Help desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

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.

January 16

Term of art vs. common usage

Someone has asked (via OTRS) that the linked term "interior designer" be replaced with "designer" in the Colleen McGill article because "interior designer" is a term of art in Ontario, where the article's subject is from, referring to members of the trade association. While the trade association (ARIDO) is a voluntary organization, Ontario's "Titles Act" apparently prohibits people from referring to themselves as "interior designer"s if they are not a member.

In my decidedly non-expert opinion, "interior designer" does seem to be the commonly-used term for what McGill does. However, the other person's point that use of the term may mislead people into thinking that McGill is a member of ADIRO and authorized to use that title there is a fair point as well.

The talk page was blank, so I thought I'd ask here. Any thoughts on what to do? (I've notified the ticket filer of this discussion.) – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I can see how this might be considered a grey area by some, but I come down firmly on the side of keeping the common usage description. First, all this is based on the assumption that Ms. McGill actually isn't a member of ARIDO; is that just alleged in the OTRS ticket, or is it established? Second, assuming for the moment that she is not an ARIDO member: if you look at the actual law [1], Ms. McGill is prohibited from marketing herself as an "interior designer", but there is no rule - even in Ontario - prohibiting me (for example) from describing her as one. Not describing her as an interior designer, if thqat is in fact what she does (with or without the title) would be a disservice to the reader. Describing her as a "designer" provides no useful info. This is primarily a marketing scheme. Anyone can legally do interior design in Ontario, but only an ARIDO member can call themselves an interior designer. On Wikipedia, Ms. McGill isn't calling herself anything; we are calling her what she is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged by the person who opened the ticket, and before any article change was made, obviously we'd want an RS. That said, I have no reason to doubt the ticket filer at this point. That last distinction that you make is relevant but not at issue, I think, as the OTRS discussion has focused around issues of what Wikipedia "ought" to do, not what it "must" do. I see 2 issues here: 1) term of art vs. common name and 2) will people casually reading the article be deceived by the use of the wrong term. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should say that I'm leaning in the same direction as Floquenbeam, but brought the discussion here because I think it is a valid question. And because I'm not sure. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think using "interior designer" is both what we can do, and what we should do. But I do have some concerns about the tone of that article, and (perhaps) the notability of Ms. McGill. Lots of puffery, no inline references, and most of the external links are useless. If someone more capable hasn't looked at it by tomorrow, I may try to prune some of it myself. It might be a moot point in this particular case; it's possible this should go to AFD if some good sources aren't found. But my opinion stands on the general point raised here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is comparable to describing a person from Texas as an engineer. Texas actually restricts a person from applying the term "engineer" to him/herself unless licensed as a Texas professional engineer or having an engineering degree and working under the supervision of a Texas professional engineer. But I can't imagine Wikipedia paying any attention to that restriction. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason we can't provide a piped link like this: [[interior designer|designer of interiors]] so the browser renders the link as designer of interiors but it leads to the interior designer article?

Actually, strike that. I think Floquenbeam has provided the right course of action here. Astronaut (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Feiden

To Whom it May Concern,

Hello! Two weeks ago, I was looking up Margo Feiden on Wikipedia. She is a famous art dealer/author that I am familiar with, and her name is Margo F-E-I-D-E-N. However, in the search results, although the references that came up were clearly to Margo Feiden, the question “Did you mean Margo FeiTen?” appeared on the screen. This morning I made the the same search, wondering if Wikipedia's error had already been corrected. Now, although the references that come up still are clearly to Margo Feiden, I get the question, “Did you mean Margo FeiLen?” In other words, it looks like an attempt was made to correct the mis-spelling, only to introduce a different one Of course, Margo Feiten and Margo Feilen are both wrong, but out of curiosity, I went looking on Google to see if there were really such people as to warrant that kind of suggestion by your search engine. But, no, there are no Google results for a Margo Feiten or a Margo Feilen. But, of course, there are many Google results under Margo Feiden ( by the thousands).

Do you think you could change something or other so that Wikipedia is not suggesting the wrong spelling when someone searches for Margo Feiden?

Thank you very much, Rachel Wonderling--a great Wikipedia fan! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwonderling47 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where the search suggestions come from - you may want to ask at the technical village pump if you want to know that. But if you look below the search suggestion, you'll see several articles listed where the name is spelled correctly. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think she's talking about Wikipedia's search function: if you go to Special:Search/Margo Feiden, you'll get the "did you mean Margo Feilden" suggestion she's describing. That's not anyone at Wikipedia trying to fix a misspelling; it's just how Wikipedia's search function handles it sometimes when there's no article name that matches the search term. It's odd; there's no "Margo Feilden" article either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Margo Feiden" in quotation marks does not suggest an alternative. If you don't use quotation marks then each word may be considered separately. There are 35 hits on Feiden alone, 153 on Feilden and 160 on Feiten. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now I know where they come from - the higher hits on the words taken individually. Good to know. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

joel yanofsky is not dead...

this is from me, Joel Yanofsky. i am reported as dead on my wikipedia page. i am not, also my year of birth is wrong along with lots of other things -- it's 1955 -- but maybe we could just bring me back to life first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.65.144 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm posting here (and I'll copy the message on your own talk page just in case). I've removed the information pertaining to a death from the article Joel Yanofsky as it was unsourced, and I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page in which you're welcome to take part. Do note that there will be a need for external sources for facts such as a moment of birth. If you are indeed the article's subject, it would probably be preferable to avoid editing it directly, in accordance to our guidelines on dealing with articles about yourself, although you are encouraged to post on the article's talk page. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We commonly assume good faith when it comes to birth date, as long as it is not controversial.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please help me...

Dear sir/madam,

I am writing in regards to the page on Vandana Vishwas, that I had created in 2009. It had been flagged for COI and I had satisfactorily addressed all concerns by Wiki editors, following which all objections were removed. Recently, in December 2012, I updated it again, and some issues have again been flagged. I have now removed all content that may be taken as promotional or 'Fan's point of view'. Can someone please review the page and remove those tags?

Best regards, Vishwasthoke (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How should war crimes be defined?

Should it be something that looks cruel or crimes confirmed by trials? Recently I just have had some issues in Chinese wikipedia about what events should be included in categories or articles on war crimes. I also mentioned that there do exist many "war crimes" that are not yet brought to trial, for example Soviet war crimes.--Inspector (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't exactly say it as "something that looks cruel". Technically, war crimes are "crimes committed against an enemy, prisoners of war, or subjects in wartime that violate international agreements or, as in the case of genocide, are offenses against humanity", according to dictionary.com. Epic Genius 13:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The answer to the OP's question is "whatever unbiased reliable sources say". If reliable sources call an event a war crime, Wikipedia does too. If reliable sources do not, we do not, even if we think we can make an argument that it really is. Making our own arguments is against the rules at Wikipedia, per WP:SYNTH. We report what reliable sources say here, we don't interpret events ourselves. --Jayron32 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A variety of international treaties and a substantial body of case law do a pretty good job (IMHO) of defining "war crimes". Roger (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean the defining of crime is not only dependent on trials, but also other criticisms?--Inspector (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YRC Group or YRC Weblink Articles are being continously deleted?

Dear Admin,

From last 1yrs whenever i write about the Students company or Software i.e. YRC Weblink web browser it gets deleted stating the reason as Advertising but if Wikipedia will not accept the articles how will people know about how the software is used, what language is it used etc etc

Please Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.196.58 (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles at YRC Weblink had several problems: First, they didn't demonstrate that they met our notability policy, which tells us which subjects to include in the encyclopedia. Second, they had an inappropriate tone and failed to maintain a neutral point of view. Third, they didn't provide reliable third-party sources for the information contained in the article. Because of the repeated problematic recreation of the article, further creation has been prohibited (by salting).

It may help if you request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles instead of writing one yourself, as you are having difficulty overcoming your conflict of interest when writing. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YRC Weblink was deleted because it did not have any references and sources and YRC Weblink was apparently not notable. Ruslik_Zero 11:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were also YRC Group Inc., which generally failed to meet the policies and guidelines noted above in its two versions, and was twice deleted under section A7 of the criterion for speedy deletion as failing to assert the importance of the subject. Wikipedia will not accept the article until such time as it contains content that meets our policies. It may be that this company cannot have an article, as at least from what is indicated by looking at Google book and News Archive searches, there does not appear to be sufficient reliable third party sources to sustain an article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say "how will people know about how the software is used ... ". This question suggests that you do not understand what Wikipedia is. There should be no information in Wikipedia that has not already been published somewhere else. See WP:V and WP:OR. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Sharma, Panasonic India is a Corporate Executive NOT a Businessman

This is in reference to the Wikipedia page of Manish Sharma: Manish Sharma (businessman).

Manish Sharma is a Corporate Executive and not a businessman. The URL is miguiding as it gives a wrong information. There is nothing wrong with the article as such as it clearly mentions that Manish Sharma is a current employee of Panasonic. I request you to please edit the URL to Manish Sharma (Corporate Executive) for better understanding and make it factually right.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadgetsgigs (talk • contribs) 10:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any corporate executive is commonly considered a businessman. Ruslik_Zero 12:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already moved Manish Sharma (businessman) to Manish Sharma (Corporate Executive) two days ago. The word in parenthesis is usually to distinguish an individual from other people with similar names - in this case Manish Sharma is a disambiguation page with links to the individuals. The businessman page is just a redirect from the old name that was created automatically when you moved the page. An admin can delete it if you request it. Astronaut (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back to Manish Sharma (businessman) on the basis that disambiguating titles should be as general as possible.--ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at this more, I am not convinced that he meets the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. He is a regional managing director of a large multinational. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.--ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page into its redirect page.

Hi! I tried moving Nucleus Accumbens Core into Nucleus accumbens core but the move failed because "a page of that name already exists". I removed the redirect on that page but the move still didn't work. Should I ask for an administrator's assistance, or can I do it myself? If I can do it myself, please don't move it for me, but tell me instead, so I learn how to do this. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 10:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect page actually needs to be deleted for the move to take place, so you will need an admin to do it, I'm afraid. I'll shift it for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, but on consideration I think this would work better if merged and redirected to Nucleus accumbens. I'll propose a merge on the talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lova Falk talk 12:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's ark zoo farm

I have tried on multiple occasions to add a factual list of awards to the Noah's ark zoo farm page but they keep getting stripped out leading me to believe that the editors of this page are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.66.60 (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were reverted because the awards in question were of dubious notability and were very poorly sourced. If you believe that the information belongs in the article, the appropriate next step is to start a discussion on the article's talkpage, where you and other editors can debate the merits of including the awards section. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC) (Note: there's already a discussion from about a year ago concerning the awards section, which you may want to read first)[reply]

Category change request -- page on choreographer William Forsythe

I represent the choreographer William Forsythe as his dramaturg. Would you please change the heading at

William Forsythe (dancer)

from William Forsythe (dancer) to William Forsythe (choreographer)? I am unable to do so.

Please also reflect this category change in the Dutch language categorization.

Thank you,

Dr. Freya Vass-Rhee The Forsythe Company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyav (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan of the article seems to show that Forsythe's main work has been as a choreographer, so I've moved the page as requested. Rojomoke (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Freya has been polishing this article with a massive conflict of interest for almost four years now! I've reported this to the conflict of interest noticeboard, but would appreciate input from people more knowledgable in dance as the current version is so turgid with promotional and pretentious language as to be almost unreadable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is! I wonder if a Wikipedia article can qualify for Private Eye's Pseuds Corner? Maproom (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to take a stab at it but my head hurt after 2 sections...--ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the smarmy moderator comments above. If you want for Wikipedia to be supported, you really should add some sugar to your intellectual sour grapes , mods.

Matt_O'Connor

Added a title Rojomoke (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Hello

I would really appreciate any advice and help anyone can give me to resolve flagged issues with this article:

Matt O'Connor

The issues raised are as below. I believe I have addressed the points, but I am not sure how long before the article will be reviewed again and resolved issues unflagged. If I have not successfully resolved the issues I would appreciate your insight and advice.

Thank you!

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (January 2013)

This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (January 2013)

This article contains too many pictures, charts or diagrams, and is in need of cleanup. Please help to improve this article in accordance with the Manual of Style on use of images. (January 2013)

Mcguirl1 (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all your recent changes, as they appear to contain content taken from his LinkedIn profile, of which Wikipedia can't reuse, due to copyright problems. Mdann52 (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and I've changed the link in your question from an internet url to a wikilink to make it more readable. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edited image does not appear to be changed

I edited the image at [2] to improve the contrast and colors. The new version looks identical to the previous version on Wikipedia and does not appear to have been updated, even though it does look quite different locally on my PC. The revision history show the old file size as 514 KB, and the new size as 434 KB, which agrees with my local copies, indicating that Wikipedia should have the new version. But the new version appears to be identical to the previous version on the file page and in the File history. I tried viewing this file in two different browsers and on two different PCs, after clearing temporary internet files, and get the same results. I downloaded the 'new' version from Wikipedia and it is actually the old version with size 514 KB. I thought there might be caching of the old image, but is still unchanged more than 18 hours later. CuriousEric 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They look different to me - your edit has better colour depth. Try refreshing your cache again - instructions in WP:BYPASS. However, this might have something to do with the image being on Commons so maybe there is a different way of doing this for Commons images. Astronaut (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the caching takes awhile to update. I suggest waiting a day, and if its not updated, raise the issue again. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried all the suggestions on WP:BYPASS and the new version still appears identical to the old version on Wikipedia and Wikimedia, using both IE8 and SeaMonkey. I had someone at a different location view the file's Wikipedia page, they also see the same lower contrast image for both new and old versions. But, on my Wikimedia Commons File list, the thumbnail shows the new version with improved contrast. When I pick the thumbnail, the Wikimedia file page shows the old image again. It has already been one day, and the cache has not updated. I'll wait a while longer and check the file again. But, this is very frustrating, initially making me believe I uploaded the incorrect file. And it may cause other editors to believe I had not made any actual changes, and they may upload a different improved image. Could Wikipedia/Wikimedia be fixed so this caching update happens immediately? Thanks. CuriousEric 18:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major Issue - Page discrediting my place of business on your site

Hello -

I was very disturbed to see a page that was created on WIkipedia discrediting the Khabele School.

Khabele School

I want this deleted immediately AND would like to know the person who created it to be able to follow up with them.

Pleaser respond quickly.

Lisa Dubuque The Khabele School — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.215.82 (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has three times been edited by people whose usernames suggest that they have a conflict of interest. Their contributions have been removed. I see nothing in the article now that looks defamatory. Anyway - Wikipedia does not reveal the identities of its editors. But as the article cites no third-party sources, there is a strong case for its deletion. Maproom (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I saw this and headed over there, but was beaten to the punch in removing the offending text by another editor. The article is now in my watchlist, and I'll keep an eye on it - but I also won't miss it should it be deleted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRODed Roger (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And deprodded per the (ridiculous in my view) "inherent notability of secondary schools".--ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - "inherent notability" is a load of BS.

A presumption cannot be allowed to stand indefinitely - it's high time we discussed instituting a definite "Prove it or lose it" time limit on all these "presumptions of notability rules". IMHO the biggest effect they have on WP is to indefinitely protect trivial crap from getting deleted. They also allow sloppy editing because they create (unjustified IMHO) exceptions to the normal process of article creation for certain privileged categories of subjects, where step one is "get your sources lined up".

<rant>The presumption of notability for high schools is in any case based on the unique nature of high school - media relationships in the United States (and maybe Canada too). Most of the very few US high school articles that do by some miracle happen to have any independent sources they are mostly just the "Hicksville Gazette" (circulation 873) reporting on the successes/failures of the new principal or football/basketball coach at "Hicksville High".

In the rest of the world nobody outside of the specific school community give a rats ass about high school sports or pretty much anything else about the school. The vast majority of high schools globally, except for very high profile elite schools (Eton in the UK for example), never make the mainstream news. In most cases only "hard news" such as a teacher getting arrested for molesting fourth-graders or the school getting burnt down ever makes the mainstream media (outside the US). The idea of actually televising school sport (except for the aforementioned small number of elite schools) is simply ridiculous in most of the world. </rant> Roger (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<agreement>I agree.</agreement>--ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general public doesn't know that, and they become perplexed when their articles get deleted and it discourages them from joining Wikipedia. The reason why "inherent notability" is important is because it tells other Wikipedians "don't waste time trying to get it deleted. The sources are out there. Just do the research and build it up." IMO deletion is best if it's a copyvio (of course) or if one has no clue if the sources exist. And what I am doing with this secondary school is getting the sources lined up, to prove the notability. These articles that prove notability often have nothing to do with school sports; they talk extensively about the school culture and other aspects about the school. Also look the Japanese, French, and Chinese Wikipedias, for secondary schools also have articles in those languages. Secondary schools have importance in other parts of the world too. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen, and representatives of Khabele School, please take a look at the article in development at Khabele School. The Austin Business Journal and the Austin American-Statesman have been very helpful in sketching the school's history and objectives. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the author of the bad edit in question was an IP at the University of Southern California. I just marked it as such. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LIN bus article has been updated.

There are several flags in the LIN bus article pointing to inadequate references. Those problems have largely been fixed.

All of the source protocol information is available from the LIN sponsoring body cited in reference 5 of the article [info@lin-subbus.org] The other references are useful.

Because LIN bus is an actively supported protocol in the automotive industry, most documentation is sourced either from the LIN specifying body (reference 5 again) or from the myriad electronics firms supporting the protocol in semiconductor products. Major among these companies are Texas Instruments, Robert Bosch, NXP (Philips), and ON Semiconductor.

I recommend that the flags be removed from the LIN Bus wiki entry so that readers are not warned away from the excellent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.154.100 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the idea that it is an "excellent article"? It is in fact a fairly poor article, though not entirely bad. For a start none of the tagged issues have really been properly addressed yet. It needs a HUGE amount of work if it is to have any hope of ever becoming "an excellent article". You might want to read up on the standards we require of "Featured articles" which is the term we use for articles that really are "excellent". Roger (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CHARLIE WILSON

ON BING WHEN YOU LOOK UP CHARLIE WILSON, THERE IS A PICTURE OF HIM ON THE LEFT WITH THE NAME CHERYL WILSON AS OPPOSED TO CHARLIE WILSON. CHARLIE IS AN R&B ICON AND TO HAVE HIS NAME INCORRECT NOT ONLY IS OFFENSIVE BUT IT DISCREDITS YOUR SITE EVEN MORE SO. PLEASE GET THAT CORRECTED SO IT REFLECTS THE CORRECT NAME AND REPUTATION OF YOUR SITE.

THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.9.50 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the address bar of your browser you might notice that this is Wikipedia.org, not Bing.com, so we cannot help you, sorry. By the way, please don't SHOUT. Roger (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is bizarre, but I don't see anything on our end that would be causing it. Maybe there is some old vandalism in a cached version somewhere in the bing system. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Wilson redirects to Charles Wilson: a disambiguation page, with no images. Wherever the problem is, it isn't on Wikipedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This Bing search brings up the text "Cheryl Wilson is a session singer who has had multiple No. 1 dance songs on the UK Billboard chart and has p… en.wikipedia.org", but to the very left of that text shows a photo of Charlie Wilson credited to en.wikipedia.org and also shows the text Born: Jan 29, 1953 Tulsa Member of: The Gap Band" below the photo and the Cheryl Wilson text. The en.wikipedia.org link provided by Bing links to the Charlie Wilson article, so it's odd that the Bing search engine would bring up text from the Cheryl Wilson Wikipedia article. I did not see anything in the Cheryl Wilson history mentioning "Charlie." The bottom of the BING page has a Feedback option, so you might want to try that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the search string Uzma used has "CHARLIE WILSON". Would this oddity the OP is complaining about be caused by their use of upper case in their search box? I can't check this myself because bing insists on geolocating me and providing different results in a language I don't read well and no photos either. Astronaut (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on Bing for the name in the proper case and it produced the same oddity - clearly a Bing problem.--ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two Wikipedia questions

Why does the Account creation process exist? Why do humans have to create the accounts? Why doesn't Wikipedia automatically create them and send an e-mail, like Bugzilla does?
I'm confused about the user page protection policy. The policy text states that user pages may be (semi-)protected "at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism/disruption or other good reason to do so". Whenever I have seen admins protect user pages, they indicate it was the user's request. However, I have seen admins (semi-)protect user pages with little or no disruption, and I have also seen admins deny (semi-)protection to user pages with no, little, or some disruption. Why does this happen? Is it a gray area?

These questions probably don't have concrete answers, but responses to one or both of the questions would be greatly appreciated. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your first question, there are certain technical limits on account creation designed to prevent disruption, such as a limit on the number of accounts created by an IP during a given time. The account creation process allows you to bypass those limitations. (say you needed accounts for 30 students in a class that will all be editing from the same IP) AFAIK, it can also be used to create an account where the editor would otherwise be subject to block on account creation due to an IP or IP range block. As for your second question, its a combination of factors. There isn't a clear definition of what constitutes sufficient disruption to justify protection, where an editor requests protection of their own userpage, which should have very little reason for IP or new editor edits, admins are often very deferential to the request. Some have semi-protected even without past disruption when requested, though that is not within the scope of policy. Its one of the areas where there isn't alot of policing. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's just what I needed to know. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Niazi

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Niazi

user johnhartvig which helps to advertise the article on Daniel Nazi, claims in a discussion that he works for Wikimedia while he therefore has the power to delete other users if it tries to get his article deleted. Can it really be true? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time finding either the article or the user you are talking about. Can you provide a link to where that was said? No one deletes users, but they can be blocked if consistent with the WP:Blocking Policy. Without additional information, its hard to say more then that. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to relate to Daniel Niazi, WP:Articles for deletion/Daniel Niazi, WT:Articles for creation/Daniel Niazi, and Johnhartvig (talk · contribs). Section header fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where johnhartvig is making such a claim. In any event no one owns any Wikipedia article or draft and no one can dictate its content. We decide all such matters by reaching a consensus after discussion. Having said all that, and after looking at the draft, I think the notability of the subject is dubious at best so I doubt that it will make it into the mainspace or if it does, it will probably be deleted. --ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the threat to "delete" other users was made on the Danish Wikpedia: here. To answer the question, no he can't do anything like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a picture without meeting the criteria for picture upload

I added an account which will be old enough to edit but I do not have 10 edits.

It is not likely I will have 10 edits anytime soon.

I have the copyright on the photo I want to upload and do not care if it is redistributed.

The picture is for Anne W. Armstrong. I am one of her descendants and have a picture from her passport, dated 1924. There is no picture of her and I thought I would add one.

Thanks,

Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideflakeopal (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sideflakeopal. It's simple: don't upload the photo here at all. Since as you indicate you are willing to release it under a free license, go to the Wikimedia Commons, sign up and upload the photo choosing the license "Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL (recommended)". There is no autoconfirmation requirement there to upload and it's where freely-licensed images should be uploaded anyway. Once uploaded there, it can be immediately used here seamlessly using normal image markup, e.g., [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]]. By the way, if you want to make ten edits, just go fix some spelling errors using Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection

Where does one request that an article be semi-protected? ~ Here? (good). For The Scream article, at least 90% of the latest 100 or so edits have been reverted (either by bots or editors). - This used to be a "Good Article". It would save time, effort and server resources if the article were simply semi-protected. ~Thanks, ~E: 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can make the request at WP:RPP RudolfRed (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... Or hope that a bored admin sees the request here.

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page that Blatently Misrepresents Facts and includes Content that May Violate Copyrights and May Libel

After numerous attempts to correct the deliberately false maliciously misleading content regarding historical activities of this band from 2000 to present - and craft a factual, fair and comprehensive description of events and the involved entities and individuals, only to have the correct and factual edits deleted and replaced continuously with the same maliciously false misleading content; the page must be considered for speedy deletion or the offending editors banned from editing, before any more real damages are incurred. Significant copyrights and factual narratives need your protection from willful mischief. Thank you for your assistance 66.177.78.24 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for bringing up your concerns. Can you explain what information is incorrect, so we can fix the problem? Prodego ^talk 21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And please provide reliable sources for your requested changes.--ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the whole of the 2001 section (except for the first sentence which has a reference) as completely unsourced.--ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stub article on Alford T Welch

Please remove what is now only a stub for me, Alford T Welch. A fairly accurate, although short, article about my research and contributions to the field of Qur'anic Studies was in Wikipedia for a number of years. I did not place it there, but had no major complaints. Because of divisions within my academic field and the fact that some disagreed with my historical-critical approach the study of the Qur'an, I believe that, as a way of discrediting my research and publications, someone removed substantial, descriptive information, leaving only a misleading stub.

Explanation: In the period of over 40 years since I received an excellent education (in Hebrew, Greek, Jewish and Christian history, and, especially, methods of critical analysis of sacred texts) Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has been taken over by a group of the most conservative activists in the Convention and turned into a fundamentalist institution.

Whenever Fox News wants to air their far-right agenda through the mouth of a fundamentalist religious leader, they sometimes invite the current President of SBTS to their show, and he never fails to spew absurd, inflammable views that are an embarrassment to knowledgeable Christians, especially the dedicated faculty and students who made SBTS one of the most highly ranked graduate schools in theology until the 1970s.

Having my association with this institution prominently displayed on Widipedia as one of the few facts about me, without my other degrees, qualifications, publications, etc. is meant to discredit my research and publications on the Qur'an.

At some point, someone who knows my work well will contribute an informative article on me, my publications, and the major contribution I have made to Islamic Studies and our knowledge of the Qur'an. Until that time comes, I very much prefer that no article at all be included in Wikipedia about me.

Thank you,

Alford T Welch Professor Emeritus Michigan State University — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alford T Welch (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article history shows that it has been in pretty much the same form since it was created in 2007 so I don't think there has been any attempt to discredit you.--ukexpat (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]