Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 October 30

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 30

word satan

Satan is a fiction character named in many different ways such as Lucifer, Diablo, Snake, Devil and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernysalaz (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia we can answer for you? --Jayron32 01:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Celeda

Hi Wikipedia This is CELEDA my real name is Victoria Sharpe please correct this error in my name. My real name is not Jose Benard. Thank you Celeda AKA Victoria Sharpe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C539:950:994:205E:5680:977D (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Celeda (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I've reverted the vandalism to the article about you. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: perhaps a "For the singer, actual name Victoria Sharpe, see: Celeda" on the Dame Victoria Madeleine Sharp page: Victoria Sharp and visa/versa. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC) - Not to mention Victoria Hamilton, born Victoria Sharp ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mystery category

What the heck is Category:Wikipedia image maps, and why does Ben Kilpatrick have it? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Image maps are images which have multiple links in it mapped to the various people or objects in the image. The photograph in Ben Kilpatrick below the infobox is a imagemap. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Uploading of newspaper articles

Hi all,

I have been working on the Boss School of Music article, and I hope it looks fine. For the same I have copies of some old newspaper articles regarding the subject, and I since I could not find these on the internet, I wanted to know if I could upload them somewhere, and then cite them in the article. These articles were published by some local newspapers and therefore have not been uploaded by the publishing house.

Thanks Nikhil D. Gupta (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to upload them in order to cite them. Just cite them giving the publication name, publisher name, the name of the author(s) of the piece, title of the piece, page number in the newspaper, and date. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You must not upload them - just cite them. If you upload them you will be violating copyright and all links you add on WP to such uploads will have to be removed. Template:Cite news provides a convenient way to cite newspaper articles. Roger (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I upload them to Scribd so they can be viewed and verified by other wikipedia users? Currently about half of the article is written based on citations from such newspaper articles. -- Nikhil D. Gupta (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because they would be copyright violations on Scribd, and we don't link to copyright violations (and Scribd is notoriously never a reliable source, since anybody can upload anything to it, including photoshopped "copies" and so forth). You must not upload them - just cite them. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Evalueserve logo update

Hi team, Evalueserve needs to replace its old logo on its Wikipedia page with its new logo version. I am part of Evalueserve's Marcom team and I've tried to upload it, but haven't succeeded as my account is not confirmed. Could you please confirm my Wikipedia account so that I can proceed with the logo replacement or advice me how this can be done?

Many thanks for your help, Anastasia Moga ________________________________________ Senior Executive, Marketing Communications Evalueserve

<promotional blurb removed>.Anastasia moga (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the promotional blurb that you posted here. Please do not post promotional content in Wikipedia. If you are even thinking of editing the Evalueserve article, please read WP:COI. —teb728 t c 10:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this the logo that you want to change to? If so, someone could change it for you. —teb728 t c 10:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes this is the new logo we would need to have on our Wikipedia page. Please let us know if we need to connect with someone within your admin team or you will pass the request yourself to someone to chage our logo. Anastasia moga (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done —teb728 t c 18:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

editing on what grounds?

Hi, I'm new here, and I just deleted a few lines off Magnetoresistive_random-access_memory that related it to an unrelated device, the Memristor. It was at the top as if it was an important statement, but seems there is a problem with the definition of a memristor, and Stan Williams of HP seems to be alone in making the controversial statement about MRAMs being memristors. It didn't seem right for it to be in the MRAMs page as memristors is only remotely related to MRAMs, and the association was more confusing than insightful, but I'm not sure on what grounds I should make my edit on, apart from my gut feeling... and something about WP:BOLD I came across :) L02T (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi L02T. It's fine to make such edits - if you have a good reason to believe that the information is incorrect, and if it isn't reliably sourced, then you're well within your rights to remove it. If other editors disagree, they can always put the information back in, and you can then have a conversation on the article's talkpage about whether or not it should be included. Making a bold edit, having it reverted, and then discussing the issue is a common and fundamental editing process on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :) L02T (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bathroom Manufacturers Association

Hello,

I looked up The Bathroom Manufacturers Association on Wikipedia.

There is a page there but there is a problem with the title – it should just be ‘The Bathroom Manufacturers Association’. But it has ‘User:DinosaursLoveExistence’ infront of the title. Is it possible to get rid of this so the title is clear?

Many Thanks,

Laura

Link to page:User:DinosaursLoveExistence/Bathroom Manufacturers Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.254.166 (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The name indicates that the page does not indicate any importance or significance for the organization; so someone moved it from an article to a user draft as an alternative to totally deleting it. But since nobody is working on making it an article, perhaps it should be deleted after all. —teb728 t c 10:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Or improved - the main problem is the complete lack of sources. I have notified the user about this conversation. Roger (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

women wikipedia editors

We can [edit]? Really? With a retro picture of a woman who looks like a construction worker flexing a steroid-filled bicep? I am so very sorry to say that this is the first time I have been annoyed with Wikipedia. The dubious relatability of the wonderful picture aside, why now? Why women? Why Bombay? If the ratio of women to men editors is not something that is suitable, correct, or representative of Wikipedia’s principles, surely there are other ways to address and perhaps correct this issue than come up with this idea. I can’t help but feel this is a patronizing and ill-informed choice on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.176.193 (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It does sound patronising – but what article are you referring to? Maproom (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The image referred to is presumably the famous We Can Do It! poster, but I'm unable to work out where the editor's referring to seeing it. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would venture that it is related to the use of the picture on this project banner:

But it's only a thought. Britmax (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism's choice of a Rosie the Riveter image for their banner has nothing to do with the rest of Wikipedia - please discuss it on their talk page. Roger (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I did some searching and it has to be about Wikipedia:Wikipedia Workshop for Women in Mumbai. The image is from a famous 1943 poster saying "We Can Do It". The workshop modified it to "We Can [edit]", where "[edit]" looks like the section edit links in Wikipedia. As We Can Do It! says, the image has been used a lot since the 1980's, but it's mainly iconic in USA and I guess most Indians will not recognize it. It was added to the workshop box in [1] by a volunteer editor from Mumbai. The use of the image can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Workshop for Women in Mumbai. Everybody can arrange meetups. This one happens to be for women in Mumbai, decided by the volunteer organizers. Few meetups are for women specifically. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Burn Std.

That BBUNL CMD has said--Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd (BBUNL) would be dismantled after second round of disinvestment of its four wholly-owned subsidiaries - Burn Standard, Jessop, Braithwaite and Bharat Wagon Engineering Co, I being an ex Burn Standard employee would request you to please intimate me whether Burn Std. has already been dismantled.

I would also like to know whether and when I( an ex Burn Std Ltd employee of RANIGANJ ) like many other Burn Std ex employees will be getting paid the unpaid part of salary fallen due to Salary revision but held up for the BBUNL's some legal complications.

I trust you would be kind to respond. Thanks.

Tarak Nath Basu (basutn)

2012 Oct 30Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basutn (talk • contribs) 11:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is Wikipedia, the free encylopedia that anyone can edit. We are not associated with Burn Standard Company and I would recommend that you contact the Burn Std. company directly in order to find information regarding the unpaid portion of your salary. SassyLilNugget (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Company name spelling needs correction

Hi,

I am writing regarding the correction of the name of our company, Mindtree Ltd. We recently rebranded our company and wanted to ensure the information is correctly represented on Wikipedia. Our previous name had a capital 'T' in the name as MindTree Ltd. We have changed that to Mindtree Ltd.

I want to request you to make the necessary corrections or help me make the changes on the page - MindTree

Kind regards, Arvind

Hello, I tried doing it myself but I couldn't because there is a redirect coming from the Mindtree spelling with more than an one line history so an admin will have to make the move. Such a move can be requested at WP:RM/TR. SassyLilNugget (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Arvind. I tried to move the page MindTree to Mindtree; but I find that the latter already exists as a redirect to MindTree. I think this needs administrator intervention to move MindTree to Mindtree over the redirection. By the way, on talk and project pages, please sign your postings with four tildes: ~~~~. --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

--->WP:Requested moves.--ukexpat (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

additions deleted

hi, yesterday i added 2 or 3 external links to some pages, e.g. one a link to a free video interview with silvia federici on her page and also one on the riots in greece in 2011. While they appeared on the pages at the time, now they are not there. why is this? i thought they were good links and the films are free to access. please advise. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.151.168.178 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Those links, and others that you added at other pages, were reverted by Hu12 without edit comments. I'd suggest that you leave a note on the talk pages of those articles asking that question and in the meantime read the external links policy and, perhaps (based only on the fact that Hu12 has a big anti-spam banner on his talk page), the spam policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Supplement: See the note that Hu12 left on your prior-IP talk page here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Online sources only?

Hi! I am interested in bringing articles to Wikipedia from printed resources that might be inaccessible or too expensive to many people wishing to research a certain topic or subject on line using this service ~ and cannot find a lot online using Google. My first article was approved and accepted for inclusion, however, one reviewer keeps going in and removing the primary source even though I provide all the correct template information for anyone wishing to research the facts can find it in this book: i.e. title | publisher | author | editor | year | page | etc. Are we only allowed to cite online sources? My article has been littered with "citations needed" after nearly every sentence. How can I possibly back-up my content if sources that prove them are removed? what are the rules for citing books? newspaper articles? magazines? ... I have read all that Wikipedia says about this practice and can find nothing that violates what I had originally included. Any suggestions? It's funny, every reviewer has a different interpretation about this matter, but I'm hoping that this forum can clear this up enough for me to go back in and clean-up what one particular reviewer has done. Many of the statements that keep getting re-written are actually untrue and non factual. i.e. the reviewer claims that a Broadway producer followed a musical with a book ... which is a misleading statement with no citation to prove this. The reviewer clearly has not seen or read this book since this is not true in what it infers. Anyway, I'm getting off track ~ any help in this matter would clear up a lot. Thanks so much in advance! Impromp2Music (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely allowed to use offline sources for verification and in support of claims to notability. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE, there is no requirement that sources be available online - it's convenient, but not necessary. You can cite newspapers and magazines using variants of the {{cite}} template; choose the appropriate one from this list. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is exactly what I have done, but the reviewer keeps removing it (them). Does anyone else have input on this matter? I'd like to get a consensus. Am I missing someone crucial that would back the reviewer's removal? Impromp2Music (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't written it yet, but I'll have a few words to say at your user talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. I contacted Wikipedia and they invested the situation saying that certain reviewers that spend a considerable amount of time editing tend to lose sight of communal efforts and begin to self-appoint themselves to be all knowing in their contributions almost to the point of it becoming personal. They have directed me to two places for filing a dispute. At this point I'm almost ready to just delete the article. It's just not worth it. Impromp2Music (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is unlikely to be deleted just because you want to do that, but take a look at WP:DELETE anyway. It is possible that if your sources weren't acceptable the content relying on those sources could be deleted, which might leave such a poor article it would be considered for deletion. But we can't easily see your sources, so it's probably not a good idea to assume they don't meet the requirements.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Help expanding an article

Is there a way I can solicit help in expanding and improving Winterbourne View hospital abuse? Ankh.Morpork 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You can ask for help at the talk page of a WikiProject whose scope covers that article (currently none are listed at the talk page and I don't know which would be most appropriate). It is currently categorized as being covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify, but that project's focus isn't content creation and so doesn't seem to be what you want. If no appropriate WikiProject can be identified, you can also nominate it at WP:TAFI. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to find an appropriate project page, but this might be somewhere to start: Category:WikiProjects ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Photos of State Congressmen

I know that it's okay to upload a photo of a U.S. Senator or Representative from the Congress website because they are in the public domain. What about State Senators and Representatives? Particularly Ohio. The Ohio Senate website, for example, has an official photo of every member the same way the U.S. Senate does. Would this be considered to be in the public domain? http://www.ohiosenate.gov/directory.html I have not seen any link telling me so. I've uploaded images on Wikipedia before, but I try to avoid doing so because I'm not too much familiar with licensing, and the policies seem to be very strict. But I'm trying to start adding images to articles that don't have one, mostly lawmakers. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is an explicit statement saying the photos are published under an acceptable license or are in the public domain, we should treat them as non-free content. In that case it means, none of those images can be used at Wikipedia per WP:NFC#UUI#1. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe they would be appropriate if they were taken for example by an employee of the US government as part of that persons official duties (I don't know right know where the guideline for that is), but I guess we would need a proof of that. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:PD#U.S. government works is the guideline I mean. The problem is, it is hard to determine whether those photos qualify as U.S. government works or not. I don't think that the mere presence of a photo on The Ohio Senate website constitutes a proof that the photo is a U.S. Government work. For example, the photo might have been explicitly licensed for that use and not be under a license that Wikipedia considers free. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

At best, those pictures might have been taken by an employee of the Ohio Senate, in which case it would fall under whatever copyright position the State of Ohio takes (most U.S. states do NOT waive copyright, unlike the Federal government). It is possible that many or all of them were taken by a professional photographer, who retains her or his copyright unless it has been sold to some other person. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

adding information to sculpture parks list

I just added information about the Mississippi River Sculpture Park, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin to the page listing sculpture parks. My information is correct at the top of the page, but is not added to the list of sculpture parks in Wisconsin. What should I do?16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxybird (talk • contribs)

What you probably don't know since you are new here is that you could have undone your own edits and copied and pasted your work into the right section. Coming here to ask your question is a great start. It's sometimes a bit complex to explain with precision how to undo thing. It's usually a matter of viewing the History tab, editing the version before the one where you made the error, and saving that. Put in the edit summary that you have reverted yourself. Then start again.

It happens that a couple of us have made the correction already. One corrected the erroneous addition, and I then put your text in Wisconsin, but pruned it a little. If you prefer the fuller version do feel perfectly at liberty to improve the piece. Neither I nor you are correct, but we all reach consensus by our edits and we become better than any individual can be. Or that is the theory! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense date

Go here, scroll down to the 1900-1915 section, and look at the fifth person's date of death. What is that supposed to mean?? NealCruco (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. The problem comes with trying to put unknown info into the "death date and age" template. From the info that I can find the birth year is only speculation and the month and day for both birth and death are unknown so I have removed the template and just left the year of death. If anyone can find WP:RSs for the missing info plz feel free to add it to the article for Léandre and update the table. I would add one more thing - the article mentions a little girl who also survived (Havivra Da Ifrile) of whom nothing else seems to be known. It is quite possible that she outlived Léandre and consideration might be given to removing his name from the table as WP:SPECULATION. I will leave that for other editors to decide. MarnetteD | Talk 17:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Using Ctrl-F, I found 7 more nonsense dates. I'm fixing them though. NealCruco (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the template itself needs attention. I'm guessing that "0" dates are supposed to represent "unknown". Generally speaking "0=unkown" is preferable to leaving a blank parameter; "unknown" is distinct from "missing", which a blank parameter implies. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This article seems to be chock full of problems, because the Death date and age template is only suitable for Gregorian dates, not Julian dates. When used for Julian dates it emits false metadata. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Asbury Park riot date error

Asbury Park, New Jersey

good article except the race riots were started on June 4, 1970; not July 4 as the article says.18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.158.127 (talk)

The inline reference [2] and all other sources I found say July 4. Do you have a reliable source for June 4? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Template causing extra brackets to appear

The {{Napoleonic Wars}} template seems to be causing two brackets of this type }} to appear at the top of the articles it is used in. Any template-savvy editors who can spot the error in the template? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't {{Napoleonic Wars}} but {{Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars}}; a recent edit included an extra pair of brackets. I've removed them and I think it's good now — Frankie (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2012 (

PcCareSupport article removed

Dear Wikipedia,

We have recently had trouble providing information about our business. We have attempted to comply with your article standards, and felt we complied with the terms of not self promoting. Unfortunately Wikipedia editors disagreed with us on the terms of self promotion and on notability guidelines.

We are confused as you have listed a competitor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IYogi whom's submission seems to be more self promoting than ours ever attempted at being. Particularly the blatant promotion found regarding "Digital Home Plan", and mentioning of plan costs. This is not a revolutionary, unique, or provident idea.

As well the notability guidelines are confusing as well, it begs to argue what is notable. We are a successful business,service, and community contributor whom has been considered noteworthy by various Utah and national media and prestigious venture capital competitions, which we find it disconcerting that Wikipedia in it's efforts to provide fair and balanced access to information would consider our company un-noteworthy. Members of our community consider us so.

Our company profile was simply details about our company and recent noteworthy events, which appears below our signature. If you could please indicate the appropriate guidelines we have been in obstruction of, as we might take the steps to rectify and provide you at Wikipedia the highest quality information that we have come to know Wikipedia by. We are very appreciative of your efforts at Wikipedia, and for your consideration in this matter. We eagerly await your response.

Sincerely,

The PcCareSupport Marketing team. <lengthy and promotional article draft redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.121.221 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not the right place for a copy of your article. But I understand your confusion. I have deleted two sections of the iYogi article, to make it look slightly less like an advertisement. I will not be surprised if another editor decides to delete the whole iYogi article. Maproom (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Remember, however, that "Hey look at this other crummy article!" is not an argument that we should also have an article about you (although it may draw our attention to another article that should be deleted or improved). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this Orange Mike, and I appreciate the quick response.

I apologize for placing the copy of our article here, I was just not sure where else to provide it so that we may receive feedback on what guidelines we did not meet, so that we may take steps to resolve this situation. I understand what you mean by including us by default of another article like ours. Though I did mention and comment upon what is noteworthy standards. As I am sure you read our article, it is not self promotion, but a objectionable view of a company that has become noteworthy in national and Utah medias.

Not to beat a dead horse, I query, what is noteworthy in Wikipedias moderators eyes, what constitutes self promotion, and how may we seek inclusion with an article about a business in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.121.221 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A number of links which you ought to read: guidance on your 1st article, notability guidelines for companies, and conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear David Biddulph and Orange Mike,

We are very regretful for your prompt responses, and the length of work you do for Wikipedia itself as editors and moderators. We understand the terms of conflict of interest, and the concepts covered in writing an article for wikipedia. Short of the issues of a obvious conflict of interest and the fact that we ourselves will not submit nor encourage the submission of information about our company, we are interested in the ideas of notability, the terms which the article was removed.

In your notability guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP ... we believe we are well within notability guidelines. The references were from third party sources that were both regional and national. They were effectively press that we did not seek out. These are quality and prestigious sources that sought out our company and effectively promoted the quality of our company, employees, and services.

We are just confused as to why an article that did meet the guidelines in which it was rejected by would have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.121.221 (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Contribution to Hurricane Wilma article

Feel free to link my website www.hurricanewilmacancun.com to your data about Hurricane Wilma and reference any of the number of images on the site.

Thank You, John Spina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.252.43.220 (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation Of Account

Hello, I am writing this for a confirmation on my account so I could start to upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majid Mohammed (talk • contribs) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Until your account is autoconfirmed (which requires you to have been registered for four days and have ten edits) you cannot upload. Prior to that time, however, you may upload by making a request at Wikipedia:Files for upload. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're making a request for the confirmed user right, you need to ask at WP:RFP/C. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And I forgot to say that you can upload free images to Wikimedia Commons with your Wikipedia username and password without being autoconfirmed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving a discussion

A user started a content dispute/debate on my User talk with another user that has nothing to do with me and I've asked him User:Steven Zhang to move the discussion, but he has refused. I would like to move the dispute to his User talk, and would like to know if there is a special way to do it properly (or, do I just cut/paste, including sigs & timestamps?). Thank u for instructions. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This issue's been resolved, but I'd still like to learn the proper way to move a discussion. Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are allowed to delete content from your user talk page. In your shoes I might have deleted the other user's posts after his second post. Or maybe even deleting it after the first, leaving your reply on his talk page. —teb728 t c 09:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

How to gain exclusive editorial control over an article.

Can the author of new novel, published by a major publishing company, create a first-time reference page on that novel and gain exclusive control over the contents of that wiki page? Can the author of the novel write the basic plot wiki article and lock it from changes by everyone but wiki administrators? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.98.149 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, and no. This is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for free publicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a template or something for Wikipedia is not a free web-hosting site. ;) ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST RudolfRed (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles can be protected from editing by non-administrators, but this sure as heck ain't an instance where that would happen. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite the question posed. In fact it is quite simple and proper for such an author to do so. Just not on Wikipedia. There are wp:OTHERWIKIS out there. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but I figured I'd tell them it was technically possible, even though policy is for good reason against it. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

But what they are asking is not technically possible. —teb728 t c 09:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is technically possible to fully protect an article, but it wouldn't be used for that purpose, and if the author themselves wanted to edit it after full protection, they would need to be an administrator. It's really neither here nor there because none of this would ever happen. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that this same IP address added a blurb advertising a book to the article Robert Blake (actor). I have removed it and given them a level-3 advert warning template. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)‎