Help desk
< July 23	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 25 >

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.

July 24

if it possible

can us build a wireless power plant? i know we can transfer electricity but it is dangerous. any other ways should we try to transferred it using safest way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asyraf1993 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Science 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. Algebraist 03:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Space-based solar power and Wireless power transmission. --Teratornis (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinions

Where can I get a second opinion about something? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 04:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Peer review Zoo Fari 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You told me about that last time but that appears to just be for future featured articles, is it not? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 06:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I was to be a sarcastic kind of man, I'd ask if you meant a medical second opinion! However, as we all know, I'm not (!). It might help us, Scarce, if you told us what you want a second opinion - perhaps we can give you a second, third, etc opinion. Are you talking about the layout of an article, the wording, the meaning? A little bit more information would help us a lot! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about a medical second opinion, what did you think I was talking about? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 08:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I am sarcastic! Seriously, I was talking about this portal, it still is getting very minor tweaks, but do you think it's worthy of adding a ...

to related articles? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 08:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horror or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films? Or WP:EAR? Livewireo (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, may I suggest that you perhaps put a message on WikiProject Horror's Notice Board and/or WikiProject Film's Talk Page, and ask if they could look at it? They know their stuff about Horror and Films respectively. Also, you could leave a message on WikiProject Portals Talk Page, as the folks there know about Portals! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the Wikiproject noticeboards seem very inactive, any other suggestions? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want? Out of the portals I've created or worked on, none of them receive "second opinions" from other Wikipedia sources. If you want review for FP status, see Wikipedia:Portal peer review. Zoo Fari 23:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plagiarism

"Plagiarism" is copying without attribution. If you attribute it, it's not plagairism. However, it is a copyright violation, and Wikipedia cannot accept such material. To put the material in Wikipedia, it must be released under one of our licenses (see the footer of any page) and this means that anyone, anywhere, who adheres to our license can then re-copy the material freely with attribution to Wikipedia. If you wish to release the material under those terms, then you need to prove that you are the original copyright holder. Alternatively, you can simply add a compatible free copyright license to your web site: we are permitted to copy (with attribution) from a site that has such a license. But so can anyone else. -Arch dude (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, because ZooFari said "no", it is plagiarism if you fail to attribute. It may seem odd that you can plagiarize something you wrote, but an editor adding material to Wikipedia is not formally linked to the author of the original site. It is not OK to say, "it is all right because I wrote it" as there is no simple mechanism to check that. Furthermore, if the original material is under copyright, and you want to control who can use it, you might be unaware that once it is on Wikipedia, anyone can use it. They must properly attribute it, but they don't need your permission. That's why it is important to affirmatively license it for use by Wikipedia, so you don't accidentally give up a right you might not want to relinquish. There are ways to do that, but as others have observed, there are some other issues to address.--SPhilbrick T 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot the most important thing. How silly of me. :) Zoo Fari 16:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Linking

How do I make an image link to a something other than the file for the image? I know there is a way, but I just can't find it anywhere.Drew Smith What I've done 07:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Add a colon before the image name like this File:Example.png [[:File:Example.png]] • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Do this [[File:NAME HERE|SIZEpx|link=YOUR LINK HERE]] Example:

• S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use the template {{click}}. Regards So Why 09:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing partial material - and provide link to original

I am considering writing an article which includes some summaries of what a particular website does
At the beginning of the article, I state which site was
used and that this functionality is just a simplified example of
the capabilities of the site. The examples, more or less screen-dumped
are less than a dozen lines off the original site.

I imagine that when the material implies something positive about someone else's
site and anyway consists of such a small sample, that the owners of the original
have no serious reason to object

I assume it is like showing half a minute of a video, then explicitly stating where
to buy the whole hour-long film.

Please let me know, if this type of flexibility actually exists
--Lawrence SR20 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might have misunderstood your intention, but I think I should point out that Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not a repository of links PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, using the material to "imply something positive" doesn't help the case, since Wikipedia is not supposed to contain promotional material. Copying and pasting material designed to drive traffic to a commercial site could easily fall foul of our spam policies. Perhaps if you tell us what specifically you want to add, we can advise better on whether it is appropriate.

But to answer your question from a copyright perspective, our guidelines on WP:Non-free content#Text specify the following:

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." So it's a question of proportion and citation, really. A small amount of text used in this way and correctly attributed would be OK, but first of all establish whether a "screen dump" is really the best way of representing these ideas in an encyclopedia. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia servers are in the United States and Wikipedia policy on this follows US copyright law. Please see The policy. Basically, brief quotes might fally under "fair use" within the law, or not. This is not a matter of the flexibility of Wikipedia, but rather the flexibility of the law. -Arch dude (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term vandalism/IP harassment

Hello,

I've repeated this to several administrators and on three forums so I hope no one minds if I keep this short. About a week ago, a stumbled upon what seems to be subtle vandalism by a group of usernames/IPs. I brought this to User:Joyson Noel, who said this was most likely a banned user called User:Mynameisstanley, and asked me to forward the list of username/IPs to User:Mafia Expert and/or User:William M. Connolley. After leaving a note on their talk pages, the IP I had reported began following me around and accused me of being a sockpuppet. He spammed this information on the talk pages of literally everyone I talked to and left harrassing messages on my own talk page. He's also reverted my edits to List of Jewish American mobsters whenever I've tried to update the list with valid references.

This has been going on for a week now and I've yet to even get even a response from anyone. I feel I've been treated quite rudely at one forum, being accused of "forum shopping", and that I'm apparently being ignored. If I'm doing something wrong or otherwise acting inappropriately, I wish someone would let me know. Is reporting vandalism discouraged for non-reigstered users? 72.74.224.60 (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved with this, as it's more appropriate for an Administrator or SysOp, who can actually do something!, but I am curious about one thing - why have you not registered? You obviously want to do a decent amount of editing, and although there would be no policy about non-registered users being trated differently, I know a lot of editors are wary of IP contributors. I think whether you are registered or not would have no difference on how your reports are treated - but others would certainly feel more at ease working with a registered editor than with an IP! You obviously don't normally use that IP for editing, I'm assuming your ISP uses dynamic IP allocation. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I have left messages on several administrators pages. One of them, User:PhilKnight, banned one of the IPs after I had reported the most recent incident on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and I left a message at his talk page after the IP returned under a different address (the IP spammed both those pages). That was two days ago and PhilKnight has yet to respond. Perhaps you could recommend an active administrator?

I don't normally edit Wikipedia so I've never considered registering. Unfortunately my experiences this past week has soured me on the whole idea. I would hope, regardless of my status, that I would be treated exactly the same as if I were a registered user who uncovered vandalism and was being stalked by an IP. I should point out, and I'm sure you'd agree, that anonymous users ae a lot less likely to register if they're treated with indifference and rudeness. Especially if they are attempting to make valid and constructive contributions. 72.74.224.60 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recommend an active administrator, as I do not know any Admins that well! However, I would point out that administrators on Wikipedia are like normal editors like you and me - we are all volunteers, and sometimes life stops us coming onto Wikipedia. For example, I didn't reply earlier as I had to take the kids to a group! Over the next couple of days, I may not get on Wikipedia at all - the same for Admins! Using Administrator intervention against vandalism is the correct method of drawing attention to the issue. Bear in mind that even if an admin is available, they need to be pretty certain that your allegations are true, and this takes time to check.

I don't think that indifference is being shown towards you - I can't speak for PhilKnight's willingness or otherwise to help you, but I do know that like us all, he is a volunteer. Life has to take precedence over Wikipedia! Likewise, I don't think you are being treated rudely on the whole - if you have mentioned the same issue on a few forums, then I can understand someone thinking you are forum shopping - approaching several admins and forums could be construed as finding the right place for a positive hearing. I would suggest that it might be wise to stop contacting admins - if you've contacted a few, plus left a message on WP:AIV, you've done all you need to do.

In summary - be patient, and remember that admins have lives too! Don't give up on Wikipedia because of this. Bear in mind that if you register, your IP will be hidden, and whoever is following you won't be able to do so, as they won't know who you are. Even ignoring this, there are benefits to be a registered user (see "Why create an account?"), and I would strongly recommend that you do so. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand that administrators have a real life obligations life outside Wikipedia. I also never expected an immediate responce from anyone. I only point out that a week has gone by and while I'm sitting around, being prevented from editing, the IP continues to edit (or vandalize) freely and continues to harrass me (he's recently left another message on the talk page I'm using). In my discussions with other editors, I've left links to specify my claims. I'm certainly not implying PhilKnight or any other administrator is purposly ignoring me. My experience at the forums, however, wern't helpful.

I'd think, since obviously its my first post in the forums (and that my charges are fairly serious), I might be cut some slack. When the editor read my message, he had the option of letting me know on my talk page. He choose instead to bring to everyone's attention that I was "forum shopping". When I tried to ask him to elaborate (I later had to look up forum shopping myself), a second editor simply removed my question. Maybe it wasn't their intention, but that's how it came off to me at the time.

I'm not sure if registering would help regarding the harrassment. Right now, I assume he's just following IPs made from edits to my original talk page and the various editors I've talked to. If I had a regular account, couldn't he just follow my contributions? 72.74.224.60 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at ANI linking to this section and asking for assistance. TN X Man 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry your posts at WP:EAR and WP:AN didn't receive a positive response, but I'm not an admin either so there's very little I can do about this. If you suspect those to be the same user, you report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If it's simple vandalism, WP:AIV would be better and you would get a faster response. ≈ Chamal ^talk 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the helpful reponses, thanks. Joyson Noel told me that I would probably have to register to make a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. But if I register soley to report a sockpuppet, wouldn't that be a single purpose account? 72.74.224.60 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with an image: Displays [[Image:|250px|]]

Resolved

Dear all, I have got a problem in the article about the United Nations Conventions against Corruption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Corruption. I inserted a new picture because the old one was not up to date. Somehow there some editing things remain above (File:) and below () the picture. I can't find these things in my text, though and I don't know who to remove it.

Any help is highly appreciated!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightagainstcorruption (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, most infoboxes don't allow you to add an image with all of the prefixes and suffixes. Just write the name of the image. By the way, you only add thumb if it's naked in the article. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, it's one of my first tries in wikipedia, and I am really grateful for your help! --Fightagainstcorruption (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mumps

hi i have just got mumps and was wondering if my kids have had all there injections can they still catch it from me, please let me know as this is worrying for me, thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.240.127 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can only answer questions relating to Wikipedia, for factual question try WP:Reference Desk. DO NOT ask medical questions, as we are not allowed to give advice. See WP:General Disclaimer. Try asking your family doctor or search other places of the web • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or try reading our article on Mumps • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Medical disclaimer. Do not rely on Wikipedia for medical advice, and that includes reading the article on mumps and also the reference too. I'd advice you to do nothing but contact a qualified medical practitioner. ≈ Chamal ^talk 12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody who has "Rollback" sort this vandalism out?

Hi, There is an IP address who has been making repeated strings of edits to Mohanlal. I have warned him repeatedly and he seems to have stopped. I dont want to get blocked for WP:3RR though, so somebody with the rollback button would be useful here as I cant get it done myself. Harlem675 09:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR rule doesn't apply for vandalism. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Does it not? I'm always wary of it because I've seen other users get blocked for reverting bad faith edits lol! Harlem675 09:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it difference of opinion then? Because they'll nail ya' for that • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, No worries anyway, I just had a successful request for "Rollback" at WP:RFR Harlem675 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though keep in mind that rollback is only for straightforward vandalism - if it's a content dispute you shouldn't use it. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reverted vandalism from the same user so many times in a short period of time and you have given sufficient warnings as well, I'd say it was time to report them at WP:AIV. ≈ Chamal ^talk 11:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internal wikipedia link exists but are shown as non-existent and does not link directly.

Resolved

– • S • C • A • R • C • E • 10:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is an Article on "Asset Recovery" in wikipedia, but I tried to internally link to it from the "United Nations against Corruption" article, and it does not work! Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightagainstcorruption (talk • contribs) 09:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asset recovery, lower caps 'r' • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

coperative movements in india

types of coperatives and its history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.86.192 (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain further what you mean? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 09:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try at the Humanities Reference Desk, but please note that we will not do your homework. My apologies if this is a misconception on my part. ≈ Chamal ^talk 11:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Did I do Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sermoa correctly? Joe Chill (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything but a code letter. Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance for the info. There should be a show/hide section midway through the page that lists them all. TN X Man 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the vote stacking code letter, but I wasn't sure if I was able to remove the bot's message. Joe Chill (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now, just waiting for a clerk review. TN X Man 13:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– SineadB (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and External Link sections aren't showing on my article

Hi, I've been working on a biography article about one of the Project Runway contestants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SineadB/Kojii_helnwein I plan to move it to the article section but as I was about to I noticed the Reference and External Link Sections have both disappeared. I can't figure out what I did wrong. I've already searched the FAQ but can't pinpoint and exact answer for this particular prob. Can someone please help? thanks... Sinéad SineadB (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You left off a closing reference tag. I've added it in and the rest of the page should display now. TN X Man 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm embarrassed by how simple that was :) Many thanks!!

I got a message that I was vandalizing wikipedia

Resolved

– ≈ Chamal ^talk 14:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article for "Time Travel" I saw the words "fucking nerds" as the first item on the article. Someone had clearly gone in an typed that inappropriately. I edited the article to delete those innapropriate words.

Then I got a message saying I was gonna be banned or something if I continued to vandalize wikipedia. What's the deal with that? I thought I was doing a good thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.73.56 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009

You did do a good thing. I think that the person who warned you got caught up in fixing other vandalism to the article. If you look at the the page's history, you'll see there were a lot of reverts there. I'll ask the person who warned you to comment here. TN X Man 14:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I take that back. The person who was vandalizing the article vandalized your talk page as well. You can safely disregard the whole thing. TN X Man 14:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP is now blocked for a 3 month period. Thanks for removing the vandalism. ≈ Chamal ^talk 14:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reality behind the neil armstrongs and his groups moon walk in 1969

hai sir,

i don't know who u r? but thanks for giving such a good website for our carrier.coming to the point, There are so many rumours regarding the moonwalk of armstrong and his groups.may i know how far it is true my first doubt regarding this is

how the foot steps of armstrong are still remain the same though many years passed away

if u know the reality behind this please give me the reply.

THANK U SIR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyaprakash143 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 July 2009 (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. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, the answer to your question is that there is no atmosphere on the Moon, so no weather to wear the foot prints away. Details of the moon landings can be found at American manned Moon landings and The US Apollo program. As to rumours about it not happening in the first place, see Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note: Mythbusters did a whole series covering this... including the the footprint. While on Earth a footprint needs moisture to keep its form, that is because our sand is smooth, when using moonrock, which is not smooth, moisture is not required.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean show rather than series! Details can be found here: Mythbusters (2008 season) - Episode 104 "NASA Moon Landing" PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was thinking "series of test" but my statement didn't state that.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To believe the Moon landings were a hoax, one would almost have to believe the Soviet Union was also a hoax, because surely the KGB would have had every incentive to expose a Moon landing hoax by its superpower rival. --Teratornis (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're also one of the people who believes that both The US and the Soviet Union were controlled by The Jews Who Secretly Rule The World/Big Oil/Freemasons/etc. and that the whole Cold War and everything since, up to present was an exercise in divide, conquer and 'keep the people down, stupid and financially exploitable'... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Buerhle

Not a question, but a statement (and I didn't know where else to send feedback):

Shame on whoever decided to take down Mark Buerhle's perfect game from the main page! The 18th perfect game in history! On the main page you've got the winner of the British Open, and the president of Indonesia, but not one of the greatest achievements from America's greatest game? For shame!

65.102.152.224 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Anonymous fan of America's favorite past time[reply]

I agree with you, but unfortunately consensus seems to be that non-championship games do not belong in In the News. You can take part in the discussion at WP:ITN/C (scroll down to "Mark Buerhle's perfect game"). Xenon54 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query on legal articles on wikipedia

I have a question. Ive come accross a thread that deals with a user discussing legal court proceddings to justify his editing behaviour. I had assumed we were not suppose to do this because of the fear of legal threats. Am I wrong in this interpretation? How does that policy work? Thanks a bunch for your time Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is at WP:NLT; would you mind providing a link to the thread in question, please? --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see where you're going. I don't believe that referring to case law by way of analogy constitutes a legal threat. I think that policy is there to address issues of "If you delete my page again, then I'll sue you" - that would be a legal threat as contemplated by the policy. Other issues notwithstanding, I don't believe there's a legal threat here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating

Hi: I'm new to Wikipedia. I can't find references anywhere on how I can CREATE my own pages on a topic I wish to start to write about. Everywhere I see how I can Edit some page but not how I start one. Any suggestions? Thank You! Y. Aranov Ytzik Aranov (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. Algebraist 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion

Hi, I've had success asking questions in this forum before, but please do not hesitate to tell me my that I am in the wrong location.

There is currently a biographical article on Wikipedia for Colin Franklin (Engineer). Mr. Franklin is a colleague of mine and upon discovering the article, would not like his personal information open to the public. I made some changes to the article to removed family references, however he would still like it taken down. According to him the information is only partially correct and partially false (as nothing is referenced in the article).

What is the best means of going about this? Can I propose the article for deletion? I would be happy to talk to any moderators about the issue.

Thanks Anandsrivastava2009 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPHELP is a good summary of the overall situation. That said, his various awards and achievements look like they would make him sufficiently notable to be included here, so the community's preference might well be to improve the sourcing of the page rather than to delete it. As you'll see at the page I referenced, there is an email system available to notify us of serious problems.

Anybody could edit the page, so long as they complied with our policies. Anybody could also post suggestions for improvement to the article's talk page. One of these two approaches is likely to be the best. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Color me puzzled. I'll let one of the more established editors weight in regarding the best next steps. However, this article has been in existence for several weeks, has been edited by 20 different editors and not a single one has thought to add a template asking for references? We either have a broken process, or I'm missing something. I hope it is the latter. Again, I want someone else to weigh in with advice, however, if any entry is controversial, (presumably, being wrong qualifies), it can be removed immediately.--SPhilbrick T 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr. Franklin ... would not like his personal information open to the public." I don't believe this statement will carry much weight. My vague recollection is that this is honored very rarely. On a different subject, you are right to ask for help, given wp:coi, extensive editing by you could be problematic. --SPhilbrick T 19:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i think the article goes back to 2006. Sources are key what cant be sourced should be removed. That said i did a quick check myself and i think some releveant sources can be found for the article. Again like in any article deletion or improvement debate someone needs to take initiative in the page. Ive attached a useful source to the talk page which i think can be used if someone where to want to fix the page. (Ie confirmation of awards, involvement in the alouette program) Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right it goes back to 2006. I thought I was looking at the edit history, I must have done something wrong. However, that merely strengthens my questions - how is it that we have a 3 year old bio that had no template for sources?--SPhilbrick T 20:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For others interested in weighing in the article is located at Colin Franklin (engineer) Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out a number of claims, and so far they are checking out. Can you add some of the ones you believe are not valid to the talk page—if we cannot source them we can remove them.--SPhilbrick T 20:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 18 citations, and moved the items I could not source to the talk page, if there are any problems with anything I did, please post to the talk page.--SPhilbrick T 23:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the original question: the subject is obviously sufficiently notable to warrant their being article. Anything which cannot be independently verified should (and will be) removed. However, if any of the personal details are available elsewhere - in a book or a reliable website - and adequately cited, then there is no reason for it to be removed. If there are no reliable sources for the information, then it should be removed. If there are factual errors, then this can be discussed on the article's talk page. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the original question, and would like to clarify a couple of thoughts that have sprung to mind (the delay is because I've been out in the real world doing shopping... *sighs*): Mr. Franklin is a colleague of mine and upon discovering the article, would not like his personal information open to the public. I made some changes to the article to removed family references, however he would still like it taken down. According to him the information is only partially correct and partially false (as nothing is referenced in the article).

- - Firstly, I'm curious as to why Mr Franklin hasn't communicated this himself? If he's been chatting with you about it, you could always show him how to do so.
  - Secondly, if some of the information is partially correct or partially false, perhaps you (or Mr Franklin himself) could - via the article's talk page, for reasons of conflict of interest - explain what is the correct statement(s) should be, and reliable citations to back up the assertions. I would mention your connection to Mr Franklin (as I say, there is a conflict of interest), so everything is open and above board.

I would assume that most of the information (as used by the Telecomms Hall of Fame of Canada and IEEE Canada) is based on press releases and the like obtained from Mr Franklin and the organisations that he is involved with. Inaccuracies can be dealt with - provided sources are cited showing the correct information. Please note that e-mails received from Mr Franklin would not constitute reliable information, as e-mails are too easily forged! Hope this helps, explaining the process of correcting information if you have a COI. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Sorry for the absence, I completely understand wikipedia's policies on adding verifiable information etc. My reference to questionable material was the material I had removed, I'm sorry if this was misinterpreted as the crux of my questions. (However thank you for taking the time with the citations). My question would be better asked as follows: Assuming that it could be verified through Wikipedia protocol that it was indeed Mr. Colin Franklin with the request of having the article taken down due to a desire to not have his accomplishments public (despite their significance), is there any way for this to happen? I know that by acting on his behalf, I am in no position to make sweeping changes (as a conflict of interests), however is there a method out there on wikipedia to deal with such situations? Anandsrivastava2009 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't get to see the answer PhantomSteve left me on my talk page before I posted this, thanks for your help and I'll get back to you directly. Anandsrivastava2009 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Willison (musician)

While looking into the Colin Franklin issue, I note that the editor with the most edits to that article is Joshuawillison, who happens to have created John Willison (musician). Is that enough to ask about COI, or does one need more?--SPhilbrick T 19:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so, it may be coincedental with the last name, and jushua hasnt edited since jan 2007 (am i missing something?). That said there may be grounds for a afd here, just need to check with Wikipedia:Notability (music)for established notability Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt seem like it to me he meets the notability. If some sources cant be found that satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (music) I think theres a good case for a afd. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the one source I could find about him - which is confirming his teaching post. Note that he is a specialist staff, not senior staff. I think he is non-notable, as all the other references to John Willison either refer to John Willison or are copies of the wiki article! Unfortunately, my time online is almost up (a teenager with a online gaming competition is hovering....), so I don't have time for an SD request, a PROD or an AfD... could someone else do it? Otherwise, the next time I know that I'll be online is Monday evening! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a PROD on the article - it doesn't qualify for a SD. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to other sections of an article within an article

Hello. I am an established editor on Wikipedia, but I’m not sure on the procedure here. Is it acceptable to link to another section of an article within the same article – if that makes any sense? As in “For more information see...”. And if so, how is it formatted? In brackets/italics? DJ 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got a view on whether it's acceptable or not, but to do it simply link to the section name, preceding it by the hash sign - so to link to this section on this page you would enter [[#Refering to other sections of an article within an article]] (and pipe the link, if appropriate). pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 21:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering about this too. e.g. it has been done in the lead of the solar eclipse news piece, and I find it confusing. If I were king of the world, when wikilinks like this appear in the Lead, they'd be accompanied by some sort of symbol indicating an internal jump. (This would also help organize the article. Rather than relying on the table of contents to organize the article, the lead would also serve that purpose; certain major "headers" would be expected to have this special wikilink integrated into the lead.) Agradman ^talk/_contribs 21:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Linking#Linking to sections of articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wanted: someone who's nimble with tables to clean up my mess

At cash conversion cycle, I am using tables to display equations, but I'm a novice and did a sloppy job. Could someone please volunteer a few (10?) minutes to make the presentation look aesthetically pleasing? Each line of the table, when read from left to right, represents the equation, paraphrased in a different format.

Caveat: I suspect that any attempt to edit the tables on this page will result in painful edit conflicts. Just saying. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 03:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First problematic table

Here is one of the tables. I just don't like how it looks, aesthetically:

Cash Conversion Cycle (in days)	=	Inventory conversion period		+	Receivables conversion period		–	Payables conversion period
	=	time between acquiring inventory & releasing it on account		+	time it takes to collect on accounts		–	time before inventory growth hits cash
	=	Avg. Inventory COGS	× 365	+	Avg. Accounts Receivable Sales	x 365	–	Avg. Accounts Payable inventory growth + COGS	× 365

Second problematic table

In this instance, I have "centered" the two rows to indicate that the single term is equal to the two terms immediately above and below -- in other words, all of the following terms are equal:

(owing→being owed + being owed→collecting)
owing→collecting (aka "operating cycle")
interval {A → D}
interval {A → B} + interval {B → D}

disbursing→collecting	=	owing→being owed	+	being owed→collecting	–	owing→disbursing
		i.e. owing→collecting (aka "operating cycle")
		interval {A → D}
interval {C → D}	=	interval {A → B}	+	interval {B → D}	–	interval {A → C}
CCC (in days)	=	Inventory conversion period	+	Receivables conversion period	–	Days inventory outstanding

Citing An Article

I need help citing an article in which I think there is either incorrect information or more information needed. This article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Eyed_Girl

Under the "Cover Versions" topic, it lists The Rolling Stones as having recorded "Brown Eyed Girl" however it isn't on their discography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_discography

And Wiki Answers says it hasn't ever been recorded by TRS:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_mick_jagger_ever_sing_van_morrisions_brown_eyed_girl

The real problem is that I KNOW I've heard versions on the radio and on the internet where TRS ARE doing Brown Eyed Girl. I've also heard for years that they didn't put it on their albums because they didn't want royals because VM never received them and TRS didn't want anyone else getting them either, so they recorded it as a demo and sent it out that way. I've also heard it's bootleg. I just don't know or understand how I could be hearing it if there's no history of them ever recording it.

Is this what citations are for or do I need something else here?71.200.132.224 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just created an accountSusanmj67 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter what we know, only what we can source. See WP:RS, WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, and WP:CITET. You can ask on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Someone there might know of a reliable source that can answer your question. Be aware that lots of music acts cover each other's tunes in live concerts without releasing them. You might have heard a bootleg recording. --Teratornis (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting images from Croatian wiki to English wiki

Hi there, I wondering how I can get this image [1], to replace the first map you see on this page [2] (I just want the Croatian map to be in the English article). Do I have to translate the map title then put in the English wiki? Any info would greatly help, thanks.--99.37.108.244 (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is in the public domain, so upload it to commons. Then all Wikimedia projects can use it, including us. But the image currently on Achaemenid Empire looks better to me. ≈ Chamal ^talk 04:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks for the advice Chamal_N! Also the reason I want to add the green map is because it better conveys the 10.7 size of the AE, better than the smaller map that has an innacurate showing of the empire, anyways, thanks again!--99.37.108.244 (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]