Warning: file_put_contents(/opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/storage/proxy/cache/9a91deebd12eacbfcf8e56ea355f00c8.html): Failed to open stream: No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36

Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20
Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 December 3 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 December 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< December 2 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 4 >
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.


December 3

[edit]

Counting as WP:EXPERT if your own words are published in a reliable source?

[edit]

So, if I say in a reliable source, that I have x number of years of experience with a very specific topic, and it is part of the text in an article of that reliable source on a very specific topic, can that be used to show I have some level of authority on that topic? In this case, it's me expressing the fact that I've had three seasons of dig experience at a site. The article is not written by me, it's written by a person working for that reliable source. This would be a source that would out me, of course. I hope what I'm asking is clear. If I gave more info, it would definitely out me. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 30 Kislev 5774 00:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give any extra privileges based on expertise to editors, but your expertise is likely to show through on your talk page discussions because you will be able to find appropriate sources to support your statements, and your arguments are likely to be persuasive. (Of course, you might be restricted by the conflict of interest policy if the topic of an article is related to something you personally worked on, or have a financial interest in.)
You can use your own published works as sources. If you have been published in reliable sources in a certain topic area, your personal webpage might thereby become a reliable self-published source (which are acceptable, but not as desirable as publications by a publisher who is independent of the author). You should use care to be sure you are working to benefit the article, and not trying to attract attention to your own publications. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a conflict of interest by default though? If it's a company or a city you live in then I could see the concern, but if it's an archaeological site then it just means that, as you said, you can - and will be driven to - find good sources and understand what they're talking about better than people that haven't (at least without them having to do hours of work reading up on).
Oh it's nothing I published. More like I was interviewed by an editor of an RS publication and then he published the interview on the website of that RS. So it's like saying here would be credentials. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 30 Kislev 5774 01:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Flinders Petrie - Your words in an interview are not independent of you so, even if they are published in a reliable source, the information may not be usable in a Wikipedia article. Of course, I'm not sure what you mean by "used to show I have some level of authority on that topic". Used where? Do you want to show the website published work to another Wikipedian to establish that you are an expert on the particular dig? Do you want to use the information in a Wikipedia article? -- Jreferee (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I did not know you could highlight on Wikipedia. The former, to show that my opinion on things relating to that digsite maybe should have more weight (not like "No, I know better than you, etc, but more I'm pretty sure that's the case) and maybe a wee bit more weight when talking about archaeological digging methods (at least those used in Italy, Israel, and Jordan). For academic purposes, I may have to out myself soon anyway as I plan on doing some academic work on the same site that I've been editing and I'll probably need to acknowledge my work on that Wiki article just so I'm not put in awkward situation later. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Tevet 5774 11:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand it correctly, your situation is one of the legitimate reasons for having multiple accounts. One account where you are "self outed" used to edit articles where you may have a COI, and your current non-outed account to be used for non-COI edits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've done most of the work already. I'm not sure there's much of an COI, I am still a paying volunteer on the dig, I'm editing the article of my own volition, and it's hard not to maintain an NPOV on this. The self-outting isn't for you guys. It's in case anything I write in academic work starts to sound anything like the article. Self-plagiarism is frowned upon here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Tevet 5774 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

request edit

[edit]

Hi! I represent the Issaquah History Museums (I am the marketing department) and was editing our organization's name in two articles in Wikipedia, "The Issaquah Historical Museums" and "The Issaquah Valley Trolley". It occurred to me that the IVT is a project of the IHM, and so should probably be a sub-page instead of its own separate article. How do I merge the articles? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issaquah History Museums (talkcontribs)

You have a clear conflict of interest here, and should not be editing either article at all, except to correct clear-cut factual matters. In particular, your conflict of interest has led you to misjudge the relative importance of the two articles. The tramway is clearly notable, in Wikipedia's sense, and therefore an article about it is warranted. The notability of the organisation that operates it is doubtful. Maproom (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your username is also violating Wikipedia's rules: all accounts are personal, and should not have names that suggest an organisation: see WP:USERNAME. You should abandon that user name (which is likely to be blocked) and create a personal account (you are free to use a pseudonym: it does not have to be your real name if you don't wish to). --ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm not making content edits, our name was incorrectly posted by a high school student in 2009 doing an independent homework project. That's why I checked the edits as "minor edit" according to the rules. I fail to see the conflict of interest as the official organization and origin of the information misquoted in the original article. This is a factual edit. The only reason I am using the Issaquah History Museums profile is as an expert, official content source of Issaquah History Museums data in the course of my staff duties. What would be a better way of citing myself in my official capacity as a content expert? Or is there a completely different means when I am one of the authors of the webpage being cited as well?

My hope was that a Wikipedia expert could consider the merging question as the second article was also written by the same high school student (I believe) because it contains the same incorrect version of our organization's name. My Helpdesk message is titled "request edit" because I recognize that I cannot merge the articles myself. I mis-worded my intent as "how can I merge" when I meant "how can I request a review for a possible article merge". The trolley (not a tramway, that is incorrect as well) is one of about fifteen different small projects the IHM currently has; should we post all of them as individual articles? I had considered posting another one of these but upon re-reading Wikipedia's rules regarding what is defined as "notable", none of our projects independently meet the scope, including the trolley project- it's more like one of our facilities that also moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issaquah History Museums (talkcontribs) 11:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the rename you requested has already been done, by Theroadislong. It would not need an expert to merge the two articles, I could do it myself. But I am not going to: I think it would be counterproductive to merge an interesting and well-referenced article into an article that lacks all references except one to its subject's own web site and is, therefore, a candidate for deletion.
You should not be "citing yourself". What Wikipedia values is citations of independent, reliable, published sources. The IVT article has those, and is therefore not in danger of being deleted. I don't doubt your credentials as someone well-informed on the issues covered in the articles, but that is not what counts here.
You have stated that you are the marketing department of Issaquah History Museums: this gives you a very clear conflict of interest when editing an article about Issaquah History Museums. No-one is likely to mind if you correct dates, spellings, etc. But if you want any changes that might be at all controversial, you should describe them on the talk page of the article, and let other, impartial, editors decide whether to make them. And you should take ColinFine's advice about your username. Maproom (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the marketing person don't you have a "press clippings" file of news and magazine articles about your organization? Such articles should be the main sources for the article - not stuff that you or your colleagues wrote. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I upload an image. I am trying to improve a particular page. I am not autoconfirmed till now. Thanks.

[edit]

How do I upload an image. I am trying to improve a particular page. I am not autoconfirmed till now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durlov (talkcontribs) 09:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UPLOAD is what you're looking for. Dismas|(talk) 09:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of writing you only need one more edit to be autoconfirmed, but I see you have already uploaded Commons:File:Shyam Ramsay.jpg and Commons:File:Shyam Ramsay in a contemplative mood.jpg. Commons doesn't require you to be autoconfirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of article

[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam

I am seeking the removal of the following article link -

South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal

This article is about me and my family and is causing me a great deal of distress. When my name is typed in to Google this link appears. It was a private court case many years ago and does not reflect my life today. How might I remove the article, or could Wikipedia please remove it? I ask that Wikipedia sympathise with my situation.

Thank you for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen54321 (talkcontribs) 09:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal. It is about a notable subject which made headlines at the time, and will not be removed. However, I have removed what I guess to be your name from it, as I see no reason for you to be named there. Unless another editor reverts my deletion, Google should in a while notice the change, and stop listing the article when people search for your name. Maproom (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IF this is not the issue, feel free to Email me, and I will act on it. This prevents anything staying public on-wiki. Thanks --Mdann52talk to me! 10:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

restored truth about Alessandro Figus

[edit]

Deletion of article

[edit]

Is there a page where you can nominate Wiki articles for deletion?MackyBeth (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are varying processes; what is the article and why do you feel it should be deleted? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the OP refers to Isle of the Cross. See Talk:Isle of the Cross and this question above. Maproom (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the article I wish removed. First, this title does not warrant an article of its own, since it is only a theory that such work existed and is now lost. Second, the item is badly sourced and filled with speculation, such as the remark on "Bartleby, the Scrivener." Third, it is only a stub, as Wikipedia users have marked it, and improvement is unlikely for lack of information to improve it with. So how do I proceed to have the Wikipedia community review and delete it?MackyBeth (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion policy shows the different ways to suggest deletion. The important thing for Wikipedia is not whether a subject is real but whether there are sources to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. In this case Wikipedia:Notability (books) is also relevant. A sufficient criteria there is "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." The case of a lost/unconfirmed book is special so I don't know how a suggested deletion would be viewed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article states in the first sentence that the book did exist, sourced to this [1], which is Hershel Parker arguing that it did exist. If he is the only one arguing this, the article should at least reflect that. If there is a scholary consensus that the book existed, it probably deserves an article (I base that on that even I have heard of Herman Melville). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

restore deleted article

[edit]

Please restore the article on Tom Forsythe that is referenced below. I can't do it since I don't have the permission.

I recently tried to have a look at the article about me and my legal battle with Mattel and learned that it has been deleted since 2006. I'm not too self interested since it has taken me almost 8 years to figure out that the article has been removed but I still believe that the precedent set in my case creates important rights of free expression. And then, a lot has happened in my world since the 2004 Appeals Court decision. I was hoping to update the listing but I sure can't do that if it isn't there.

Keep in mind that Mattel made a point of suing Walking Mountain Productions, rather than me personally, to make it seem as though I was this big company, even though Walking Mountain was always just a dba for my own work.

The deletion log is shown below.

00:47, 17 October 2006 Lucky 6.9 (talk | contribs) deleted page Tom Forsythe (content was: '{{db-nonsense}}'''Bold text'''''Italic text''[http://www.example.com link title]Image:Example.jpgMedia:Example.ogg<math>Insert formula here</...')

I support Mr. Forsythe's plea. Google finds plenty of supporting material, such as this from the BBC. Maproom (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator, and having checked the version that was deleted and its previous edits (all from within one minute in 2006), I can tell you both that there has never been anything worth reading at Tom Forsythe - just some gibberish characters as quoted in the deletion log. So there is nothing I can restore. There is no trace there of any article about a Tom/Thomas Forsyth(e) involved in a legal battle with Mattel. Thomas Forsythe has never had an article. Tom Forsyth and Thomas Forsyth are about other people. I see that there are links (redlinks) to Tom Forsythe in Fair use and Mattel v. MCA Records but that does not mean that there was ever an article about you. BencherliteTalk 16:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forsythe first received publicity for his Barbie photos in June 1999 and was sued by Mattel lawsuit around October 1, 2000. There is plenty of bio info on Forsythe, so there is no problem with starting an article on him. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article was there and that it was not gibberish. Could someone with better access than me take a closer look? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.185.116 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bencherlite is an admin and has admin level access. He also knows his way round Wikipedia, so if he can't find it, I doubt that anyone can.--ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ukexpat. For those of you who didn't believe me the first time, here is the entire deleted page history of Tom Forsythe:
Page history
(del/undel) (diff) 00:44, 17 October 2006 . . Tarret (talk | contribs | block) (340 bytes) (speedy delete)
(del/undel) (diff) 00:44, 17 October 2006 . . Princesspookybearlaurandavidson09 (talk | contribs | block) (324 bytes) 
(del/undel) (diff) 00:44, 17 October 2006 . . Princesspookybearlaurandavidson09 (talk | contribs | block) (4 bytes) 
And the 324-byte version of the article was, as quoted more-or-less in the log entry for deletion:
'''Bold text'''''Italic text''[http://www.example.com link title]
[[Image:Example.jpg]][[Media:Example.ogg]]<math>Insert formula here</math>
Insert non-formatted text here
--[[User:Princesspookybearlaurandavidson09|Princesspookybearlaurandavidson09]] 00:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
----
#REDIRECT [[Insert text]]
That's it, folks. If the article you are thinking of ever existed, it was not at this location. BencherliteTalk 18:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also an admin with access to deleted articles and agree with Bencherlite. There hasn't been an article with real content at Tom Forsythe, and that title is the only deleted page starting with "Tom Forsy" or "Thomas Forsy". The gibberish page in the deletion log was created 17 October 2006 and deleted 3 minutes later. It's very common in Wikipedia to make red links to titles where there is no article but somebody might make an article in the future. See Wikipedia:Red link. The article Mattel v. MCA Records was created in 2009 as shown in the page history [2], and there was no article at Tom Forsythe at the time or ever since. I did find a page not edited since its 2004 creation at Wikipedia:School and university projects/Open Source Culture/Tom Forsythe. The page name starts with "Wikipedia:" (like this page "Wikipedia:Help desk"). That means it's in what we call the project namespace. It's not an article or a part of our encyclopedia and it isn't included in our search box by default. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number 2 vs #2

[edit]

According to the manual of style, which is the proper sentence?

  • His song peaked at #2 on the charts
  • His song peaked at number 2 on the charts

Thank you! teratogen (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use # in this way, per MOS:HASH. The second sentence accords with the MOS. BencherliteTalk 18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the #/number question: though not grammatically incorrect, the use of "on" here is not colloquial (British) English when referring to popular song charts: "in" would be more natural. One might use "on" in a different context, such as "His peak heart-rate episodes are shown on the charts." {The poster formerly known as 87.89.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GEEP (Global Electric Electronic Processing)

[edit]

I would like to have a page made about GEEP (not the sheep). I have no account but would be willing to submit some information in regards to the page. Nothing has been made at this point and as one of Canada's largest recyclers I believe they deserve some recognition as such. Let me know how I can help.

Thanks,

Darren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.56.150 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Requested articles.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond 007: Nightfire is repeatedly vandalized!

[edit]

I have a problem. I found that LOLOPHONE has been repeatedly vandalizing the James Bond 007: Nightfire page! I tried stopping the vandalism, but the spammer just won't stop! Can somebody get the spammer banned, please? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File a report at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism RudolfRed (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about donation

[edit]

I was reading a wikipedia webpage, and noticed at the top of the page there was a link to donate to wikipedia. As it is poorly written, it makes me wonder whether it is legitimate.

This was the text "DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: We are the small non-profit that runs the #5 website in the world. We have only 175 staff but serve 500 million users, and have costs like any other top site: servers, power, programs, and staff. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We take no government funds. We survive on donations averaging about £10. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this gave £3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind, a place we can all go to think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year. Please help us forget fundraising and get back to Wikipedia. Thank you." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.97.203 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the valid message but I don't have it currently. The important thing is not what a donation message says (anyone can copy a real message when making a fake), but where it goes. It should go to somewhere at https://donate.wikimedia.org like the "Donate to Wikipedia" link at the left of every page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a legitimate message. It shows to unregistered users :) Samwalton9 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it supposed to be showing right now? Because when I view the main page logged-out, it shows up for a split second before disappearing. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience the donation banners are sometimes there and sometimes not. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I was mostly concerned with the split second show up-disappear act, because I wasn't sure if that's normal... - Purplewowies (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a user to see if the ad would disappear, and it did upon login. It almost screams user info, and not money. Wiki can't, and shouldn't ever die (it'd be sad, especially for our young ones). But this seems to be a gimmick. If not, I will donate Wiki, please find a better way to ask for it. - Poois69 (talk)

What is a wiesel word

[edit]

I am not an editor,but I would really love to know what a wiesel word is. Never heard of it.--A too smart bitch.

See WP:WEASEL.--ukexpat (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)WP:WEASEL This link contains the info you want as well as other problematic words and phrases. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open accusation of being a Sock Puppet

[edit]

Hi, A user User:Giano has leveled an accusation of myself being a sockpuppet for another account. I checked, and there is a formal procedure to be applied, to determine if someone is a Sock Puppet [[3]]. I am asking that Giano be asked to either 1) Place my account up for that process with whatever evidence he has to prove it. or 2) Strike or remove his accusation.

I don't like the open accusation being plainly visible for all to see, as it belittles any contributions I will make to Wikipedia in the future. I think it also violates Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

Thanks LilOwens (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you don't deny being a sockpuppet, but anyhow, this isn't the place to complain about other users. You should probably bring it up with them personally on their talk page, or if you'd prefer, you could address the comment on the Administrator's Noticeboard, in the thread where the alleged accusation occurred, since that's where the Administrators lurk, and those are the folks who could conceivably help you. The purpose of the Help Desk is for users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page removed - where has it gone and can we have it back?

[edit]

There was a page on "Avient Limited" which has disappeared. The logo of this company is now being incorrectly sited as "Avient Aviation" which is a different company altogether. Avient Limited is in liquidation so that might be why it has gone but we aviation enthusiasts like to keep a history of these minor airlines as it shows how our favorite aircraft progress through their various lives. Is it possible to get the Avient Limited page reinstated - or if I create it again from scratch will it be removed again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.254.198 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can determine, there was never an article of that name. What other might it have been under? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that it was titled Avient Limited? I can't find any record of that article existing. Either way though, it was likely deleted as not being notable enough for an entry. See WP:CORP for our notability criteria for businesses. Dismas|(talk) 23:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No page starting with "Avient" has been deleted. Special:PrefixIndex/Avient shows redirects to Avient Aviation from Avient Aviation Ltd and Avient Ltd. They have never been anything other than the redirect. I'm also unable to find the logo you mention. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Breuer - updated bio

[edit]
(edit conflict)Wikipedia's article about Lee Breuer is better-written than the above, and does not have an excess of upper-case letters. If you have suggestions for its improvement, you could make them on that article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia.org/wiki/ISF_women's world-championship

[edit]

The name Lorraine Wooley is incorrectly spelled. It should be Woolley.

Please let me know if I need to show you any proof of my correct name. Thanks Lorraine Woolley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.186.12 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISF Women's World Championship has been changed. Thanks for letting us know. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]