Help desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 19 >

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.

August 18

question about Julia Earl deletion

The article Julia Earl was deleted, for what appears to be ill-considered reasons. And the deleter, Phil Sandifer, seems to offer a snarky page suggesting that he doesn't listen to the guidelines. I've attempted (probably incorrectly) to appeal that deletion. What to do? Notfromhereeither 03:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was about a non-notable person and contained nothing more than a long description of why she was fired from a non-notable job. As stated, it is a hit job and Wikipedia has no place for it. -- Kainaw^(what?) 04:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place to appeal would be Wikipedia:Deletion review. The statement that she is non-notable is somewhat contradicted by press coverage like [1] which was in the article. Kappa 04:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion explanation didn't say she was non-notable. (That could be debated honestly either way.) Instead, it says that it was messy -- which it clearly was not. It was verifiable, well-documented, neutral in point of view, about a person who has been much covered in the press. In any case, thanks for explaining the process to follow. (I didn't know that an article could be deleted with no process, but restoring it requires a process.)Notfromhereeither 04:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal. I was just trying to warn you that it will not be reinstated. She is not notable. It doesn't matter how many articles she has in the local press. She was nothing more than a superintendent of public schools. -- Kainaw^(what?) 05:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the proper procedure been followed here? A discussion was under way on the talk page of the Julia Earl article, when someone named Phil Sandifer just outright deleted it -- again. Can he do that? Notfromhereeither 04:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree that process was followed, then deletion review is the place to go. --Haemo 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We went through deletion review already -- maybe you didn't know that. And the article was restored, and deletion review was under way -- and that's when this Sandifer user just outright deleted it. Is that really the way it works?Notfromhereeither 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the protocol for editing posts on your own company?

I work in public relations for a mid-sized technology corporation. When I was searching for information today on something totally unrelated to work, I came across several articles pertaining to our company, products and our executives.

There were several glaring inaccuracies, as well as some information that was likely not posted by impartial, third-party sources. More like someone with a grudge (if it's a customer who had a bad, experience then fair enough, but I'm talking about content much more likely contributed by a competitor, former employee or a journalist with an ax to grind).

Or what if it's one side of a story? For example, a reporter writes an editorial (opinion) and someone cites it on Wikipedia. But maybe the reporter's opinion is old, or mis-represents real facts...what do we do?

What is Wikipedia's protocol in these types of scenarios? Contact Wikipedia with our requested edits, or just make them ourselves? If we make them ourselves, should we note that in the post? We don't want to be accused of manipulating this site, as our developers and employees respect the spirit of it's purpose. But nor do we believe it's in anyone's best interest to have bad info posted.

Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.154.196 (talk • contribs)

Our "Conflict of Interest" policy applies the most here, and generally if you feel that opinions represented are not that common or just plain wrong, it's best not to edit it yourself. You can contact Wikimedia using the "Contact Wikipedia" link on the left hand side, although there's nothing specifically wrong with editing it yourself. I highly recommend you see Wikipedia Scanner for some of the things that have happened to corporations that edit Wikipedia in ways that could seem nefarious. If you want, you can make a comment on my talk page with the changes you want to make, and I'll do them for you, if they are appropriate for wikipedia --Lu c id 04:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually companies and individuals should avoid editing articles on themselves, since it is hard to view yourself/your company neutrally. However improvements are always welcome, so fixing spelling, removing inaccuracies, and that sort of thing is ok. Removing criticism that is properly cited is not. When in doubt you can leave a note on the article's talk page asking someone else to review your proposed edit and make it if they agree. Prodego ^talk 04:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mail

How can I change settings so that the picture of the day that I receive daily is shown as a picture in the mail, and not as a link? Thank you

Can you tell us where you see these settings? I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Picture of the day about receiving a picture in the mail, and if nobody else chimes in with the answer, that would mean the other Help desk volunteers aren't familiar with this feature (most questions on the Help desk tend to get an answer quickly if they are going to get any answer at all). If you can give us a link to the page where you asked to receive the picture of the day, perhaps someone can investigate and help you. --Teratornis 13:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to start an list article if you don't have much to put in it?

I have an article I would like to start, a list, but I don't have much infomation to put in it. Is it okay to start it and let people fill it? Or should I have more info to start? Dragosian 07:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to have as much content as possible, but it doesn't matter if it's not complete. Be bold and go for it. Recurring dreams 08:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your article may be deleted. Be bold if you like, but boldness alone is no guarantee that your article will "stick." If you need time to work on your article, before throwing it to the tender mercies of the Deletionists, you could start it first as a user subpage, for example: User:Dragosian/My list or whatever. If you do start a user subpage, do yourself a favor and make a link to it from your user page, so you don't lose track of your subpage. --Teratornis 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to provide a page outline (via template?) so that article contributors can fill in details between preset paragraph headings in the article ?

Hi there -

reviewed the template FAQs and fiddled quite a bit with templates (on my private mediawiki installation) but I seem to be missing a point - thus thought I dare ask the Wiki pros over here for some guidance.

What I try to do is to provide information about some historical persons (one person per wiki page) - following a standardized outline with detail paragraph texts in between povided by additional, other contributors. (The question is less if such information would make sense in the general Wikipedia - I can do it on my private wiki first - it's about how to accomplish this with the Wiki [template?] technology.)

Now of course I'd like the people who contribute to adhere to the rather strict outline of the article - thus I had hoped I could set up the outline as a template.

Upon generation of a new page (per person in the directory) the contributor would simply fill in the details BETWEEN the paragraph headings as set in the 'template'. That way I could still change/consolidate the paragraph headings at a later point without having to go through all individual pages. (Or add additional headings for additional paragraphs to be filled in for each entry, for that matter.)

Not sure if made my requirement clear enough.

In fiddling with the templates I came across the problem that while I can of course have a template included in an acticle it's kind of tricky (impossible?) to set it up as such that the individual contributor could write the detail text in between the (template preset) paragraph headings.

To that end it seems I would have to enter a template for EACH paragraph heading - but I'm sure there must be a better way?

Any hints appreciated (I'm quite a newbie to the Wiki technology from Germany).

Many thanks in advance.

84.174.112.155 09:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your personal wiki (and "wiki" should not be capitalized as it is not a proper noun here, to distinguish from a particular wiki called WikiWikiWeb) runs on the MediaWiki software, you can use template substitution to insert boilerplate text from your template into an article, such that henceforth other users may edit between the headings you inserted. However, once you substitute your template into an article, there is nothing to stop users from editing or rearranging your headings, and if you update your template to change your heading layout, your changes will not propagate to articles that substituted text from an earlier revision of your template. For more on templates, see:

User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia#Tem

Also note that the Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. For your future questions about MediaWiki, please use mw:Project:Support desk. Personally, I don't care, if I know the answer to an unanswered question on the Help desk, I try to answer it when I see it, but those are the rules. --Teratornis 13:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that template substitution is in contrast to template transclusion, which you would soon learn by reading the links I gave above. --Teratornis 13:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks for the links - I'll take a look.

As for your comment

"Also note that the Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. For your future questions about MediaWiki, please use mw:Project:Support desk"

Well yes, I understand (and you'll see that my question is posted there, too - with no reply as of yet). However, as my question seemed like a GENERAL question on how to use templates in Wikipedia, after all, I assumed (after some consideration, indeed) that it might be appropriate to post it over here. (I assumed much more visibility here due to probably much higher traffic on this general Wikipedia help page). I still hope that my reasoning was appropriate - and yes, I do appreciate the quick response.

84.174.100.96 14:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning was plausible, but we have a precedent here of directing MediaWiki-specific questions to mw:Project:Support desk (what, you did not read the entire Help desk archive before posting? - yes, I am joking, no one could expect you to read all that stuff). Since Wikipedia runs on the MediaWiki software, many if not most questions about MediaWiki could somehow relate to Wikipedia, and then the Wikipedia Help desk could end up absorbing questions about the thousands of other MediaWiki wikis in the world. However, the big red instructions at the top of this Help desk page say the Help desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. A question that is really about using another wiki is not a question about using Wikipedia, which is to say the big red instruction is narrowly defined (there isn't enough room there to put up detailed hairsplitting instructions about every sort of question and which ones belong here, etc., and few people would reach such detailed instructions anyway). Even so, we try to answer all questions on the Help desk, and there is no doubt that Wikipedia's Help desk provides faster responses than many other sources of help. Everyone here is a volunteer, however, and if too many off-topic questions come to the Help desk, that might start driving away the volunteers who answer questions. The system works if we have clear rules and everyone agrees to follow the rules to the best of their knowledge. So it's no big deal that you asked a MediaWiki question on the Wikipedia Help desk, but for further questions about MediaWiki you should use mw:Project:Support desk. You may also wish to create an account so you can make a section of useful links on your user page. The links I put on my section let me look up answers to many of the same kinds of questions you will have as you learn to be a MediaWiki administrator. In particular, see my links for searching the Help desk archive, and the various MediaWiki sites. MediaWiki demands a long process of RTFM. Have you read the MediaWiki Handbook? --Teratornis 19:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>> Have you read the MediaWiki Handbook?

Well, I did review the Help:Template entry in the EDIT section (and repeat this now) - but did not really find the answer I was looking for. I will - as you suggested - continue the discussion at mw:Project:Support desk. However, it seems to me that my above stated request is in fact not easily - if at all - being resolved in Wikipedia editing (or any other Mediawiki installation for that matter).

I reviewed the template substitution and template transclusion sections you suggested and found that this about corresponds (without me knowing the terms) to what I had assumed as my initial approach that I referenced above: namely creating the articles from an initial template (for the outline) via substitution (as the first step). That would substitute the paragraph headings (as outline) into that article, allowing those then (in a second step, as they are 'transclused') to be amended later for all articles by editing the respective paragraph heading template.

However (and this was my initial concern prompting my support request) this does not allow for later (i.e. 'after the article creation fact') adding additional paragraph headings into all existing articles (while it would work for articles created after the additional paragraph headings are added to the outline template which is substituted into the articles upon creation).

It seems to me - but I had hoped that I am mistaken - that this is due to a general design issue (or rather, symptomatic challenge); I guess it is because my requirement basically requests the final article to be made of (intervowen) parts which for one come from a template (the outline = paragraph headings) but for the other are added manually per individual articles in between the stuff from the template/s - something which is not easily achieved via a scriping/parsing appproach.

Thanks for the help so far - sure hope I will also get a follow up over there at mw:Project:Support desk

84.174.100.96 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Uruvangal Maralam

Could you please help me to listen to the songs from the film UruvangalMaralam?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roobym (talk • contribs).

Have you tried the miscellaneous 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's the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jhgjh

where can i buy DSL?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.50.58 (talk • contribs).

Hi. This help desk is for asking questions about using Wikipedia, as stated in huge red letters at the top. Questions like this are asked at the Reference desk. In any case, many telephone companies and internet providers also provide DSL; try yours. Or you can Google "DSL" couples with your state/province/territory etc. It's not hard to find something many companies are advertizing, eager to sell.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable

I like your encyclopedia ;however I have found articles which make claims that in fact are not accurate.Meaning your content cannot be trusted 100%—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.242.12.102 (talk • contribs).

If you find a claim to be inaccurate, please fix it. Please remember, we're a work in progress - of course our content can't be blindly trusted. Nihiltres^(t.l) 12:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, all content is supposed to be verified by citation to reliable sources and written from a neutral point of view. Articles that are full of citations and well written are much more likely to be accurate. This is especially true of articles that reach featured article status which have been scrutinized by multiple editors, and to a lesser extent of good article. Check out a few of those.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Signpost article may be interesting:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-02/Wikipedia poll#Poll finds 46% of people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"

In general, critical thinking demands that we do not blindly trust anything on its own. That's why scientists try to replicate their results, why police try to interview every witness to a crime, and so on. The fewer sources of information we have to support a particular claim, the more we should question it. However, the vast majority of people make important arbitrary exceptions, for example most people place blind trust in some variety of faith-based thinking. Most often, this would be in the locally-popular religion they had been indoctrinated in since childhood; many people also place blind trust in various political philosophies. Critical thinking, the opposite of faith-based thinking, has an excellent track record of building things that work (such as the computer in front of you now), but it is laborious, and the results may not be psychologically comforting when the truth turns out to be unpleasant or disappointing. --Teratornis 13:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely put. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the Disclaimers link at the bottom of every page. --Teratornis 13:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a valid criticism of the Wikipedia. That may not necessarily mean, however, that the Wikipedia is not the best freely-available source of information on the Internet on some topics. 69.143.80.200 00:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, often the Wikipedia article on a given topic is one of the best available introductions to the subject on the World Wide Web. At least on Wikipedia we have some sort of mechanism for finding and correcting errors; on many other Web sites there is no telling what you are getting. That is why search engine sites such as Google Search are now elevating Wikipedia articles to the top of many search results. But obviously, given what the disclaimers say, nobody should take a Wikipedia article as the final word on any issue of importance (for example, if a person is going to stake a large amount of money on the information). If someone needs to make an important decision, they should research the issue carefully from multiple sources, and consider hiring a professional advisor if the issue is seriously important. Another tip: try reading some previous revisions of a Wikipedia article to see if it has undergone drastic changes, and to look for signs that the current revision may have been vandalized. --Teratornis 03:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image usage

One of my pet articles, Silvertown explosion, could use some images. This in itself isn't unsurmountable: there are images of the factory before and after, and of the destruction. All well and good so far. Now, about the copyright status: these were taken in 1917, in the UK, and I presume some of them were published soon afterwards. I have no idea when these were published in the US, or even if they were available before they were put up on the internet. To confuse matters further, these images have copyright claimed on them. The pages I was hoping to use images from are: [2], [3] + linked pages, and [4].

In short: I have no idea whether these would be fair use or public domain under US law (let alone UK law), and I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me so I can upload them correctly. Abednigo 13:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on Public Domain, which I assume to be reliable due to the sources provided:

In the United States, any work that was published before 1923 (in the US) is now in the Public Domain. If it was not published before 1923, then the image is held under copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years, unless of course such rights are waived.

In the UK, things are even more confusing, but it looks as though the soonest these images will become public domain is 2039, or the life of the author plus 70 years, whichever comes first.

If copyright is claimed on the images, go with that. It wouldn't hurt to contact the owner of those websites anyway just to figure out what's going on. If you're lucky, you might be able to get permission, which will make things worlds easier anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the creator of these photograph is unknown, they would seem to fall into this category and thus be usable in the public domain. I think. --Cherry blossom tree 18:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to upload image but it is "overwritten by an existing image"

I need to upload an old photograph of Brigham Young, circa 1857 (a photograph of Young beardless) at Mountain Meadows massacre. But when I try to do so (namely, as [see image at right margin]

), an existing image from English Wikipedia--a painting of an older Young with a white beard--gets in the way.

(To see both pictures, go to Brigham Young and click on the image (). Below the main image is the one of the beardless Brigham Young I need to upload.) --Justmeherenow 14:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the image you want is already uploaded to Commons, you don't need to upload it here as well. The MediaWiki software will pull the image you request from Commons and display it as though it were uploaded here. Just type the image code as you have above ([[Image:Brigham Young.jpg|thumb]]) and it'll go in. If you still have to upload a different picture, just choose a different filename. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (A kind Wikipedian fixed the problem by bumping out the conflicting image to free up its bad file name.) --Justmeherenow 03:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i want problem on content mangement system

sir i want def of content mangement system and, what the problem that exist in content mangement systems

Look at the article on Content management or ask on our reference desk. This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia itself. -- Kesh 15:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amidamaru's turkish translation

I just wanted to help developing this site in my main language, so I decided to translate the page which is about Amidamaru, but I have no idea how to publish the article, should I use 'change' option or should I make a new page to put it? Thank you.

This encyclopedia is a english encylopedia. You might want to take a look at the turkish wikipedia. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Translation. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hatay

I would like to edit the 'peg' listed for the article on Hatay, Turkey... it is about 600 miles off target.

To help we'll probably need to know the precise title of the article to which you refer and what you mean by peg. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 18:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fair Use Rationale

Let me ask you something...

What is the point of having this system if the images are still being deleted??? :( --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SAT AUG 18 2007 2:12 PM EDT

According to the deletion logs of some of the images you have uploaded that were deleted, the fair use rationale was deemed inadequate for the intended use. Improve the rationales, make sure that there actually is a valid reason to have the image, make sure the image is actually being used and the use is noted in the rationale, and make sure that they're low-resolution (generally around 0.1 megapixels and at most some 300-400px on the widest direction). --Pekaje 20:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

The references do not seem to be working correctly on Timeline of astronauts by nationality. I have never used that template before. Can someone sort it out? Rmhermen 18:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific as to what the problem? They looked fine to me at a cursory glance. i ^said 18:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine but they don't work when they are clicked. The article combines {{ref label}} with {{note}}, but {{ref label}} should be combined with {{note label}}. See Template talk:Ref#Complex. I don't know whether it's the only problem. PrimeHunter 19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to link from Wikipedia to a Library of Congress record via ISBN

This was a tricky one - as the URL call notation of the Library of Congress is quite convoluted and usually (strangely - go check!) entails a date/timp stamp for timeout issues.

Thus I thought I share what I figured out:

In order to link from a Wikipedia article to a Library of Congress record via ISBN you need to use a link in the format of

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&DB=local&CMD=k020+ISBN&CNT=10+records+per+page

where ISBN is the one from the book you'd like to retrieve the record of, as in following example using 0375507256 as ISBN:

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&DB=local&CMD=k020+0375507256&CNT=10+records+per+page

Not sure if this would work for ISBN-13, too.

Also if anyone could contribute if this URL notation can be streamlined further that would be appreciated - thanks.

84.174.100.96 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should add that I am aware indeed of the Wikipedia internal ISBN handling, like in ISBN 0375507256.

And now, as I finally take a closer look at that page I note that the (even if slightly different) link to the Library of Congress URL via ISBN is indeed there - so I could have spared all that fiddling!

However, the question if the URL can be optimized further remains.

84.174.100.96 19:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archving via Moving

I just archived my talk page by moving it to a subpage. I then removed the redirect on my talk page so it could be again. However, even though there is no redirect, any time I like to my page it goes to the moved page. I hope I didnt totally screw things up. i ^said 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a problem. Your talk page is where it ought to be, and your archive is where it ought to be. WODUP 20:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Wikipedia logo in print media

Hello. My name is Jon Kleinow and I'm a page designer at The Kansas City Star. We're running an article about Wikipedia in the paper tomorrow and would like to use a screenshot of www.wikipedia.org with the article. Would it be possible to get permission to use the screenshot and, if so, how should we credit the image? Any replies that could be sent this afternoon (Saturday, August 18) to (email removed) would be very helpful. Thank you for your time.

We've had to remove your email for your own security, and for other security reasons we can't send replies to email addresses. However, Wikipedia and all of its content (at least, anything that will be displayed on the main page) is licensed under the GFDL, which allows for free distribution of the content. The MediaWiki software which we use is similarly licensed. The Wikipedia logo, appearing in the top left corner of this page, is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation, but as you are using it in an article about Wikipedia to identify the main page, I would consider that to be appropriate fair use. For more information, please see WP:COPY. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Help with User Boxes

I'm new here, and I really couldn't figure out how to make a userbox. I read the Userbox page but I couldn't understand it. Could you please help me learn how to make one?Psycho-Marth-Fangirl 20:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You might not need to make one. See the Gallery of userboxes for the one you want, if it is there. :-) Stwalkerster talk 20:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

How can I get Image:Barnstar Chicago.png from WP:CHICAGO and Image:WikiProject Illinois Barnstar.png from WP:Illinois automated for substitutability and inclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject awards (WP:WPPA)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can set up an awards template for you and add it to the WikiProject Awards page. Hang on... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've got: {{subst:ChicagoBarnstar|message ~~~~}} and {{subst:IllinoisBarnstar|message ~~~~}}. For future reference, these were created by subst'ing the code from {{Award2}}. Enjoy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article About me removed but my name still appears

I am writing here just to make sure nobody has a problem with this issue. Somebody created an article about me, without my knowledge and it was deleted after debate, and then the deletion was reviewed (with debate). At a couple points, due to my ignorance on Wikipedia, I became amused with the idea that there was an article about me, but it really wasn't something I wished for. In any case, the debates have been causing me some problems because of the instances of my name appearing, and so I have asked for my name to be replaced by a placeholder. It would not alter the structure of the archive, nor would it prevent any reader from understanding what was said. I just prefer that the use of my name be removed. (Of course, to people who might be interested, the original including my name would remain in edit history. Despite my non-importance, this has been the subject of some discussion on User talk:Anber, User talk:JGGardiner and User talk:Atlan. The debate has gone in the direction to acquiesce to my request, however Atlan, who has shown some disapproval has agreed to join the consensus provided I post on the Help Desk which is what I am doing. Anber 22:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely clear to me, based on your talk page and what you wrote here, exactly what it is you want done. However, if it involves changing the text of an archived AFD, then I don't think that's going to happen unless you have a reason good enough for requesting oversight. That does not immediately appear to be the case. --Pekaje 23:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs can be, and are, courtesy blanked. I don't know if just any editor should do it, or it should be requested via OTRS. Corvus cornix 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with a placeholder account?

My registered name is "Samuel Curtis," but the actual used name since May 2007 has been "Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori" and has been reflected in the signature. Hence, I registered User:Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori as a placeholder to prevent others from impersonating myself. I have no intent to use the latter account to do anything.

In this case, how should I do on User:Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori and User:Samuel Curtis to prevent any violations of the guidelines, such as WP:SOCK?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this done several times before. A simple note on the user page of the placeholder account should suffice. Of course, it can't be accused of sockpuppetry if it never actually makes any edits. Raven4x4x 00:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is considered a doppelganger account. There are instructions at the linked page to explain what should be done with these accounts. It technically is a sock, but it isn't called one generally. i ^said 03:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]