Help desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

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.

November 23

I think a wizard got offended

Resolved

– Mysdaao ^talk 12:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used an image on a user subpage that was probably offensive to someone who viewed it.

then suddenly there was like a block. (a little bit magical?) I could no longer use the image on the page.

so, is there an admin that can help or something? can someone just let me know what happened or why it was that they took some apparent action? are there some guidelines I should look at or what? I'm sure I can get a long and follow rules, if I knew the dealy. thanks. Skakkle (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What image was it? (link to it using ''':'''!--_Do_not_include_the_"'''"_or_"''";_they_are_for_emphasis_--nowikiFile:/nowiki''Name_of_image'' (ctrl-click)">''':'''!--_Do_not_include_the_"'''"_or_"''";_they_are_for_emphasis_--nowikiFile:/nowiki''Name_of_image'' (ctrl-click)">[[:File:Name of image]]). It is possible that it has been blacklisted, but we need to know which to confirm this. Intelligentsium 02:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's User:Skakkle/a? The page history shows that you have blanked it yourself a few minutes ago. But you can't use that image there; it's a fair use file, and can be used to illustrate a relevant article but not anywhere else (like userspace etc). Only images that are in public domain or released under free license accepted by Wikipedia (such as these) can be used on your userspace. You might want to read Wikipedia:User page as well. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skakkle is probably talking about File:Wiki-bukkake-2.png, which used to be on User:Skakkle/a before it was removed. Skakkle, that image was added to MediaWiki:Bad image list with this edit on November 14, which makes the image only display on pages it is specifically allowed on, and no others. Potentially offensive images like that one are placed on the bad image list to prevent users from committing vandalism by placing those images on articles that they don't belong on. It's not because of anything you did. No action was taken against you specifically.--Mysdaao ^talk 03:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I was talking about File:Piss Christ by Serrano Andres (1987).jpg which was the image that was on the page last. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, everyone. very diligent all around. it was the listing on the "bad image list" that did it. keep on fighting the good fight whether that's being offensive, or fighting the potentially offensive, or just informing me about lists and whatnot. be easy. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dashboard Problems

Resolved

– Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 06:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeffrey Mall

I was wondering if somebody (preferably somebody with a web browser that isn't Internet Explorer) could take a look at my userpage and tell me if you can see this code "UNIQ5aa01b2a376181fe-imagemap-00000000-QINU" (or something similar to) next to my Rollbacker top icon. There should actually be a {{User:Arknascar44/Love Cabal}} in its place, this code only started displaying once I added the Dashboard to my user page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 05:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the weird code is there in Firefox and IE7. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, any idea how to get rid of it? I've already tried moving the dash to another page, which worked for about 5 minutes and now the code's back again... Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 05:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 06:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to ask process questions?

Hi -

I have the impression that this help desk is mostly for "how do I do this?" kind of questions, and is intended mostly for use by newer editors finding their footing. If that's correct, then is there a better place to ask (for want of a better word) "intermediate-level" questions, e.g. not about article development, but about Wikipedia processes, when I can't find the answers I need from the relevant "WP:" pages?

( At the moment I'm wondering about the timeline by which an ANI with a resulting SPI proceeds, from first submission, to archiving, to closure. I'd like to be able to follow it, and perhaps to comment upon it before it closes, but things seems to disappear, or get spread across multiple archive pages, which makes following the process difficult. I haven't been able to find any information on the relevant pages to help me figure out when closure is likely to occur, nor how long the intermediate steps usually take. )

Many thanks, Ohiostandard (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to comment at the relevent ANI thread. Any comments made at the SPI case will only be seen by a handful of editors, and may or may not have much effect. SPI is primarly for attracting the attention of checkusers and/or really good sockpuppet investigators, and tends to get (as you note) closed rather quickly once a checkuser is run, or conclusive evidence makes the sockpuppetry obvious. Instead, an ANI thread gets lots of eyes from many people, so if you want people to actually read and respond to what you have to say, try ANI isntead. --Jayron32 05:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. But I was never informed of the ANI, and was only sent notice of its resulting SPI fewer than 24 hours before it closed, by the accused user. This despite the ANI being initiated in large part because one of the suspected sockpuppets had restored text to a talk page, text that I had composed, and that the complaining editor had misunderstood and deleted previously. He based his ANI and SPI comments heavily upon that misunderstanding, which I had no opportunity to clarify. ( I had not reverted his deletion myself, btw. )

I'm fine with the outcome, but it's still distressing to me that since I don't understand the "flowchart" of the overall process, nor how long each step in the process takes, I lost the chance to contribute to it. ( I'd thought the SPI would merely send information back to the ANI, and assumed the ANI would be open for something like a week, like AfDs or PRODs, or whatever they're called. )

The SPI process appears to have been open for about 72 hours. Is that its mandated duration, or is its completion based on when SPI clerks have time to run a checkuser? But more important, how can I understand the specific steps and timelines of this and of other administrative processes, so I'm not left out of any that might refer to me in the future? Thanks in advance, Ohiostandard (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Strehlow

I have written - my first for Wikipedia - a new entry for Carl Strehlow in .doc format. Can I remove the existing few lines? How can I copy my (Windows Office)document plus foot- or endnotes into the space? The indices vanished from the text when I copied it into the space. Thanks for help - Walter --Wveit (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This website offers some methods to machine convert a word document to WikiMarkup. However, there is no native support for Word documents in Wikipedia. You may wish to see Help:Wikitext examples for more information on how Wikipedia pages are formatted. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Word2MediaWikiPlus. – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'M A REJECT!!?

I've been wondering about this particular issue for a while now.

Why do men have nipples? You can't use it to wear a cap or clean your teeth right?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NirocFX (talk • contribs) 06:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Science reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay about this question.

Gould, S.J. (1992). "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples." In Bully for Brontosaurus: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton. pp. 124-138.

--Teratornis (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anons' Article Creation

Before anons were unallowed to create articles, was making articles and having only links to websites a problem?174.3.102.6 (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with no content except external links were never allowed because they fall under criteria for speedy deletion A3. An article with no real content, whether created by an anonymous user or registered user, would be deleted quickly. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a big problem? Were a bulk of these newly created articles such as?174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe articles with just external links was ever a big problem on Wikipedia. The reason that anonymous users weren't allowed to create articles was because of the Wikipedia biography controversy, where an anonymous user created a hoax article on John Seigenthaler. The change was made in December 2005, and you can read Jimbo Wales' announcement at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033880.html --Mysdaao ^talk 13:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search

I wanted to read about the authors of 'Yes Minister' but all I had was one surname - Jay. Inputting this in Search prodoced nothing about Anthony Jay, nor did * Jay. How does one find articles where only a surname is known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Segilla (talk • contribs) 12:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I typed Yes Minister Jay In the search box on the left screen and came up with Antony Jay as the third hit. I think you just have to be as detailed as possible. Any other easier thoughts out there? Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with following the link to Antony Jay in the lead paragraph of Yes Minister? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 12:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this:

. Do NOT sign in articles.

If you hadn't know the program Yes Minister, there's usually a disambiguation page for the surname you're looking for, which can usually be found without searching. If you go to the article Jay on the bird, at the top is a link to the disambiguation page Jay (disambiguation). Sometimes a page like that has people with that surname listed on it, but in this case, it contains a link to a separate page, Jay (surname), listing people with the surname Jay. One of the people listed on that page is Antony Jay. --Mysdaao ^talk 12:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Common mistakes" section

I'm working in an article about a historical event, and I intend to add a section of "common mistakes" to it: things that are commonly thought to be some way, but where academic sources state it to have been different (there would be no original research or analysis involved, I have sources to cite that adress such specific topic). However, "Common mistakes" does not sound to me as a good section title. How should I call it? MBelgrano (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Common misconceptions" perhaps ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common delusions, common errors, fallacies, common misapprehensions, common misconstructions, common misinterpretations, mistaken beliefs, common misunderstandings, or DJs suggestion, take your pick ;p, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. If the misconceptions are sufficiently widespread – as in the case of Christopher Columbus and the popular notions that a) he discovered America, and b) that he was defying the idea of a flat earth – then you might treat it as in Christopher Columbus#Legacy. On the other hand, in most cases it's probably best to address the matter parenthetically within the text, rather than creating an entirely separate section. (See for example Thomas Edison#Electric light, which implicitly addresses the popular myth that Edison invented the incandescent light by discussing previous patents and other inventors.) Note that if you wish to add extensive discussion about the 'common mistakes' themselves, you not only will need to provide sources that offer corrected information, but also reliable sources that support the claim that the mistakes are actually 'common' in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if those common mistakes were not adressed in my sources precisely as common mistakes, such a section would be unacceptable synthesis. The problem with adding such notes in the middle of the events is that they would disrupt the ease of reading: I find it's better to start with the undisputed flow of events first (X do something, Y reacts doing something else, Z happens as a result, etc.), and leave all the "X historian thinks this was good, Y historian that it was bad" and similar for later sections. MBelgrano (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See List of common misconceptions. --Teratornis (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions tool

Resolved

– Mysdaao ^talk 16:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool which isolates contributions by date (and namespace too, preferably)? pablo_hablo. 15:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a separate tool. When you are viewing your user contributions, there are fields at the top to select the namespace, year, and month to search for contributions. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see fields there where I can specify month (and earlier) and year (and earlier) but not a range of dates (ie Jan-Mar 2007). pablo_hablo. 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it automatically puts the contributions in order, put in the end of the date range you want. If you select year 2007 and month March, it will bring this up. At the top is your contributions during March 2007, and then your contributions from earlier by date. The date of each contribution is on the left side, so you can go through the list until the beginning of the date range, January 2007. There may be a tool that does it better in the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters. --Mysdaao ^talk 16:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll have a look at the Wikiproject to see if there is a more elegant solution. pablo_hablo. 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where i donate

I am from India, and i want to donate my contribution of Rs.10,000/= , I have no credit card,where i pay cheque or Demand draft. may please inform at <e-mail removed>.,Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.18.123 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can give on the page http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising by credit card or PayPal. If you can't use either, there are other ways to give, such as by check, listed at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give/en.

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address. --Mysdaao ^talk 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User warning levels following vandalism

Is it always necessary to start with a level 1 warning when adding user warning tags to talk pages? For persistent vandals who, for instance, may have just been released from a block, it would seem appropriate to start with level 2 or level 3 warnings if the new vandalism is sufficiently bad. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also {{uw-vandalism4im}}, which is an only warning type template. TN X Man 17:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its generally advised to start at one and work your way up. However, it is completely at your discretion where to start, make sure that you are justified in starting above a level 1, and always try to work within AGF. A lot of the warnings have an "im" level 4, for example {{uw-vandalism4im}}, this type of warning can be used if you decide to start at a level 4, however, only do this in extreme cases. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was hoping. While I try to stick to AGF, edits like [1] and [2] just don't seem to merit that assumption. And I have yet to see an edit extreme enough to warrant 4im, but it's certainly nice to have if it's ever needed. Thanks for the input! —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure, I'm glad to see that you'll use the warnings responsibly, cheers, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of using a ...4im template, I watch some articles related to electricity. If someone were to add some information which, if believed, could get someone killed, and it seemed like the editor knew what he or she was doing, that would warrant a ...4im, and maybe even a block with no warning. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright violation

This file is definately not own work of User:MastermindPrime. The image appears here, too, in the same image resolution. Do you have a special tag for marking such files for copyright violation? --High Contrast (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the image at the www.forum.hr site. In any case, how do you know the photographer didn't submit the image to both Wikimedka and www.forum.hr? --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MastermindPrime has already made some copyvio uploads on Commons. There, he took images from the web and uploaded them on Commons stating they it was his "own work". Furthermore images from the russian Topol-M complex are very rare - most images come from professional news agencies or from official russian institutions. As a private person it is almost impossible to get into a situation where you can photograph this vehicle. In addition this vehicle has not been showed on any russian military parade. --High Contrast (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try {{db-f9|url=URL of source}}, the "URL of source" should be a link to where the image originated from. See also CSD F9. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded to that site on 3 November – two weeks after it was uploaded to Wikipedia. If it is an infringement it is from somewhere else, not forum.hr. AJ Cham 02:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the forum is not the copyright holder. Could be a scan out of a book etc. But this file is likely not from the uploader. --High Contrast (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader commented at User talk:Offliner: "This rare image was given to me by my friend from Russia who was working as a state media photographer. —MastermindPrime (talk • contribs) 10:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)". Obviously he should update the copyright information on the picture to reflect that Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would not believe this. But if he can bring a valid Wikipedia:OTRS-permission then the image must be kept otherwise it is definately better to delete this image under this circumstances. --High Contrast (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name of an article, but it is not showing up when I use the search box

Resolved

I changed the the title of an article. Feodor Zakharovich Zakharov is the proper transliteration for the name of the Russian painter, Фёдор Захарович Захаров, so that is the new name of the article. (The article used to be called Fiodor Sakharovitch Sakharov).

But the name is not properly showing up in the search index. If you enter Feodor or Zakharovich in the search box, it works fine. But if you enter Zakharov in the search box, the article does not show up. I can't figure out why.

Would appreciate any help. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlew9 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like its working fine to me. The Ajax search suggestions in the search box will only appear if you start writing the beginning of the title, so if I wanted to find a page called "Wesley Jakes", and I typed "Weas..." the search box would suggest "Wesley Jakes", but if I searched "Jakes" then "Wesley Jakes" would not be suggested. Unless of course there was a redirect page from "Jakes" to "Wesley Jakes". Hope this makes sense, in anycase, the article which you mentioned seems to be working fine. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zakharov is a disambiguation page. Links to any Zakharov article need to be added there manually - I have done this for you in the case of Feodor Zakharovich. I have also removed him from the Sakharov disambiguation page, where he was listed. Sakharov contains a "See also" link to Zakharov, so anyone looking for him under that spelling should still be able to track him down. Ka renjc 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are the best. Thanks so much for clearing this up, and educating me in the process. Davidlew9 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide link to Wiki Strategy Project??

I forgot to bookmark when it was up on top a couple months ago (and forgot the name so couldn't search) and in intermittent attempts to find it through main and other pages could not. Just finally found it linked on another topic at Jimbo Wales user page. Perhaps to encourage participation it could be found somewhere higher up the browsing tree? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find it through the Editor's index to Wikipedia by following the link to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. If you put a link to the Editor's index on your user page, then you get a very broad and shallow browsing tree. A link to the Editor's index appears on Help:Contents which is linked in the "interaction" box in the left column in the monobook skin. Thus StrategyWiki is only three clicks away from every page, but of course this is not exactly obvious since the Editor's index is rather long. The problem is that Wikipedia has 48,299,491 registered user accounts, a similar number of unregistered editors, and many times that number of readers. StrategyWiki may be important to you, but many other users would not have much use for it, and a prominent link to StrategyWiki would get in the way of links to other pages they consider important. Wikipedia users are incredibly diverse and everybody would like to see a different set of links at the top. With current technology we are stuck with a one-size-must-fit-all system. If you get to know the Editor's index, however, you can find almost everything a Wikipedia user needs to know that relates to Wikipedia itself. --Teratornis (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response and link. Will study it for all it's many uses. :-)

Seeking music

i am looking free backing music to the song stand by me by ben e king —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.223.126 (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a header to distinguish your question from the one above. This help page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You may have better luck by asking your question at one of the reference desks, probably the Entertainment desk in this case. Follow the blue link, and post your question at the bottom of the page, remembering to start with a header and to sign your posting with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will create a signature and a time and date stamp automatically. Good luck, Ka renjc 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could just buy a guitar, or a piano, and learn 4 chords - you'll be all set then to play millions of songs! pablo_hablo. 20:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template for Census data?

Is there a preferred means for presenting census data? I am looking at the data for a small Louisiana town at the US Census Bureau. Is there a simple means of displaying this information on the city's article? For example, is there a template that would readily receive it? GloverEpp (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some useful templates could include

Hope these help -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Person With Two Names (beyond AKA)

I would like to improve an article about a deceased person, Anthony Spinelli, specifically adding information about an earlier portion of his career where he used a different name. He was actually born, Samuel Weinstein, but early in his career as an actor and producer, he used the name Sam Weston (specifically producing and acting in an important feature film, One Potato, Two Potato). Later, he became well known in the adult film industry as a producer under the name Anthony Spinelli. What is the best method to deal with this? Should I create a new article titled Sam Weston which links, not redirects, to the existing Anthony Spinelli article? Or, should all of his activities be incorporated into one article? There are valid references to both names. Yunchie (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All information about him (biography-wise) should be complied in one article, I'd keep the article at its current name, since that's the most plausible search term, and redirect Sam Weston to it, you could then bring up the name change within the article (although I see it already mentioned). In any case, the biography should be all one article. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good day

im unregistered user of wikipedia, and im created a new (BETTER) version of this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Klement_Gottwald_(Bundesarchiv).JPG please, uploade it http://img69.imageshack.us/i/klementgottwaldbundesar.jpg/ many thanks --77.48.153.172 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks. The image we currently have has the following note: "This image was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the German Federal Archive (Deutsches Bundesarchiv) as part of a cooperation project. The German Federal Archive guarantees an authentic representation only using the originals (negative and/or positive), resp. the digitalization of the originals as provided by the Digital Image Archive." I am not sure what the policy is on uploading a "better" version of the file. I would suggest that you make this request at the picture's talk page or the Common's Help Desk -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is noncence - making a higtest color and retushind dont change a informatic source of image... retushing it not photo-montage. --

im dont cant move at commons, im must talk here...

77.48.153.172 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For you information, although you may not be able to upload an image, you can leave a message at both of the above pages when you are not a logged in user. I suggest that you do so, to see if it is possible to upload your image over the old one. Incidently, you do not need to copy your reply to my talk page - this is where the conversation is, and I will see any replies! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sockpuppets of indefblocked users like commons:User:77.48.153.172 can not not edit on Commons. Furthermore the extracted image File:Klement_Gottwald_(Bundesarchiv).JPG is a derivative work, see commons:COM:DW, cropping the image from the original breaks the de minimis argumentation and makes the Gottwald image unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding changes to the website for a Client and now my page has been deleted.

moved from WP:RD/C -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding changes to the website for a Client and now my page has been deleted. Can may page be put back up so i can load the original content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OakInteractive (talk • contribs) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to Messina Hof? That article has been deleted, twice, on the basis that it appears to be advertising a non-notable business - WP:ADVERT is the relevant policy. It's also generally inappropriate for you, as an agent of a business, to edit an article about that business - the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is at Afd and has been tagged for G11 speedy deletion. It will almost certainly be deleted and protected from re-creation. – ukexpat (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Referencing

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a production credit to In a Silent Way. This credit is not present on the actual album, but is referenced by a newspaper article about the photograph on the album, cited in note #3. My question is, is this an adequate reference? It is detailed as to date, page, etc., but since it is 40 years old, there is no internet link to the actual article. Should I include somehow a scan of the actual article clipping in the citation, or is the reference to the source adequate? Additionally, I would like to include an image of the back cover of this album but am not sure where it would be appropriate to place it in the article. I am primarily interested in establishing notability for a new article about this photographer, which created the image for the initial production of this album. In much later releases, a different photographer's image was used. Advice? Yunchie (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources used on Wikipedia don't have to be available on the internet, so the citation is OK. Also, scanning and uploading the article to the internet may constitute a copyright violation, especially if there is an archival service that offers the article for a payment. I don't really know about citing the back of an album, so I'll let someone else try to answer that part. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You've cited a reliable source (a newspaper) and given plenty of information to allow someone to verify the source (the date of publication, and the page). That's more than enough for someone with access to a library's newspaper archive to recover the article and check it. While it's nice that sources are available on line, it's not a requirement. Regarding your second point, I don't think an upload of the back of the album is necessary (not really is a scan a very reliable resource). It'd be much better to cite a third party source crediting the photographer; you can also cite the sleeve notes for the album (or the little copyright or credit notice that credits the photographer) without scanning the album itself in. Note that such third party refs serve two purposes: firstly the support your claim that X did indeed do Y, but further they also support a claim that X is himself notable. And much of the essence of notability isn't that X took such and such photos, but that X is celebrated/noted/widely-hated for taking such-and-such photos. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reference (#3 in the article) does exactly that. It is actually an article about the fact that the photograph appearing on the album's back cover was taken by this photographer (a former staff member of that newspaper). That this image was personally sought by the artist himself lends to your broader essence of notability, but a fact that is more difficult to cite. Thanks for your valuable input. Yunchie (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

Please help. I have created an article but it has neot been published. When I do a search, the article does not exist. How do I publish it. I have also uploaded an image in commons and it hasn't been applied to the article. This has become quite trying. Help very much appreciated.--Egyptiancotton (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See reply to your earlier question above. For image linking, see WP:IMAGE. – ukexpat (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon Maniacs

I'd like to write an "article" about a running club for full- and ultra-marathoners ... called the Marathon Maniacs (http://www.marathonmaniacs.com/). Their membership is nearing 2,000, with folks from all over the world.

Is this topic appropriate for Wikipedia? I believe that the Oregon Project, a team of elite runners funded by Nike, is included in the Wikipedia. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathonmaniacs (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the team was notable, they would probably already have an article. You shouldn't write the article in any case, since your username makes it obvious you have a conflict of interest. Xenon54 / talk / 23:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:CLUB. – ukexpat (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question having nothing to do directly with Wikipedia

Several weeks ago, while browsing through Wikipedia and related pages, I came across a Wikipedia-like page that would accept puported proofs for Goldbach's conjecture. Not having a proof (or even a "proof") at the time, I moved on to other pages, and later signed off and left Wikipedia. So, having forgotten how I ever got to that page, I would now like to know how to return there. Was it in Mediawiki? I don't know, and Mediawiki has no Help desk. Could anyone be so kind as to help find the page that accepts puported proofs to Goldbach's conjecture, or has it been deleted?Bh12 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldbach's conjecture still exists. Check out the external links section: I think you might find what you need there.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If it was "purported proofs", I presume that there were no references to reliable sources. If it was on Wikipedia, it would probably have been deleted. The Goldbach's conjecture article doesn't have them? I presume it isn't Goldbach's weak conjecture - although perhaps you were thinking of Landau's problems, Vinogradov's theorem or Chen's theorem? You could also look at this Wikipedia Search for "Goldbach's conjecture" which might give other possible articles. Sorry, I am not a mathematician, so I can't help any further. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But for future reference, we do have mathematicians, amateur and professional, who are willing to help you with such problems at the Mathematics Reference Desk. Intelligentsium 00:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try trawling through your browser history, normally it records up to three weeks. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]