Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 September 24

= September 24 =

antique guns
What does the term "in the black' mean as it relates to antique guns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.78.34 (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't mean its normal dictionary meaning (netting a profit/ahead/solvent; in this context, I suppose it could be via sale of antique guns) then I have no idea, but this page is not for general knowledge questions but for those related to editing or using Wikipedia. A place that is tailor made for this type of question is the language section of our reference desk. I'd ask there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Article "Oil war"
I clicked on the talk link for the article Oil war and found that it had been redirected to Talk:Heglig_Crisis. Further examination of the history showed that the talk page (and the article) had been moved to Talk:Sudan Oil War back in May 2012. It was again moved to Talk:2012 South Sudan–Sudan border conflict, then to Talk:2012 South Sudan–Sudan border war, and finally to Talk:Heglig Crisis. On July 25, 2012, someone took out the redirect on the Oil war page and started to rebuild the article as a disam page. The earliest edit comment in the history of Talk:Oil war says:
 * "13:16, 14 May 2012‎ Luis Molnar (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (Luis Molnar moved page Talk:Oil War to Talk:Sudan Oil War) (thank)"

And the article (Oil war) has a similar comment for its first edit comment. I don't understand how the first edit comment can be a move. How can the first edit comment in the history of a page be a move? What was moved if the article didn't exist? I searched through the talk pages of all those talk pages and could not find the original content of Oil war or Talk:Oil war. It looks like maybe the edit history/histories has/have been modified. Could someone with more experience and the appropriate permissions please examine the situation to see if the original content of the article Oil war and its talk page can be recovered?  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  04:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything that was in Oil War, from March 27 till May 14, 2012 is in Heglig Crisis' history. Same for the talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, as Help:Page history says: "When a page is moved (renamed), the entire edit history of the article, before and after the move, is shown. The old title becomes a redirect and loses its edit history." PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I just assumed that that article would have existed before 2012, given recent world history. Thank you for verifying that.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  15:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Indian Map
Hi,

Sikkim while i referring this page you have shown the Indian Map without Kashmir, Kindly change the map which includes Kashmir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.150.172 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess you know of the Kashmir conflict. The map shows who controls a disputed area. Talk:India/FAQ says:
 * "Q6: The map is wrong!
 * A6: The map shows the actual borders and all related claims; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China. See WP:NPOV."
 * Note that areas controlled by India but claimed by Pakistan are shown as in India, so we don't side against India. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

algorithms
algorithms in wiki pedia can explain in most efficient way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.29.34 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have a specific question about Wikipedia then please clarify it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing "hypertext"
This is my first attempt at writing an article, so the question is very basic... it will include a list of operas (in alphabetical order) and I'd prefer to put any articles after the title e.g. Sonnambula (La), but the hypertext automatically puts it at the beginning - how can I edit the hypertext?--ScozzeseVolante (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It sounds as if you might be looking for a piped wikilink. Sonnambula (La) will diplay as Sonnambula (La) but link to La sonnambula.  Details of how to do it are at Piped link. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you've not seen them already, you might also want to check out the existing Lists of operas and the pages/categories linked from there. If you see something in those articles styled the way you like, then you can click Edit and see the source text for it.  CaptRik (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Chikwe Nkemnacho
I need all information about me removed from wikipedia as they are not for public consumption. Please handle urgently. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.187.113 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't have a right of veto over what appears on Wikipedia about you. If the content can be verified by material published in reliable sources about you, and if you meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, then the article can stay.  You may wish to read the advice at Blp. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have proposed Chikwe Onoriode Nkemnacho for deletion as a biography of a living person that has no references whatsoever. It did have a website as an external link, but the website seems not to exist. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks a little A7-ish to me, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion as such.--ukexpat (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Spam Link in Medical Mutual of Ohio Article
A link was added last year to the "External Links" section of the "Medical Mutual of Ohio" article (Medical Mutual of Ohio).

The link in question is titled "Medical Mutual of Ohio Rates", and it links to an insurance quoting site.

I was hoping to have this link removed, but don't want to do it myself due to a conflict of interest. I have also added this request to the talk page for Medical Mutual of Ohio, but I do not believe that the talk page is frequently monitored.

Leaving a message here was suggested on one of the "Contact Wikipedia" pages (Contact us - Subjects). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widgetfan88 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅--ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Arnold Perl bio
To Whom It May Concern: I am the son of Joseph Stein, the librettist (or book writer) of 'Fiddler on the Roof.' In Wikipedia's entry for the writer/producer Arnold Perl, there appears the following:" Perl also wrote the play Tevye and his Daughters which was later adapted to the musical Fiddler on the Roof.[1]" This is wholly inaccurate. My father adapted 'Fiddler' from the short stories of the Yiddish writer Sholom Aleichem and used not a word by Arnold Perl; and, indeed, resented (and a;ways corrected) any suggestion to the contrary. In fact, when he and his collaborators were writing the show, Perl was a nuisance, since he held the rights to Sholom Aleichem's work. They retrieved those rights at a very steep price -- Perl got a small percentage of the royalties (which made him very rich) and the show's posters read 'By Special Arrangement With Arnold Perl.' But, again, he had no input on the show they produced, which, beyond the names of several characters, had absolutely nothing to do with his earlier play. For verification, check out either of the two books that recently appeared in conjunction with the show's fiftieth anniversary: 'Miracle of Miracles' or 'Tradition.' Both go into considerable detail on the show's origins, and also deal with Perl and the brouhaha over the rights. -- Harry Stein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.178.181 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We follow what the reliably published sources say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ... which may change as more sources become available. The source cited in the article, doollee.com, does not look particularly reliable; I would prefer Tradition! by Barbara Isenberg, but it is not yet available in my country. Maproom (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a significant excerpt from Tradition at http://us.macmillan.com/excerpt?isbn=9780312591427 that includes the quote "The book writers, or librettists, on musicals are often underappreciated, and Harnick felt Stein was among them. Said Harnick, “Some of the critics praised him, but others said he had such an easy job—all he had to do was to quote the stories. But there were very few lines that he could use. There were some. But I would say that ninety-five percent of the show, he had to invent. It was all Joe Stein.”" A good start, I think.Naraht (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

After reading the alleged Harry Stein's initial comment, I did some research and found that his claims seemed to be true. See http://us.macmillan.com/excerpt?isbn=9780312591427.

"The book writers, or librettists, on musicals are often underappreciated, and Harnick felt Stein was among them. Said Harnick, “Some of the critics praised him, but others said he had such an easy job—all he had to do was to quote the stories. But there were very few lines that he could use. There were some. But I would say that ninety-five percent of the show, he had to invent. It was all Joe Stein.”

I changed the wording to reflect this and kept the original reference, while adding this one.  Derstacker  (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

using "of Jewish" origin", but any other religions etc.
Invariably, when a person of Jewish decent, is profiled, you, and others say "of Jewish decent" always, but I hardly ever see others says what their religious origins are. Ehy must you that? I feel that it's kind of an expose, and there is enough antisemitism in this wpr;d a;ready. I am proud to be Jewish, but I don't need the rest of the world to know. PS I will probably never be in Wikipedia anyway. But I do love the service you provide and as a contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.7.113 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more a matter of providing information about ethnicity than religious background (take a look at Ethnoreligious group). And simply, Wikipedia considers being Jewish to be as relevant as one's race or gender. This is the result of many, many debates; a particularly fundamental one can be read here. This is kind of out of my scope of experience but I hope this helps somewhat. Scarce2 (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia considers being Jewish to be as relevant as one's race or gender". No it doesn't. Please do not misrepresent Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We describe a person as being Jewish only if they self-identify as Jewish, for example, in an interview in a reliable source. We describe Jewish ancestry only if that fact is described in a reliable source. Jewish origin can not easily be compared to other religious origins, because Jewish identity has very strong ethnic, cultural and nationalistic components, in addition to religious ones. In conclusion, Wikipedia biographies ought to summarize what reliable sources say about the person. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-identification surely isn't enough. We should only mention someone's religion and/or ethnic background if it has relevance to the reason we are mentioning that person. That would be pretty rare. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The bar needn't be as high as "the [singular] reason we are mentioning" a person, but there should be some relevance to a person's public life in their religion, ethnicity, culture, or race. It's hard, for example, to understand the full context of John F. Kennedy's presidency without acknowledging that he was Catholic; contemporary and modern commentators give his religion significance, and Wikipedia should reflect that significance in its due (giving it no more and no less significance than reliable sources do).  That we wish it were not so important doesn't mean it wasn't.  That doesn't mean the religion of every U.S. President had such significance; every case and every article must be dealt with on its own terms.  Race, ethnicity, and religion are important to understanding the full context of many (though not all, and probably not even most, but enough) notable people's lives that we cannot ignore it in those cases where it matters.  I certainly agree with you, to a point HiLo, that we should not be granting such facts about a person more significance than it bears mentioning.  That someone is Jewish doesn't need to be a defining characteristic in their biography, and where it isn't, we shouldn't be making a big deal out of it.  But where it is, we should give it its due.  -- Jayron  32  01:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should - though sadly Wikipedia seems to attract contributors with something of an obsession for tagging people by ethnicity for no good reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, no question about JFK's religion being mentioned. It was a huge issue around the time of his election. What bothers me more is when religion or ethnicity is mentioned for people like sports and media stars. It's usually quite irrelevant, but some seem obsessed with it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it incorrect that Jackie Robinson's article gives prominence to his race? Should we ignore the importance of Jewishness in the careers of prominent Borscht Belt comedians?  I agree with you that, for people for whom there is no significance to their culture, race, or religion, it shouldn't be given prominence, we cannot say that there are no sports stars or media personalities for whom such facts of their lives would every be relevant.  It isn't that race/religion/whatever should never be mentioned for sports stars or media personalities, its that it should only be mentioned in due proportion to the fact of their race/religion/whatever to their biography as is represented in reliable sources.  I agree that the fact that someone's great aunt being Jewish is not necessary to mention in an article about a soccer player to whom such a fact is irrelevant to their biography.  But one cannot say it is never relevant in any cases.  -- Jayron  32  01:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's relevant, sometimes it isn't. The question to ask is how much weight do the sources we cite attach to it? Far too often, we seem to end up with a long discussion on the religion of so-and-so's maternal grandmother or whatever, sourced to an obscure website that has next-to-nothing else to say on the actual subject of the article. It does little to enhance the credibility of Wikipedia as a serious biographical source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Jayron  32  01:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Mahfouz Bin Marei Bin Mahfouz / The Mahfouz Foundation
Hi there,

I have created the English version many times and every time the page is deleted without sufficient support from the Wikipedian who deleted the page. And everytime i ask anyone for an assistance either i get ignored or they are very busy and do not have time to respond.

So, please i need your assistance to retrieve the page of Mahfouz Bin Marei Bin Mahfouz as well as the page of The Mahfouz Foundation.

As you can see from the pages, they are very important for charities, students and patients in UK, Middle East and Worldwide.

Also, the Arabic version of the page of Mahfouz Bin Marei Bin Mahfouz is already approved in Wikipedia Arabic as per the link below:

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%81%D9%88%D8%B8_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B9%D9%8A_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%81%D9%88%D8%B8

Please help me as i have been more than three months trying to create the pages and evertime i create them they get deleted.

Of course, any advice and suggestions from your are very welcomed.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance and look forward to hearing your positive feedback asap.

Kind regards, AhmadMidoahmad (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . The reasons for the deletions are detailed on your talk page, and the pages linked from there. The first time, it appears to have been because you copied material from another (copyright) website which is not permitted. All the other times are because your draft article did not demonsrate that either the person or the foundation meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. For an article to survive in the English Wikipedia, there must be substantial writing about the subject of the article in reliable published sources, independent of the subject, and the article must reference these sources.
 * Each language Wikipedia is independent, and may have different rules, so just because there is an article in Arabic Wikipedia does not guarantee that there can be one in the English Wikipedia. The other important thing to realise is that Wikipedia may not be used for promotion. It does not make any difference how worthy or unworthy a subject is: all that matters is whether other reliable sources have already found it worth writing about.
 * I suggest you read your first article, and then if you still think that the sources exist which will make it possible to write such an article, use the article wizard to create your draft in a place where you can develop it without getting it deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)