Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 1 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 3 >
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.


October 2

[edit]

Genesis 3:21

[edit]

What version of the Holy Bible states that God made coats from animal skins, and clothed them?

In your article on "Christian naturism," you said that God made coats from "animal skins." Jesus asked why should God clothe the human animal more than he clothe the grass. I often hear members of the Christian clergy edit Genesis 3:21 to where God made coats from the skins of dead animals, but they never reference their edit, and they change Jesus into a liar (Matthew 6:30, Luke 12:28). The five verses in Matthew 6 (Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:28 - 31), and the four verses in Luke 12 (Luke 12:22 - 23, Luke 12:27 - 28) are the basis for Christian naturism (Jesus based nudism). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.42.93 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should take this up at the relevant article's talk page, i.e. Talk:Christian naturism? The Help Desk is for general questions about how to use Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear question from 197.210.248.50

[edit]

operation of Hydro Electric power plant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.248.50 (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is your question? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Hydroelectric power plant--Shantavira|feed me 07:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

doughs on editing

[edit]

how can i make sure that my writings are not considered as copywriter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkd das (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from your question, but it appears that you could be asking how to edit without your edits being considered copyright violations as they were here? The simple answer is to stop copying/pasting text from other sources. You can use other sources as a source of information, but you can't use them for CONTENT. That means no copy/pasting. There are some exceptions, but that's a lesson for another day. Further, you need to become familiar with our rules preventing original research and you need to learn how to properly use reliable sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take help from Wikipedia article in writing a book?

[edit]

I am writing a book on physics these days. I found some Wikipedia articles and images very useful for my book. So, my question is - Can I take help from those articles and use those images in my book? Thank you for your advice! Concepts of Physics (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can, as long as you stick to the terms of use. See WP:REUSE for guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that unlike (non-quotation) text, the images in articles are not always under a free copyright license. You have to look at each image to see how it is licensed. If an image is being used here under a claim of fair use, it remains non-free copyrighted and you would need to treat it like you would any fully copyrighted image you found anywhere.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

problem

[edit]

i am unable to get Candy Crush to come up on my screen. it will come on & mix all its ingrediances but when it gets to 100% it freezes up & wont go any further. and I love this game. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.249.42 (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

images in an article: Is there a 1 image per section limit? Are extra images a POV problem?

[edit]

The Diff page.

Some article images were deleted. the involved editor reason:" One picture per section is enough ; by the way, wp:npov must be applied to pictures too"

  • Is there a 1 image per section limit?
  • Are extra images a POV problem? . Background: I am the only one that added images to the article during the last months (from last May ). I have added to the article 5 images of Israeli people, and 3 images of Arab side (including an arab road block). I am an Israeli, but I have added and would add more images showing Arab people, provided I find them. So it is not a problem of a prejudice. It is simply difficult to find attractive images of the Arab side. The term "attractive" means (in my opinion): images that make the article more attractive to a casual reader, and images of plain people and fighters (of both sides) but not generals or politicians (might be except of very unusuall cases). Ykantor (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a policy restricting the number of images. It is true that WP:NPOV does apply to pictures. It could reasonably be argued that keeping the number of Israeli images and the number of Arab images equal is in order, so that adding only 3 Israeli images would be prudent. Have you tried to discuss on the article talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been discussion on the article talk page about images. Coming to the Help Desk after discussion on the article talk page can appear to be forum shopping, and is deprecated. Be sure to discuss on the article talk page. The article is subject to 1RR, so do not insert an image that has been removed within the past 24 hours. Edit warring (and I do not see evidence of edit warring) can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement, because the article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Don't start an edit war. There have been too many real wars in that region. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been NO discussion on the article talk page about this problem of images and POV. (There is one discussion about a suspected "doctored" image, which is another issue. Anyway it is closed with no edit warring.) I will appreciate it if you indicate which is the relevant discussion.
  • I try to be prudent. Hence I am asking here BEFORE statring a talkpage discussion. Thank you for your assistance. Ykantor (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galliane

[edit]

An article that I contributed to as an editor has been deleted for "unambiguous promotion." The interests of the article are not commercial but informational. How can I go about re-submitting as to avoid future deletion?

Rcinnante (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Rcinnante[reply]

What was the article about? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was about a new bow for musical instruments, if I remember. He came into the IRC help asking to rename it, but it was deleted already. I attempted to explain why it was deleted to him but he argued, and then left. ~Charmlet -talk- 16:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Rcinnante: The article will not be reinstated - Wikipedia is not for you to provide selling points for your invention/product (such as "benefits", etc.). If you want to rewrite the article, use the article wizard and go through the top (AfC, Articles for Creation) choice. ~Charmlet -talk- 16:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But before you do that, make sure that you have reliable sources that demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever a reason for a left bracket followed by a space (particularly prior to http:)?

[edit]

What are the reason that a 'left bracket then space' combination should exist in an article? And if there are any, what are the reasons for 'left bracket space http:' I just fixed about half a dozen of them in Delta Sigma Theta and was wondering if the second situation was sufficiently bizarre that a bot could be used to fix them up?Naraht (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an IP [1] who didn't know the syntax. I don't recall seing this particular error before. There is only reason to consider a bot if it's common. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to archive Talk:Verizon Communications

[edit]

Hello,

I'm an employee of Verizon, and have been making some suggestions about how to improve the Verizon Communications article by leaving messages at Talk:Verizon Communications. (You can view my full conflict of interest disclosure on my user page.)

As I've been posting suggestions for improvements, I noticed that the Verizon Talk page is very long and cumbersome. I'm hoping someone here might be able to archive Talk:Verizon Communications for me. I don't how to do this, and because of my conflict of interest, I wasn't sure if it would be appropriate for me to do even if I did know. Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has not been archived in years. Archiving of talk pages is normally done by a bot. Before marking the talk page for bot archival, there should be discussion on the talk page as to the age of threads that should be archived. A very busy talk page often has threads that have been inactive for more than ten days or fourteen days archived. The Verizon talk page is less active and might have threads archived after 60 days of inactivity. Archival should be discussed on the talk page to obtain consensus as to the age of threads to be archived. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not that long - I've seen much longer. Looking at that particular page it seems there is occasional bursts of discussion, then nothing for months or years on end. In my opinion an auto-archive at work every 10 days is probably overkill. While talk pages can be set up to auto archive, with the current rate of discussion I suspect it could be a long time before anyone else contributes to an archiving discussion. Simply be bold and manually archive the oldest (say before the start of this year?). Astronaut (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Been bold and archived as I suggested above. See also Talk:Verizon Communications#Archiving Proposal. Astronaut (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you all so much for helping with this! VZBob (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I would like to add a couple pictures to Newman University page. They are my own pictures and I want them under cc share alike license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janellmarie (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by going to WP:UPLOAD. Though, if you'd like to allow those images to be used on all the different Wikipedias of other languages, then you should upload them to Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Upload Wizard. Dismas|(talk) 20:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All My Changes are Gone

[edit]

I made a lot of changes to a page yesterday and all my edits are gone today. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perezi22 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the changes to the Sue M. Cobb article. I would assume they were removed for two reasons: firstly, you cited no source for the material added, and secondly (and more important) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a web-hosting service for résumés. Long-winded lists of each and everything a subject has ever been involved in simply don't belong in biographical articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the aggregation of your changes here. You added a resume - Wikipedia is not a resume, it is an encyclopedia. ~Charmlet -talk- 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Your changes to Sue M. Cobb were reverted this morning. While the reverting editor did not explain their reasons on your talk page, the article talk page, or their edit summary, I can imagine why they did it. What you added was a lengthy list of Mrs Cobb's achievements that reads very much like a resume. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there is an expectation from readers that articles will be written in an encyclopedic tone. The essay Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé covers the topic in a bit more detail. Astronaut (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it looks like a resume! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a guide to future happenings like this. When you first discovered that your edits were missing, you could have looked at the "view history" section to get an idea of what had happened....when the change was made, by whom and the reasoning behind the change which would be enumerated in the edit summary. Sometimes the edit summary is not used but this is a perfect example of why it should be. If you don't agree, contact the editor on his talk page or go to the article talk page to start a discussion. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me....obviously I'm having a tough time understanding how to navigate through here and understanding all the rules, that is why I asked for help. I did not know that you could not list achievements and honors that way... thank you for your help, I will try to modify the page again now that I have a little more understanding of the requirements. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perezi22 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Packing Squares with Side 1/n

[edit]

I added a new section to Basel_problem#Packing_Squares_with_Side_1.2Fn and tried to add cites using the templates. For some reason, I got "Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a reflist template (see the help page)." So, I guess I am clueless as to what I need to do.

--John W. Nicholson (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If inline footnotes are included in an article, there has to be a template {{reflist}} which they appear below. I've added it, below a Notes heading. Is it appropriate for an article to have both Citations (not inline) and Notes? (It probably should be permitted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was fixed here. Basically you added a reference but there was nowhere that the references were told to be displayed. Adding {{reflist}} fixed that. Dismas|(talk) 21:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In the error message you quoted, the words "help page" are a link to Help:Cite errors/Cite error refs without references. That page explains the problem. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks every one. Now I am wondering about Robert's question. --John W. Nicholson (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Nicholson, I have occasionally seen notes as in explanatory footnotes in a different list than the list of references. Per WP:FNNR it is acceptable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JETGO edit potentially defamatory and posted with malicious intent

[edit]

Re the edit posted 29 September on Jetgo's page:

Domain Name Dispute

On September 17, 2013, a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy decision issued by the World Intellectual Property Organization found that JETGO Australia had engaged in "an abuse of the administrative proceeding" in its attempt to obtain the domain name jetgo.com. [8]

This post may well be factually correct, but it is only a select extract that appears designed to mislead for the benefit of the poster. However it appears to be posted by John Berryhill, or someone connected to John Berryhill, lawyer to the cyber squatters. The article cites a reference that appears to have originated from John Berryhill or related party. Firstly the UDRP decision is not quite as it seems. Jetgo took on the famous cyber squatter Frank Shilling and lost, largely due to responding to communication from John Berryhill that occurred after the UDRP complaint was made, which was used by Berryhill to prove bad faith.

It is fair to say that Jetgo was naïve in making a complaint in WIPO against the cyber squatters and lost!

However this post is not about Jetgo, it is more about John Berryhill using this media to scare off people who try to protect their legitimate rights in their identity (in this case domain name) and to also drive up the price of domain names. Which ultimately is harmful to legitimate businesses.

This post should be permanently deleted and the poster's similar posts scrutinised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.82.165 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no view about the ongoing edit war at JETGO Australia. But you should be warned that Wikipedia policy requires you to assume good faith on the part of those you disagree with. Your failure to do so may count against you. Maproom (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the guy's name is not Frank Shilling but Frank Schilling. Maproom (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call....

[edit]

the format of some articles that are a series of isolated sentences separated by whitespace? When I run across them I usually combine them into paragraphs during the editing process but I would like to know how to describe them (even if just to myself). I know there is a tag {{Prose|section|date=October 2013}} for turning lists into prose, but what about this "blog-like" article. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded lists? CTF83! 23:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion led me to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_October_2&oldid=1142596548"