry so I ate it any way even though I couldn't get over the fact that it had NO flavor. All I could think of was "Hey this is Campbells' Soup". "It is the best" but it wasn't. "I am sorry to tell you this but this stuff was bad. There was No taste, and to make matters worst, about one and one half hours later I developed severe runs, so severe that from the time I got the first urge to go, before I could get my slacks pulled down, it was running down my legs. I couldn't make it to the bath room!" and that is right next door to my bed room.) I messed all over my clothes and I couldn't get up, every time I went to get up I would go again and again. I have never had such a reaction from eating anything.

I have the other can sitting on my desk that I would like to send you to check before other people fall severely ill.

It has a date on it of Jan.15, 2016.

^{[details removed]}

Rosemary Blum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.101.27 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 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. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File licenses

I uploaded a couple of pictures (File:WikiOtter MTG Card.png, File:Wikipedian Protester MTG Card.png, File:WikiGoblin MTG Card.png) recently that incorporate other pictures from here on Wikipedia. I wasn't thinking when I went through the upload form and selected that I was the one who created them, and put them under the wrong licenses for what the original pictures were. I re-uploaded them and purged the cache, but it's still showing the old license. Can someone take a look and see what's going wrong? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Supernerd11: Instead of uploading the images again, you can edit the licenses by going to the file pages and editing them in the same way as any other page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: Alright, they're taken care of, thanks! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 12:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusations about Muslims with no PROOF!!!!

Referred to other threads and talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When reading through this article I figured out that Muslims were accused of killing between 60 million and 80 million people in India. Furthermore; Muslims conquest of the Indian subcontinent was listed on the top of the events making Muslims the biggest murderers through history. Yet all those accusations comes with no real evidences. How can we say that these killings have happened through demographic studies only? Never the less those same demographic studies are considered as inaccurate by many scholars. Thereby, I request that this part must be deleted immediately with a proper apology to the Muslim community throughout the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.129.178 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an issue more for the specific talk page for the article you read (Talk:Muslims in India is where I'd assume you want to go). Reading WP:RS might clear up some of the issues with sourcing. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More likely refers to List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll where there is an ongoing edit war, or to Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. Maproom (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(... as already discussed in recent sections #List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll and #lies against Islam above). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispensing medical advice?

Hey all, was wondering if any of you felt that Fissure of the nipple is crossing the "Wikipedia doesn't dispense medical advice" mantra that we've all uttered so often here at the Help Desk. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think it crosses the line.--ukexpat (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is an 'AFCH error'???

Hello everyone. I'm just kinda puzzled by a pop-up message appearing on the top right corner every time when I visit a user page (no matter others or mine).

The message says:

AFCH error: user not listed

AFCH could not be loaded because "Kou Dou" is not listed onWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there.

Though this message vanishes after a single click, it did annoy me as I don't even know what it is and where it is from. Could anyone here please tell me how to remove it?

P.S. I'll upload a screenshot of this message if you need. Thanks in advance. :) --Kou Dou (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting this too, though I'd assumed it was because I'm currently using a PC instead of my own Mac. It relates to WP:AFCH, which I had enabled and forgotten about; disabling it on the gadgets tab of my preferences (it's called "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" there) seems to have solved the problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what it means. Kou Dou, you must have clicked the check box next to the Articles for Creation Helper script under the Gadgets tab of your Preferences. If you uncheck it, the message will go away. Or, if you are interested in becoming a reviewer at AFC, you can add your name to the list of participants. Dismas|^(talk) 07:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help, Arms & Hearts and Dismas. I've disabled the option Yet Another AFC Helper Script in the Preferences and the message no longer appears. However it's strange that I'd probably checked the box several weeks ago but the message started popping up only yesterday (maybe the day before yesterday)... anyway, thanks a lot! --Kou Dou (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFC changed the code yesterday so that users are forced to sign up in order to use it. This is to enable them to withdraw the tool from unsuitable reviewers. Spinning Spark 09:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome answer. Thank you!--Kou Dou (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Gutierrez Arvidsson

I wrote an article about David Gutierrez Arvidsson that played for U19 and U21 squad at IFK Göteborg (IFK Göteborg) in 2012-2013. In 2013, David was called 5 times to the First Team in the Swedish Premier League "Allsvenskan" (Allsvenskan), twice to the Swedish Cup (Svenska Cupen) and twice to the Europa League (Europa League) but he was kept in the bench and did not played. However, David did play and made his debut with the First Team at the Costa del Sol Cup in February 2014.

David´s article was deleted on July 22, 2013 by Seraphimblade because it was not "notable".

In March, David started to play with the Utsiktens BK (Utsiktens BK) in the Swedish Division 1 Södra (Swedish Football Division 1 Södra) and he has now played 3 official matches with the Utsikten´s First Team in the Swedish Division 1 Södra (fully professional league).

Can I now publish an article on David without being deleted?

Best regards,

Fausto Gutierrez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonacapu (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 May 2014

@Jonacapu: That would seem to now meet WP:FOOTY. I have restored the article and moved it to your userspace at User:Jonacapu/David Gutierrez Arvidsson where you can work on improving it. You may move it back into mainspace whenever you feel it is ready. Spinning Spark 09:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opening "history" without opening the article

Hi! The "history" of an article shows me very clearly which edits have been made since my last visit, so I know which ones I have to check. This works fine when I check articles on my watchlist, as I always click on "hist". However, sometimes I would like to see an article that is not on my watchlist (because no changes happened the last 30 days) and if I open this article directly, the "updated since last visit" is wiped out. So, my question is, is there any way I can open the history of an article without having to open the article first? Lova Falk talk 08:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, put the url of the page into your browser in the form

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foobar&action=history

replacing Foobar with the title of the article you want. Spinning Spark 09:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups enabled (Preferences > Gadgets > Browsing > Navigation popups) you can hover over an article title, producing a popup, then hover over "actions", producing a second popup, and then click on "history" - does this do what you want? - Arjayay (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether the record of your last visit is retained beyond the 30 days of the watchlist life, so possibly you are going to be disappointed here. Spinning Spark 09:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll use the url solution. I'm not a fan of hovering and getting popups - way to many popups showing up that I don't want. And Spinning Spark, yes, the record is retained way beyond the 30 days of the watchlist life. A quick check showed that changes made in ~~december~~ july 2013 are marked as updated since last visit. Lova Falk talk 09:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was able to create a Firefox custom search engine by saving the following code in a text editor (notepad) as a .xml file (say, history.xml) and placing it in C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\searchplugins

code

<SearchPlugin xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/2006/browser/search/">
<ShortName>Hist</ShortName><Description>Wiki Page history</Description>
<Url type="text/html" method="GET" template="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php">
<Param name="title" value="{searchTerms}&action=history"/>
<MozParam name="client" condition="defaultEngine" trueValue="firefox-a" falseValue="firefox"/>
</Url></SearchPlugin>

It will take you directly into the history page. (I use it to prevent unnecessary loading of the article page to see history)···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 13:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my page which i create in sandbox doesn't show on google

Hi i couldn't find any answer that how Wikipedia page will be show on Google search engine ?

please guide me

Thanks

Maryam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoeentaghavi (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox pages as draft workspace are designed and tagged not to be indexed by google. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in its current form it would probably be deleted from the mainspace if moved there.--ukexpat (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if I wish to take an unused account?

I am it:Utente:Decan. There is an user with the same name on this wiki, but he is completely inactive and I am unable to contact him. Would it be technically possible for me to take his account? --129.67.185.223 (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since that account appears to have been inactive for the last seven years (and their only contributions were deleted), you should be able to usurp the name. You'll need to file a request at WP:USURP - use the same rationale as you've given above and a bureaucrat will rename that account so that you can adopt the username yourself. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing from sandbox

I've had an email telling me my draft article has been created, but it doesn't appear on the main site. It's still in my Sandbox - do I now need to do something to publish it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinHallmark (talk • contribs) 11:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as draft space for work in progress, sandbox pages are not indexed to be a part of any google searching. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so what do I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinHallmark (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect a reviewer made a mistake and intended to move it to the main encyclopedia. I have asked the reviewer. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinHallmark (talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the draft is not now in your sandbox, but at Draft:Medical Technology Group.

User:ColinHallmark/sandbox is now merely a redirect, and you can edit that or blank it as you wish (making sure that you do that to the sandbox itself, not to the redirect target). --David Biddulph (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been correctly accepted by another reviewer and is at Medical Technology Group. You were right to come here and report the problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

Referred to other threads and talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi,I am a Muslim among more than 1 billion other Muslims in this world,I was reading an article and this is the link:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll). For the last years,the "Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent" or what you call wasn not on the list at all and now it is on top of it!!! So,please check your sources before posting them, because it hurts many peoples' feelings. It is not even professional... No one will believe such lies!!! and sorry about the word but it is nothing but LIES... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.229.150.34 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the numerous threads on this both above and on the article's talkpage. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alan Watson Featherstone

Could someone please review this article for me. Thanks. Gomach (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i want to change the photo on a page that someone has made on me

i have a free photo that i would like to replace the one that was there. do i just wait the 4 days? and make 10 edits? thankyou. this is all new to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airlock studios (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually if you have an image whose copyright you own, and you want to freely license it, you can go right ahead and upload it to Wikimedia Commons and then use it here in the English Wikipedia. So you wouldn't need to wait for days or edits.

One note, your username may not meet Wikipedia's WP:USERNAME policy, in particular the "Promotional names" section. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) You can upload images to Commons:. Commons is a separate project and does not require you to be confirmed first (unlike Wikipedia). All images on Commons can be used on Wikipedia just as if they were here. The advantage of Commons is that the image is also available to all our other language versions and sister projects. However, since the article is about you, you have a conflict of interest and should not edit the page directly. It would be best to post the image on the article talk page first and ask other editors to put it in the article. You can use {{request edit}} to attract the attention of another editor. Spinning Spark 15:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Hello

I'm a college teacher and the subject of article accuracy comes up in my classes when we discuss Wikipedia. I note that certain articles -- the ones on Avian Flu or the Tea Party movement for example -- contain warnings or other suggestions that the article in question needs to be updated or requires additional information.

For years I've been using the Great Chicago Fire article as an example of an article which originally contained several mistakes but has over the years been edited and corrected.

I have taught Chicago History at a local college for a number of years and I can tell you that the article in question still contains a mistake. I tried to correct it but my correction was immediately removed by a Wikipedia editor.

What I'm wondering is why certain articles known to contain issues or known to be in need of updating remain available to the public but as soon as I attempted to make a correction, my change was taken down. I'm not so much concerned with the change I was trying to make -- next time I'll cite a couple of long-standing Chicago history sources for it -- but I'm wondering about the difference in treatment of these various articles.

(Your Wrigley Field article contains the warning that it is written in the tone of a fan publication, for example, but it remains up.)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewistully (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex question and I will give you a more detailed response in a moment, but to answer your question on the Great Chicago Fire article, you edit was reverted here by user:Optimale with the edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Lewistully identified as test/vandalism using STiki". This would seem to be a mistake, I will ask the user why they identified this as vandalism, but you are right that providing references makes you much less likely to be reverted. Spinning Spark 15:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't remember why I reverted this edit. Although looking a bit strange replacing two linked items in a list it clearly is no vandalism checking it again. I appologize for that mistake and I have now re-added the changes which have been made by Lewistully to the article. Optimale ^Gu 16:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To address the general issue, we do not take down articles just because they contain mistakes. Wikipedia is a work in progress and is not yet finished. There are certain categories of pages that can be taken down immediately such as obvious hoaxes, copyright violations, blatant advertising or attack pages. Other types of problem, most often lack of notability, can be taken down after a formal discussion. Articles that have problems such as innacuracies, or dubious information are dealt with by correcting or removing the problem text. However, Wikipedia is written by volunteers and there is no structured allocation of work. Basically, everyone works on what they find interesting. That means that many articles can go for a very long time without the problems being addressed. Many editors notice problems and mark the page with a template, but they may not have the time, skill, or inclination to actually fix it. There are rather fewer actually fixing problems.

If you see incorrect or dubious information in an article you are perfectly entitled to remove it, even if it has not been tagged (although in most cases it would be polite to tag it first for a while to give editors a chance to respond). When this happens it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to restore the information to provide a citation to a reliable source before restoring. This is covered in one of our core policies: verifiability. Spinning Spark 15:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the discussion of "taking down" something is being used to refer to two different Wikipedia activities. The first is the deletion of articles. As Spinningspark says, certain categories of articles, such as hoaxes, copyright violations, or patent nonsense, can be speedy-deleted. Otherwise articles can be nominated for deletion and deleted after a discussion. However, I think that the original poster was not asking about deletion of an article. He said that his correction to an article had been taken down. That is, his edit had been reverted. I think it has been resolved that that reversion may have been a mistake. "Taking down" an article by deleting it and "taking down" a change to an article by reverting it are two different activities. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material

Hi

A page I was drafting in my sandbox has been deleted because it was felt that I'd copied a photograph and text from an existing website. This was despite the fact that both (the website and the photograph) are mine: I took the photograph with my own camera; I wrote, registered and uploaded the website which comprises exclusively my text and my photographs (actually, there are two short quotes from novels by J K Jerome and Charles Dickens, but these are acknowledged and neither appeared in the sandbox).

How should I go about using my own material as the basis for a Wikipedia page?

Priestfield Stadium (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section heading to separate this from the previous discussion. You need to go to your user talk page and read the messages there. The words in blue are wikilinks to useful information for you to read. They will tell you about copyright violation, and about the processes which copyright owners can use for donating copyrighted material. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your user name is a clear violation of our user name policy so I suggest that you abandon this account and create a new one that does comply.--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way forward is to mark the page at http://www.photosunbury.com/lendymemorial4.htm with a free licence notification. That would solve the copyright issue and prove you are indeed the owner of the site. However, this needs to be extensively rewritten to make an acceptable encyclopaedia article. See Wikipedia:Your first article. I can see only one image in the deleted article. This has not been deleted, it still exists at File:Lendy Memorial.jpg. However, there is a discussion Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 May 4#File:Lendy Memorial.jpg here on possibly deleting that as well. You should respond at that discussion. You can establish that you own the copyright of the image through the OTRS ticket system. Spinning Spark 16:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

exporting print version to MS Word

I have Word 2010. When I want to copy an article, I select all of the print version and paste it to Word to optimize printing it out.

Until a couple days ago. For some reason pics do not show on Word; math /math expressions don't either. They did before and everything was fine but now pictures are just a blank space. I did download a new antivirus, Kapersky, at about the same time. Any other website copies and pastes pics just fine. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasrob (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine for me in Firefox and IE. What browser and skin are you using? Spinning Spark 20:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IE 11. What do you mean by skin? Chasrob (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chasrob, the skin affects the layout and appearance of the site. If you didn't change any settings, you are probably using Vector.

If you are having trouble with copying and pasting, there is a "Printable version" you can access on the left site of any page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anon. Unfortunately the printable version is what is giving me problems. It worked fine until a few days ago; I have no problem pasting other photos into word, just Wikipedia. I just installed a new anti virus and thought its clean-up operations messed somehow with my wiki settings... Maybe if I did a system restore to a date before I got the download?

I had similar problems several years ago, but forgot how I got it fixed. :( Chasrob (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, system restore would be an option. I just tried the Vector skin / IE11 combination and the logged out default. They all work fine. Here are some other things you can try:

Try logging out and copying an article. That will show whether or not there is a problem with your account settings.
Try using a different PC if you can get access to one. That will show whether your problem is related to your machine (and whether system restore is worth trying)
Try some different articles at random and/or post the specific articles you are having problems with here for others to try. That will show if it is article related.
Try a different browser to see if it is related to your browser settings. Spinning Spark 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried everything above, no joy. The only thing that did work, I did last month with a system restore. However, a couple weeks ago the problems came back. I'm hesitant to do another restore, since I starting using new malware software. Anything else to get wiki's pictures to paste into Word along with the print version? Chasrob (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baselios Geevarghese I

Good day

RE: Baselios Geevarghese I

Can some please assist me? I see that there is no picture of "Baselios Geevarghese I of the East" in this site. Please direct me on how to upload a photo of him to this site and any article related.

Kind Regards Divya George — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgeorge03 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find RFC that bot asked me to comment on

Legobot asked me to comment on a Request for Comments on WP:Media copyright questions. However, I can't see an RFC on either the project page or the project talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page history shows the RFC was moved to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#rfc D64579D. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. On the one hand, the move is confusing because apparently the bot was using the original place of the RFC. On the other hand, the RFC is hard for me to understand and has resulted in walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the link to the RFC.[1] Participation is voluntary. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that participation is voluntary. Since I don't understand, I won't participate unless someone provides a clear explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to the article on 'Positive Christianity"

I have a book to add to the Further Reading section in the "Positive Christianity" article. I am wondering how to enter the book's information in the editing form. The book is: Hitler's Christianity by J.P. Holding published in 2013 by Tekton Apologetics Ministries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorySleuth316 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could post a suggestion to add this on the article talk page - though I doubt that a book published by Tekton Apologetics Ministries [2] would be considered of sufficient academic worth to merit inclusion unless evidence from third-party sources could be provided: e.g. citation of the book in scholarly works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorySleuth316 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes on Idaho Congressional Districts page

Hi, I'm not sure how to make Wikipedia changes and don't want to mess anything up, but I noticed some serious mistakes on your Idaho Congressional Districts Page. Rep. Labrador's picture is captioned Mike Simpson (the 2nd district representative) and Rep. Simpson's picture is captioned Ted Poe, a representative from, I believe Texas?

Idaho's congressional districts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.3.19 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - in this edit. I suspect it was a hangover from a copy and paste of Wiki markup from another article.--ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how do i cite my information

im having trouble citing references for my page regarding The Mitchell Block in winnipeg, manitoba, canada. i am being sent in circles by wikipedia on how to fix the problem and none of them are helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmckay173 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sean. I've taken the liberty of editing your post to turn the article name into a Wikilink for convenience. I'm sorry you're having difficulty: Wikipedia is a big, complicated beast, and it can be tricky to find your way through it. Have you been pointed at the article WP:referencing for beginners? That should address your problems, but if it doesn't please come back here and ask a more specific question. One immediate point is that references should be attached to the particular information in the article that they support, rather than just listed at the end; because the point of including references is that somebody who comes along at any time and wants to be sure that some information in the article is correct knows where to go to check it. The article I linked tells you how to attach references to points in the article, but get them listed at the end. --ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adding photo

To whom it may concern,

I am trying to add a photo to the Plasmodium malaria site to enhance it. It is a part of a project for one of my classes at college. But I cannot figure out how because I am not a 'auto confirmed' user, though my professor said other students have been able to upload photos. What must I do to be able to add a photo/image?Blsipp14 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blsipp14. Assuming the photo you want to upload is free of copyright (the holder of the copyright has explicitly placed it in the public domain, or released it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, then you can (and are encouraged to) upload it to Wikimedia Commons instead. This will mean that it is available for any Wikimedia project (eg other language Wikipedias), and also Commons does not have an autoconfirmation barrier. If the photo is not free of copyright, or you do not know for certain that it is, then you may not upload it to Commons, but you should also not upload it to Wikipedia unless you can meet all the conditions in Non free content criteria. Please see Upload wizard for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology

Good Morning I was not sure how to register in order to start editing My interest is in Anthropology Your recently updated site (2014)

Early human migrations

has much information on the exodus of human kind from Africa.

However, another site on the migrations to South East Malaysia tells a conflicting story of homo erectus (Java man) being there back towards the Pleistocene era

Prehistoric Malaysia

In 2007 analysis of cut marks on two bovid bones found in Sangiran, showed them to have been made 1.5 to 1.6 million years ago by clamshell tools, and is the oldest evidence for the presence of early man in Indonesia. Fossilised remains of Homo erectus, popularly known as the "Java Man" were first discovered by the Dutch anatomist Eugène Dubois at Trinil in 1891, and are at least 700,000 years old, at that time the oldest human ancestor ever found. Further Homo erectus

Can we reconcile this information? signed Richard FitzGerald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.149.123 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest! Your can create an account via WP:ACCOUNT. Wikipedia articles are generated by individual volunteers using the sources they have access to, and so it is not unusual that different articles may have been built using different sources. Wikipedia's content should be based upon the most reliable sources available and if multiple reliable sources exist that support differing versions, we attempt to represent all major interpretations in the proportion that they are held by the mainstream academics in the field.

You can use the article's WP:TALKPAGEs to initiate a discussion with those who have been involved in the writing of both articles bringing up the contradiction and working to a resolution based upon the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting the contradiction. I have deleted the first sentence from the Prehistoric Malaysia article, for these reasons:

Its claim that remains of Homo erectus dating to 1.83 million years ago have been found in Malaysia is implausible. It contradicts statements in the same Wikipedia article, in Early human migrations, and elsewhere. (Ok, the way Wikipedia works, this is not a valid reason for deleting it. But it made me look harder.)
The lede (opening section) of a Wikipedia article ought to summarise the article, not to contradict it.
The reference given for the statement was to a Google search. This is not acceptable: it is not a citation of a published source.
The reference did not even lead to a Google results page. It gave a 404.

Maproom (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]