Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 November 28

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

November 28

new subject

where can you recommend adding a new subject like Cakepops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.162.38 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Articles for creation. Dismas|^(talk) 00:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But even before you do that, please read WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. – ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How to search name changes

Hi, Is there a way to find out when an article's name was changed? The history tells us when the content was changed, but I couldn't tell what the title of the article was by using the history. Thanks! 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The page history has the link "View logs for this page" but it only shows moves away from the title. Same for Special:Log/move. I sometimes search the page history for the string "(moved" which will often be a move. For huge page histories I have occasionally clicked "What links here" and "Hide links" to find current redirects which may once have been the source of a move. I don't know a better method. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I did go through the pages' history and found where, in the intro, the title seemed to be changed. At the beginning of each article, the first sentence in the intro uses the title and puts it in bold, is that correct? If the words are in bold in the first sentence, that tells you what the title is/was? Thanks in advance.174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but not necessarily : the bold is added manually as a convention and might not reflect the title (see WP:MOS). CETTALK 03:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I only look at the page history page and not the individual revisions. Maybe your interest is in Chemtrail conspiracy theory. I clicked "500" and later "older 500" a couple of times at the bottom of the history page. For each list of 500 edits I searched the string "(moved" with my browser using Ctrl+F. Page moves automatically start with that but there were also a couple of matching edit summaries before I found [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all - tremendous help here! 174.74.68.103 (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How can I?

How can I add a cite to someone else's (citation needed)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khinton23 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC) &&&&&&&&&&&&

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

make it public

Hello, please, let me know how to make public the article (a biography), which has been saved, but still does not appear to be listed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.140.120 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the page will be a sub-page in the creator's space. Without knowing either the creator's user name or the article, it's a bit hard to give a definitive answer -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 03:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it depends where the article was saved and whether you have an account. Depending on the content, we may also say whether it seems suited for publication in the encyclopedia. Everybody can view any saved page whether it's part of the encyclopedia or not. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

heleho

The above line heleho was added by User:Heleho.[2] Does that mean the original post refers to the text at User:Heleho? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

about archictecture

'How can a person do architecture through commerce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandra prakash basu (talk • contribs) 04:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried the humanities section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. I suggest you clarify the question or give them some context if you just saw it somewhere. A search shows it is also at http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer/How-Can-A-Person-Do-Architecture-Through-Commerce/15114. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User_committed_identity and SHA-512

I am looking at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:User_committed_identity

As there is no talk page for this page, I don't know where else to ask this question..

In the above page, the example there to test one's hashing function says:

| To verify that you are correctly hashing your secret string, you can try hashing 'My name is Joe Schmoe, and I can be contacted at: joe@example.com' (without the | enclosing single-quotes). Your SHA-512 hash should be: | b7a84efbbd843545666957384e874c894fdc17f48ced53abd231c2e4d08e45ad10287b1225432e3ed9794c12994ff1e82aecf66a2ded61ad4baf6d8b9c81dab8

I have tries hashing this sample string now on two systems

 a) a Mac running macosx with coreutils installed from ports

which yields: | $ echo 'My name is Joe Schmoe, and I can be contacted at: joe@example.com' | gsha512sum | 22673dcd0fea42e1cf1b0b821e50065d1df9d5008be27e35745da2c4543839923fd1840fb262c3bfeb119dc68a41ea34898f4cb54d1fe97a968470c1cae0754b -

and the same result is generated on a RHEL-5-x64 system

| -bash-3.2$ echo 'My name is Joe Schmoe, and I can be contacted at: joe@example.com' | sha512sum | 22673dcd0fea42e1cf1b0b821e50065d1df9d5008be27e35745da2c4543839923fd1840fb262c3bfeb119dc68a41ea34898f4cb54d1fe97a968470c1cae0754b -

so is that example wrong, or are there in fact different versions of the SHA-512 hash algorithm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't verified the example myself, but there's a discussion about it here. It looks as if you should try again with "echo -n" so that no extra characters are fed into the hash generator. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Duh, sure. thanks for pointing out that I'm a doof :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sejtam (talk • contribs) 10:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Permanently severing ties to an article

Hi,

I'd like to permanently sever any link to the spiritual healing article. I think that requesting a wp:vanish followed by registration of a new account is the most effective way to do this. Can I have your comments please.

Many thanks, Adrian-from-london (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the Clean start page? You'd have to sever ties with the whole subject area, not just the one article. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at the clean start page and what happens to a user account when a vanish request is processed, and a clean-start looks better as I can completely abandon the Adrian-from-london account and the spiritual healing topic. Thanks for your help, Adrian-from-london (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Starchild

Why does wiki refuse to let the starchild page be updated what is wrong with you people I thought this was a place for freedom of speech but your hide true research of ebe's just check out the official site all the facts are there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.45.108 (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We're actually an encyclopedia with pretty clear guidelines about what is allowable, rather than being a "free speech free-for-all". I have no idea what page you're actually concerned about, but while we do generally leave editing wide open, there are times when editors persistently vandalize certain articles, and they wind up getting protected for a while. DMacks (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to Wikipedia's article on the Starchild skull. Wikipedia does not grant anyone absolute "freedom of speech". Articles must confirm to core policies, such as the policy on verifiability which you may wish to read. Wikipedia is not the place for revealing conspiracies or telling the world about previously unreported findings. Only when facts have been reported in what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources are they suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

table help

hello,

how do I bisect "Cell A" into two (or more) cells, so that they are under "Header A", without going to "Header B" and "Header C" and without going to other cells? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Header A
! Header B
! Header C
|-
| Cell A
| row 1, cell 2
| row 1, cell 3
|-
| row 2, cell 1
| row 2, cell 2
| row 2, cell 3
|-
| row 3, cell 1
| row 3, cell 2
| row 3, cell 3
|}

You can't split a cell, as far as I know, but you can turn the problem round and 'colspan' to merge cells. Try this: -- John of Reading (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan="2" | Header A
! Header B
! Header C
|-
| Cell A
| Cell A2
| row 1, cell 2
| row 1, cell 3
|-
| colspan="2" | row 2, cell 1
| row 2, cell 2
| row 2, cell 3
|-
| colspan="2" | row 3, cell 1
| row 3, cell 2
| row 3, cell 3
|}

See more about table construction with colspan and rowspan at Help:Table. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I watched it before this ;).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What just happened?

Ok now it's my turn to ask a question.

I'm referring to the "Starchild" thread two threads up. When I clicked "edit" no-one had responded to the IP... There was no text other than the IP's in the edit window... I was never notified of an edit conflict... Yet somehow when I clicked "save" my response automatically appeared after DMacks'. How did that work?

I confirmed there was no other text in the edit window using the browser's back button after saving my edit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I'd used "show preview" and seen my response appear directly after the question. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's happened to me when posting help desk replies. The software may be trying to be [too] clever - right at the bottom of Help:Edit conflict there is the statement 'New since v.1.3 is CVS-style edit conflict merging, based on the diff3 utility. This feature will only trigger an edit conflict if users attempt to edit the same few lines.' -- John of Reading (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks. I'd been wondering if I was losing my marbles or something. Surely the software ought to give prominent notification when it does this? Had I not re-read after saving, I'd have never known someone else's response was put between mine and the question, which could have lead to a confusing situation for the questioner. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's been discussion of this elsewhere (WP:VPT, perhaps?) because some editors were unknowingly overwriting other people when they edit-conflicted. TNXMan 15:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter didn't overwrite.[3] As John of Reading said, there was no edit conflict because different lines were edited. This can happen when you add a blank line before replying (I and many others usually do that) so the software treats it like a separate paragraph. If you want to ensure there are no intermediate replies then you can click Show changes before saving. The risk of overwriting an edit without getting an edit conflict is something else, a bug mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#A disappearing post? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Censorship in Wikipedia?

To whom it may concern, I'm inquiring about the censorship policies of Wikipedia? While recently doing a project on Nazis and the Occult, I ran into some roadblocks in my research, as you have no pages focusing on the actual "Vril Society", "Maria Orsic", or the other members who disappeared in 1945. Only a "Vril Society" book synopsis, written way after the fact based on the authors own views not fact. I read somewhere that there had once been a page dedicated to "Maria Orsic", but was taken down. This raised questions to me about the censorship policies of Wikipedia. I am aware that Wikipedia is a privately-owned corporation and is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, but it is also an encyclopedia website and therefore should not be censored at all. I'm concerned about biases within the larger facet of the website and would like to know your stance on censoring content that may be controversial, but does not conflict with your "copyright, factual, etc." policies? For Example, all the topics I mentioned have been documented as un-doubtly happening or existing... so why are the articles being deleted?

Thank you, A.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.96.79 (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored but does have policies in place to ensure that the topics are notable enough to have been written about by reliable sources. The page "Maria Orsitsch" was deleted in 2008 after this discussion. The consensus then was that there was no reliable evidence that the person actually existed. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We did have a very short article called Vril Society but that was redirected to Vril and expanded considerably, so there was obviously no censorship there. That's clearly not evidence for censorship. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case there is no definitive proof "Jesus", "Muhammad", or "Buddha" lived, or that Santa Clause is real. Yet, they still appear on the website due to their cultural context, as should Maria Orsitsch. I consider that a form of censorship to exclude her and others based on that singular theory. I am not a fan of Maria Orsitsch, nor do I believe in what she thought. I just feel that there is enough evidence to confirm her as an actual person and is worth having on Wilkipedia for further researchers like myself to discover. A.A. --68.10.96.79 (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any independent reliable sources that discuss Maria Orsitsch? Keep in mind, a person must be notable enough to warrant an article. All of the examples you mention have multiple mentions in independent sources. TNXMan 15:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No I have only just begun delving into the topic of Maria O and don't feel qualified enough to write an article just yet. The Bible, Koran, and The Sutras, as with all religious texts are not independent sources themselves. Therefore, unless whichever god you believe in came to you directly and told you his/her philosophy on how to live, it isn't an independent source. Making your point moot. A.A. --68.10.96.79 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at (for example) Jesus, there are 234 references listed, very few of which are the Bible. The rest are from independent authors. TNXMan 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, all those 234 references are biased. In the since that most, if not all, come from the christian religion. I'm sure you will be able to find hundreds, if not thousands of Nazis and conspiracy theorists who believe Maria O. existed. Your example is the same as the "states rights" ploy where the federal gov't banned foreign aid to the confederacy, by framing the war in terms of the moral issue of slavery instead of states rights and then in the 1960s the gov't uses the same concept of "states rights" to fight against the civil rights movement. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Since there is no factual evidence for the existence of Jesus why does the page still exist? I'm not trying to stir anything up here, I just find Wikipedia's logic for not allowing some content and allowing others to be faulty. Even if no evidence is presented as to her existence, an article detailing the conspiracy should still be allowed. I also wanted to thank those who have tried to help me understand this concept by replying. A.A. --68.10.96.79 (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There have already been piped links to Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) in the replies. Jesus is vastly more notable than Maria Orsic. A huge number of reliable sources that are not Christian have written about Jesus and it's not true that "all those 234 references are biased". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on now, give me a break. I'm not attacking religion. I'm stating the undeniable fact that there is NO physical proof that Jesus ever existed,as stated in the GUIDELINES that proof is needed in order to publish the article.I'm by no means comparing the mythical figure of "Jesus" to Maria Orsic. And since there are people who have claimed to have seen "Jesus", if thousands of people claim to see her would it make the story any truer?? Regardless, I'll just have to search for other means of information other than Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.96.79 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Acutally exists" is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a wikipedia article topic. We have articles about all sorts of mythology, hoaxes, later-disproven scientific theories, etc. DMacks (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How to insert a name into a category with the surname first.

I am editing an article, and having placed categories at the end, have found that the person about which the article is written appears in the categories under the letter for the first name, and not the surname. Is there a way of ensuring that that person appears under the letter for the surname - i.e. is there a Wiki formula for placing surnames first, without it appearing like that in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickuser (talk • contribs) 13:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Category#Default sort key. You want {{DEFAULTSORT:Kimm, Fiona}} PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

... or Help:Category#Sort order for a particular category, as distinct from a default. David Biddulph (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese inter-wiki link

I have been asked to publish a Portuguese translation of an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chrom%C3%BD), I don´t know how to create a new link to Portuguese on the left hand side of the page in order to publish this article... Could you please guide me. Thank youPaulo B. Freire (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the file you'll see a collection of inter-wiki links. When your Portuguese page exists, add to the English page a link [[pt:Anna Chromý]], or the equivalent if the Portuguese page is named differently. David Biddulph (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Donations. Currency Issues

Hi Wiki. I have been using wikipedia for the past ten years. I have always wished to make a donation to this phenomenal project at this time of the year. But being an indian i want to make it in terms of rupees. But unfortunately that process doesn't exist. Why is it so? And can you please add that facility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandrmk (talk • contribs) 14:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

PayPal, the default mechanism for donation, does not deal in rupees. There are other ways to give that may work for you, including mailing a check directly to the Foundation or wiring money to their bank account in Paris. Xenon54 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been other complaints about PayPal and rupees. One thing you could do, Anandrmk, is to contact PayPal and request that they consider accepting payments in rupees, or attempt to find out why they don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"my contributions" has an edit to a page I have never even read and doesn't have the page I did edit

The "my contributions" for me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blmorris, lists one article that I don't think I have even read, and does not list the one article that I did edit. My edit for that page just has an IP address instead of id, but I'm pretty sure that I was logged in under my blmorris id when I made the edit.

I did not make any changes to this page about Ted Kaczynski, edit dated 22:25, 4 August 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Kaczynski&oldid=67720252

I did make this edit to the IBM RPG page, edit dated 23:35, 15 October 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IBM_RPG&oldid=25619663 Blmorris (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you were logged in when you edited the IBM RPG page. MediaWiki does a pretty good job of tracking of who added what, and when. I'm also somewhat amazed that you remember which pages you did or did not edit from four or five years ago. I can barely remember what I did ten minutes ago. TNXMan 15:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your account was created [4] 5 minutes before the Ted Kaczynski edit and 10 months after the IBM RPG edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

access restrictions on articles - following a clean start

Hi,

I've set up this account in order to make a clean start from an article I used to edit. One thing I've come across is the use of access restrictions when sanctions have been imposed. I used to edit the following pages - would you be able to block access to them from this account?

articles:

• biofield energy healing
• energy medicine

redirects:

• energy healing
• absent healing
• contact healing
• distant healing
• spiritual healing

Many thanks, Oldgraybeard (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oldgraybeard (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We cannot block specific pages for technical reasons. If you make non-controversial edits to pages you used to edit, or do not edit them at all, access restrictions and sanctions most likely will not be a problem. However, if you make contentious edits or edits of the sort that caused you to abandon your previous account, and these actions are judged to be disruptive, then your account may be blocked from making further edits to the site as a whole. Incidentally, it might not have been the best idea to announce that this account is a 'clean-start' account. Your contributions to other articles (conforming to our guidelines) are always welcome. (As an aside, the "restrictions and sanctions" referenced in the clean start policy generally refer to community- or ArbCom-imposed sanctions. Nonetheless you should avoid contentious editing behaviour, regardless of the article you edit) Intelligentsium 19:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Searching for exact text match

I want to search for MERCEDES 1617, but I drown in 16-17th. I've tried with '1617' and "1617", but with no luck. Is this someting wich is missing in Wikipedia?

Regards, Christian Groentas (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Help:Searching you can use double quotes to search for something. What, exactly, are you looking for? Maybe the article's under a different title than what you're looking for. If you try alternate search terms and can't find anything, you can use Google to search for the article in question. Open Google and type in mercedes 1617 site:en.wikipedia.org which will give you results for mercedes 1617 from Wikipedia. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion of an administrator

in Talk:Gustavo Cerati#Infobox / Notable Instruments there's a fight over an issue between users on a section of the infobox. Would be nice if an administrator who knows about the music infobox decides that the best thing that can do. JGabriel ar (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrators do not carry any special weight in deciding between two opposing sides in content disputes. Administrator's roles at Wikipedia are strictly technical, and in their role as editors, Admins carry no additional weight that any other experienced editor would. If you need help, try third opinion or request for comment or editor assistance requests to get some additional, third-party opinions on your problem. --Jayron32 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that I believe that someone must make a decision, because there have been opinions in the article that have not been taken seriously. That is, for example, you can say that you think should be included in the infobox the section in dispute, but users who are against this, they will continue to edit in the same way they did before. a opinion does not work, I think someone should say what is right, if it does not, there will be no quick solution. JGabriel ar (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've given you some options to help you make that decision; there are ways to get a third party to come in and help break a deadlock; its just that admins bear no special role in being that third party. --Jayron32 04:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia political pages on FaceBook? I object.

There are pages for public figures on Facebook which other users say are put there by Wikipedia. I am not happy that political comments I have made to friends on FB are showing up on sites such as Nathan Deal-Politician, Casey Cagle-Politician, Saxby Chambliss-Politician and so on. I consider this a violation of my privacy, as I am not a "friend" to any of these politicians. Others of my friends are also surprised to see that comments they thought were personal among friends are instantly popping up on these political websites. (1) Is your company actually creating those pages? (2) Are you using a web crawler to pick up statements made on Facebook and collect them to these political sites? How can I opt out from having my comments to friends on Facebook show up on these political pages? I am a fan and a user and a donor to Wikipedia, but if Wikipedia is actually using software to search Facebook, where will it stop? Tina Simms 173.186.60.53 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one at Wikipedia is doing this. Can you indicate which parts of the Wikipedia articles Nathan Deal or Casey Cagle or Saxby Chambliss are taken from things you have said at Facebook? If you could be specific, we could possibly help resolve this issue. --Jayron32 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use any software to search Facebook; Wikipedia is not a "company" per say, it is made of volunteers like you and me who constantly edit the encyclopedia according to community consensus and guidelines. The Wikimedia Foundation is not directly involved in the content and Wiki has no editorial board or anything like that. Therefore if in fact some of your comments have been put on a wikipedia page, it's by specific users, but as far as I know Facebook is not a proper source of material. Like Jayron32 said, you need to be more specific about the content added. Cheers - CETTALK 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Facebook has pages with content copied from Wikipedia. Associated with these pages are posts made elsewhere on Facebook which appear to have some kind of relationship with the subject, so if a Facebook user makes a wall post mentioning Hitler, it might shew up on the page with the material copied from Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would add that if you are concerned that a statement you make not become public, you probably should not put it on facebook at all--their privacy policy leaves much to be desired. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• If anything, it's the other way around; webcrawlers generally pick up statements from Wikipedia, among other sites. I've seen webpages that literally are the Wikipedia article and if the Wiki article changes, the site's text immediately changes to mirror that. You're pointing your finger at the wrong people. It's easy enough to blame Wikipedia simply because the site is a nice fat target. HalfShadow 22:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

how to contact an author

in general, is there a way to contact an author? I looked at the page for Pleistocene Park and the external link to it's official web site is bad. Even the base of the link, an apparent university site, doesn't exist and I can't find the website. I found who the user is, Tina Cordon, who edited that in originally, so I am hoping she might have some clue as to the website. Maybe there was a typo. If I edit the Talk Tina Cordon page, does she see that? Or is there a way to send email or something? Thanks. Karen Anne (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you edit her user talk page, she will see it the next time she logs on. In addition, you can email a user by choosing 'email this user' in the left toolbox on their user page, if that user has chosen to be available by email. But if you see errors in the page, it's fine for you to edit the article and fix it yourself. Is Pleistocene Park the article you are looking at? I don't see a 'Tina Cordon' among the users who have worked on that page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

January 1, 2008, 2 edits. And to answer the question, yes she will see if you edit her talkpage, provided she is still active. And like FisherQueen said, be bold :) CETTALK 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The web address appears to have once been legitimate; there are a couple of web addresses here that use almost the same address, so the site's addresses may have changed. I'll see if I can find anything. I assume this is the primary site. It's possible the website may not even exist anymore. HalfShadow 22:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't find him in the faculty listing, so I guess maybe he left and the page went into the dust bin. Too bad. I had originally been looking for how to donate. Yes, I know I can edit, but I was hoping to salvage the link. Karen Anne (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

F. Stuart Chapin III, who is listed (with an e-mail address) on that faculty Web page, has apparently worked with Sergey Zimov, the founder and operator of Pleistocene Park. Chapin's personal Web site has pages on the Northeast Science Station and Pleistocene Park. Perhaps if you e-mail him, he will be able to help you out. Deor (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, a Wayback Machine archived version of the "Official Site" linked in the PP article seems to be basically identical to the PP page on Chapin's site. I'm not sure that I'd characterize it as an official site, though. Deor (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)