Help desk
< February 9	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 11 >

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.

February 10

Browser Requirements

I would like to know why Wikipedia cannot be accessed (no response from server) using Lynx or other old browsers, and what are the supported browsers. Note: Lynx can use https.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.232.250 (talk • contribs)

Hello, anonymous person. WP:Browser notes might have some useful information, but it seems to say that it does work on Lynx etc. I suggest you ask at WP:VPT: people who know about how Wikipedia works technically are more likely to hang out there than here. --ColinFine (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by ColinFine, I asked at WP:VPT. Discussion continues there.

Flag templates producing inconsistent spacing

List of U.S. states has identical formatting for all states' names on the left side of the list, except for North Dakota. For some reason, there's an extra space between the flag and the name. Why? It's not merely a mistake on the list; identical code produces identical results at WP:SAND. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:ExpandTemplates shows it makes two &nbps; instead of one for North Dakota. The extra one comes from {{Flag/core}} saying {{#ifeq:{{{size}}}|23x16px|&nbps;}}. It tries to line up the text in a list of flags by compensating for the flag being more narrow. It may overcompensate a little, at least in some circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina

North Dakota

Rhode Island

But it doesn't do the same for Rhode Island; do you know what the difference is? Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Country data North Dakota}} has default size 23x16px. {{Country data Rhode Island}} has 23x17px. {{Flag/core}} has hard coded an extra space for exactly 23x16px. It doesn't seem optimal but I don't want to examine how a myriad of flags might display in different browsers and circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota/sandbox

I created a sandbox page with a 23x17 flag, which seems to work better, and I'd like to change the country data page to expand ND's flag to 17px. Where would you suggest discussing this? VP/Pr seems overkill, and North Dakota not being a particularly populous state, the Wikipedia:WikiProject North Dakota is nowhere near active. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erchless Castle

Please fix up ref number 6 - something is wrong with it. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srbernadette, basically, someone tagged it as a questionable source. Perhaps you've not encountered it, but one of our core policies is "no original research" — something sourced to personal communications is good when you're compiling your own research (whether for your own interest, for academic work at any level, or for ordinary publication), but because encyclopedia articles are meant to summarise what's already been published in major sources, personal communications shouldn't be used. The type of information you inserted is quite reasonable for inclusion, so if you can find the same thing published in a reliable source, you should feel free to put it back, along with a proper citation to the source you used. Final note — explaining your sources is critical: because anyone can modify Wikipedia articles, readers (including other editors) need to be able to see where you got your information, and if they don't know where you got your information, they can't check up on it: they have to take your word for it, and that's never a good thing in any kind of writing. I see that you're already doing your best with that, so please keep it up! Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help.

I think that the 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs on this page need to either be removed (or have citation "warning" included). I think removal. Please fix Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly correct, but it's always possible that everything in those paragraphs came from source #8, the Telegraph article from 6 September 2009. This is where you or I become the reader who needs to see where someone else got information: if we read the article and discover that it all came from there, we should just rearrange the text to make its source obvious, and if it's not there, we insert a warning or remove the text. There's a third possibility: perhaps it was once cited properly to a good source, but the source got removed. This is rarer, but it can happen by mistake (you meant to copy a source for somewhere else, but you accidentally cut it, and then later you saved) or by intentional vandalism. This is where the page history comes in — we can look for the text's first appearance, thereby learning what the author meant to have it look like, and we'll be able to notice if someone removed a citation that was originally there. I can't do any of this myself (it's approaching 1AM my time), but I'll do my best to remember to check back here. If I forget, leave a reminder at my talk page and I'll respond. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find reliable sources for 2 paragraphs towards the end of the article - but failed - therefore I have deleted these small sections. Please chec. Thanks 101.182.136.195 (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you've started a new thread on an existing subject, so I've merged the sections. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

On checking the sources (those that are available to me), I can't find that information in any of them either, thus I agree it's reasonable to remove that passage for the time being. However, looking through the page history, I notice that this (and much other material on this page) was added by User:Paul_de_Bedyk, who was actively editing just day before yesterday. So chances are he's around and able to clarify. I've left him a note on his talk page and invited him to drop by and comment.-- Elmidae (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InternetCorruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia

Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia - Well you're tarnished damaged goods lost me as a donor . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.198.152 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above appears to be referring to this news article: http://www.cnet.com/news/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/ Rwessel (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"News" from September 2012. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And does anyone else find it weird when people knowingly abuse Wikipedia by offering paid commercial editing services, and then people blame Wikipedia for it, not those who abuse it? JIP | Talk 20:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External video in the body of an article

Dear editors: This article: Hoot Hester has a link to an external video near the top of the page. I know that external links in general, and also external photographs (as opposed to uploaded ones), are not considered appropriate in the body of an article. What about external videos or sound clips? Should the link to this clip be moved to the "External links" section? This is the first time I've come across this. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes external video is central to the story and warrants prominent placement in the body. Death of Sandra Bland and Shooting of Samuel DuBose, for example, use {{external media}} for this purpose. My opinion is that the video in your example does not qualify and should be in External links. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mandruss; I have moved the link to the section you suggested.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to replace graphic file linked to article by File:Xxxxxxx ?

Location: That (music)#System

Existing files, as referenced in Edit area:

System

As retrieved by right-clicking the images: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Indiskt_That-1.jpg/300px-Indiskt_That-1.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Indiskt_That-2.jpg/300px-Indiskt_That-2.jpg

I have created replacements for these 2 files, correcting an error in notation and reordering the contents to match the order in the article.

1. I don't know how to find the location of the original files based on the links. 2. I don't see attribution or copyright information for those files. I obviously copied their information and forma to make my corrected images. 3. Should I replace those images, add mine to the "gallery" with them, or post them to Wikimedia Commons?

Please tell me how to find directions for locating those files. Will there be copyright information for them there?

Then I'll try to find the instructions for doing the upload.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebeckwith (talk • contribs)

Those files are: c:File:Indiskt That-1.jpg and c:File:Indiskt That-2.jpg. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the case that as the file seems to be hosted at Commons here, that a new commons file would need to be created? I.e. a new 'image' containing the different information rather than replacing the existing image. As I understand it, replacing images at commons is for newer versions of the same image, e.g. cropped versions or some other change. Eagleash (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autofill not working on Cite template toolbar

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask; if not, please redirect me. I generally use the drop-down citations templates on the edit toolbar, to save time. Until recently, I could just paste the URL of the target and click the little magnifying glass, and Autofill would (often) fill in many of the other details. But for the past two weeks or so, it doesn't do anything. The URL is still there, and all the other fields remain stubbornly blank. Is this a general thing, or has my computer somehow got itself confused? (Before you ask, yes I have done a cold reboot.) In case it matters, I am using Chrome under Windows 8.1. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also failing for me with Firefox. A better place is WT:RefToolbar. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Mandruss: - I see that you have already raised the question on the RefToolbar page so I'll follow it there.

--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nizami Ganjevi is not Persian, he is Azerbaijanian poet.

Dear Wikipedia Team.

On the following web-page: Nizami Ganjavi there is a mistake: Nizami Ganjavi lived and created his art in Azerbaijan,namely Ganja. Thus he is not a Persian but Azerbaijani poet. I kindly ask you to correct this. As during the history of humanity Russia, Iran, Armenia always tried to show Azerbaijanian culturwe as their own. Please as being the WIKIPEDIA, which always provides the best, reliable and correct information, follow your way.

Regards, Sevinj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.146.26 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Azerbaijan existed as an independent country during the lifetime of Nizami Ganjavi. Maproom (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an improvement to make to a page, please post your suggestion with a citation to a reliable published source on the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Nizami Ganjavi. But, as Maproom says, there was no such place as Azerbaijan in the twelfth century. The article does mention that he came from a place that is now in Azerbaijan, and that several peoples including Azeris appreciate his heritage. So you would need some reliable published sources that specifically describe him as Azerbaijani (and, probably, that explain why this apparently anachronistic designation is appropriate). --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I raise a question about an article?

To be specific, I have an issue with Frobenius solution to the hypergeometric equation

I would like to know how to raise it with the author without actually touching the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys sea (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post your comments to the talk page, Talk: Frobenius solution to the hypergeometric equation. I see that the article has issues with its tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I raise a question about an article?

To be specific, I have an issue with Frobenius solution to the hypergeometric equation

I would like to know how to raise it with the author without actually touching the article.

The question I would like to ask is this.

In the expansions about z=0 the solutions to the case \gamma is an integer not equal to one (\gamma=1-m where m=1,2,...) and (\gamma=1+m where m=1,2,3...) does not include the finite sums seen in Abramowitz and Stegun (Editors) Chapter 15 (Fritz Oberhettinger) 15.5.19 and 15.5.21.

(Abramowitz and Stegun "Handbook of Mathematical Functions" Dover Books on Advanced Mathematics ISBN 0-486-61272-4.)

For instance, for c=1-m 15.5.21 has a term \sum_{n=1}^m \frac{ (n-1)! (-m)_n}{(1-a-m)_n(1-b-m)_n} which I have derived myself for and m=3 for instance. Can the author point out where I have misunderstood, or tell me whether this problem is real?Tethys sea (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys sea (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See reply immediately above.--ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies from ukexpat and Robert, I hadn't figured out to add to the talk pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys sea (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations opposing mainstream science

Please continue discussion on talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2016 (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.

We have posted the complaint below on the Talk page for the "List of organizations opposing mainstream science" article. Also, seeing that a number of similar complaints from others have yielded no results or even attention, we are following Wikipedia's direction and posting the complaint on the Help page which Wikipedia specifically recommends and writes is often more frequently checked than Talk pages. Since the material posted is extremely insulting and damaging, we would appreciate quick remedial action for the specific item discussed as well as for the general tenor of the section(s) in question. Thanks. Please see below

In the section on Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), there appears, “However, journalist John Horgan, a friend of Wertheim's, reported that "When [Wertheim] attended an NPA meeting... it reminded her of an experiment in which three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were introduced to each other... Each concluded that the others were crazy. Watching presenters at the NPA meeting, Wertheim comments, was like 'watching thirty Jesus Christs.'”[19]”

This struck me as just gratuitous and snide insults. I thought such fare was explicitly prohibited in Wikipedia. When this section of Wikipedia was presented to an audience of those who challenge various aspects of currently accepted science, it elicited an extremely strong negative reaction – although it proved to be a unifying topic. Some assessments during the presentation and afterward in discussion groups, included (in addition to my “gratuitous and snide insults” assessment), “amateurish”, “frivolous”, “slanderous”, “libelous”, “defamatory”, “tabloid”, “arbitrary”, “unfounded opinion”, “baseless fantasy”, “It’s Wertheim who’s having the schizophrenic fantasies”, etc. The Wertheim quote seemed to be insulting not only to members of the NPA, but also to members of the CNPS which was characterized in the article as a spinoff of the NPA and by extension the whole community of those who challenge various aspects of currently accepted science. Note that many members of the NPA and CNPS are full professors, PhDs (or equivalent, e.g., Ing’s in Europe) or independent researchers with significant credentials (e.g., patents, publications in the top tier journals, nominated for the Nobel Prize).

I’d suggest that a knowledgeable person might see the same presentations as Wertheim and see well educated, very intelligent speakers passionately advocating deeply researched views – the fact that they speak with great passion and conviction should not per se consign them to being assessed as mentally ill or delusional.

The above segues into Wertheim’s qualifications for making assessments that are published in an encyclopedia. Since the Talk section has an extremely limited readership and a discussion of her credentials is relevant, we’ll briefly discuss those. First, she’s not a scientist, she’s a science writer. Wertheim has her niche. Her foundation is “The Institute For Figuring” which, in her words, “is an organization dedicated to the poetic and aesthetic dimensions of science, mathematics and engineering. The Institute’s interests are twofold: the manifestation of figures in the world around us and the figurative technologies that humans have developed through the ages. From the physics of snowflakes and the hyperbolic geometry of sea slugs, to the mathematics of paper folding, the tiling patterns of Islamic mosaics and graphical models of the human mind, the Institute takes as its purview a complex ecology of figuring.” The IFF’s Crochet Coral Reef project shows her to have an eye for art, a talent for writing and an admirably kind heart when not discussing scientists outside the mainstream and many other good qualities and likely is a nice person most of the time. However, her niche is not General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc.. Nor does being nice part of the time give her a free pass to do serious damage to thousands of serious scholars by putting forth gratuitous and snide insults about their work which often required decades, if not a life time, of hard work. Wertheim has written about physics, but her academic background in physics seems to be very light and may be limited to a single course in high school physics.

To be fair to Wertheim, when she wrote about the NPA, she was likely not aiming for a Pulitzer Prize and was not delusional about having one of the great minds in physics. She likely did not see herself as a god of science able to look down on the work of thousands across a very broad spectrum and see who was right and who was wrong. Likely she understood that the depth of her perception was limited to the assumption that all of currently accepted theory is correct and that all who question it are wrong and even mentally ill. This assumption of Wertheim’s seems to be shared by the Wikipedia writers/editors of the NPA/CNPS sections and shows a lack of knowledge about the history of science among other things.

As a writer, Wertheim wanted readers. Again, to be fair to Wertheim, when she spoke or wrote about the NPA in the style quoted above, she was likely not delusional and was speaking/writing more in the style of “witty” cocktail conversation to be entertaining because many readers enjoy reading put downs of others so she found a schtick that worked and kept with it until it faded and was recognized as lacking substantive content and she lost her audience for that comic routine except, apparently, for Wikipedia. Again, Wertheim cannot be excused for doing serious damage to thousands of serious scholars by putting forth gratuitous and snide insults about their work just because her appealing to the lowest common denominator for her readership proved to be an easy way to make a few extra bucks at somebody else’s expense.

Wertheim has a great aptitude and penchant for self-promotion and she seems to be working this skill to the fullest in the pages of Wikipedia. So this brings up, “What is Wertheim’s involvement in this section?” If she has been directly involved, she needs to be replaced. If she was in contact with a front man, the front man needs to be removed. If she allegedly is not involved directly or indirectly, there appears to be a Wertheim surrogate who backs posting gratuitous and snide insults. Not only should the gratuitous and snide insults be removed, but the whole section needs a re-write to at least start with some semblance of validity and those editors who are responsible for this tabloid entry need, at the very least, some help for redoing this section. If an editor employs gratuitous and snide insults, it indicates a particular mindset about a topic so even when he feels he’s being objective or neutral, his bias and derogatory feelings can still come through. The whole section needs to be overhauled. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for posting gratuitous and snide insults about those for whom its editors happen to have a strong personal dislike and negative bias.

Other examples include, “Margaret Wertheim … speculated in a 2012 essay that much of the interest in this area is a response to the heavy mathematical content and abstract ideas underlying conventional scientific theories, which, she says, makes them inaccessible to the general public.[16][17][18] She compares NPA with the revolt of Martin Luther against the Catholic church.[16][17][18]” Why is Wikipedia including the speculations of Wertheim!?! It’s possible that somewhere someone said something that is a shadow of what she speculates, but this empty speculation is rightly labeled speculation and off target. Also, it would seem that the reader’s interpretation of her comment on Martin Luther depends on the reader’s religious affiliation.

Even if the gratuitous and snide insults quoted above were said by someone with physics credentials, that would not justify including them. Gratuitous and snide insults are just not appropriate fare for an encyclopedia.

By way of contrast, the “Flat Earth Society” section is written quite reasonably and factually. I don’t think that’s because “Flat Earth Society” has the highest of scientific credentials. The contrast between that section and many other similar sections with the NPA/CNPS sections highlights the mean spirited bias of the Wikipedia editors/writers of the NPA/CNPS sections. We do not ask that the section be filled with glowing compliments, just that it not be written in the style of a tabloid smear.

Further, the introduction to the whole list says, “This is a list of organizations opposing mainstream science by frequently contradicting the facts and conclusions recognized by the mainstream scientific community. By falsely claiming to employ the scientific method in order to advance certain fringe ideas and theories, they are engaged in the promotion of various forms of pseudoscience.” [red added] This may apply to some organizations in the list, but it is a misrepresentation of the NPA and CNPS and probably several others in the list and needs to be stricken or modified to indicate that it does not apply to the NPA and CNPS (and applicable others). Ironically, much of the work in those organizations points out where the mainstream has abandoned the scientific method and where it contradicts the facts (i.e., the empirical data). We would suggest limiting the introductory remarks to “This is a list of organizations opposing mainstream science by frequently contradicting the conclusions recognized by the mainstream scientific community.”

The rather extensive inclusion of gratuitous and snide insults in these sections of Wikipedia does not seem to be in the best interest of the organizations who are being attacked or Wikipedia itself or the readers of Wikipedia. The only one whom it promotes would seem to be Margaret Wertheim and her chosen style of scientific analysis. Let’s work together to put this section of Wikipedia on a higher level and avoid setting a dangerous precedence regarding including gratuitous and snide insults in Wikipedia at large. Having now looked at the Talk section, I see that a number of people have broached this topic before while reviewing different but related issues. For example there appears:

“It appears that this list is there to be a 'shame' list for ideas that editors don't like. If there is robust evidence against a school of thought then this should be on the school's page rather than noted in an uncited way on this blacklist of science. Nsxsvn (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)” HarvPhys (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TLDR and sum up your issue(s) in a few clear sentences.--ukexpat (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest closing this as not ripe. The same material is on the talk page and not yet responded to.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:07, 10 February 2016 (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.

Please can you edit ISLAM page

This needs to be removed from the family life section please. 'Even after marriage, there are limitations regarding sex. For example, Islam prohibits a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating and during postpartum period. It is considered a great sin for a man to have anal sex with his wife.[104]'

I am a teacher and direct children to using wiki for information about different faiths. How is this necessary to family life. Do not understand why this is on here. PLEASE REMOVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffycakes (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of our basic principles is that Wikipedia is not censored. --ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, that section was removed by Eperoton with this edit at 00:35, 11 February 2016‎. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erchless Castle

Please check that my recent deletions on the above page are all ok - it is, I think, a "dubious" page. I had to resort to adding a genealogical web site as a ref - is this OK? Thanks for your help. Srbernadette (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most genealogical web sites are not considered reliable sources because anyone can post their own family tree to them and there is no review. Published genealogies that have been reviewed prior to publication may be reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has the appearance of Wikipedia changed

Today, every article of I have viewed seems stretched out.

Eurocus47 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurocus47: I don't see any drastic change, so this must be something at your end. Please try bypassing your browser cache to force your browser to reload everything - that's Ctrl+F5 in many browsers. If that doesn't fix it, please post again here with your browser name and version. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]