Help desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

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.

February 25

Please (pretty please) convert list to table

Please someone with strong technical skills, change the bulleted list in Nissen Award to a sortable table (year, gymnast, University]]. Also, all the gymnasts and schools should be wikilinked.

(This would be very tedious for me, but I'm sure someon has a semi automated tool to fix this. And I totally appreciate the "leverage" of someone doing that for me so I can get more content itself.)

TCO (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I LUB the people here and at the graphics lab. Makes me feel good about the Wiki how different talents come together (and I am a curmudgeon).TCO (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TCO has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, done. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is the deal with "authority control"

I just saw this for the first time (some sort of Wiki template or category or navbox) on the bottom of Richard Bradford (novelist). Is it a deprecated tool? An EL (I am fine with ELs, but will just put it in an EL section).

TCO (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TCO! Take a look at Wikipedia:Authority control for some details on what the template is; basically, its goal is to link Wikipedia articles and their corresponding entries in national libraries and things of that nature. —Theopolisme (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit I just made?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks I was kind of figuring that out now too. Looks pretty new. I am fine with it. Think they could make the template a little prettier and the wording less cryptic (authority control sounds like the page is locked or has been fact checked or something).TCO (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the name is rather intimidating - reminiscent of Stasi, Gestapo, Thought Police, Spanish Inquisition, etc. Roger (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We did not create the term, so there is not much we can do about it. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 14:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody expects Authority Control!--ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget man...you are one of the best here and a complete gentleman. But there is "something we could do". Just make it authority control (library cataloguing system) or the like. It's not even that the name is ominous...but that it is confusing.206.222.198.12 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hack for (current) → (top)

I see people are playing around again with the interface. Anyone have the hack for changing (current) back to (top) on your contributions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That message is stored at the MediaWiki:Uctop. It was changed by User:WilliamH who is a crat. Maybe you could start a discussion at the talk page or at the WP:VP or since you are a sysop yourself you could change it back. But the best thing to do is check out the community's opinion and then change it back. Maybe if you make some modifications to your personal common.css page it might change for your account only. I am not very good at css, so maybe someone who is well informed in css could do it for you. As for my opinion, (current) is better. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ushau for locating the mediawiki origin page. I'm just looking for the hack though, which I expect will be possible through through a change to Special:MyPage/common.css or Special:MyPage/skin.css. If no one answers in few days I'll ask at VPT.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible in CSS, since you can't generally replace text. You could hide it, I suppose, but that's not what you want. Replacing text is possible in JS, and I did change it once a long time ago just for fun, but then the script has to run every time you look at any contribs page. Anyway the relevant text is <span class="mw-uctop">(current)</span>. —Soap— 18:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, apparently it is possible to do that with a CSS code such as

.mw-uctop {

text-replace: "current" "NEWEST KNOWN REVISION!!!!";

}

But you'd need to be using a browser that supports CSS3. There's another way to do it that invovles placing the text you want after the tag and then deleting the tag, but at that point you might as well just use the Javascript. —Soap— 18:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Javascript necessary to do this is something like:

document.body.innerHTML= document.body.innerHTML.replace(/current/g,"top");

Only problem with that is that it will replace all instances of the word "current" with "top", so you might want to expand it to be something like >(current)< --> >(top)< . —Soap— 18:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Javascript document.body.innerHTML= document.body.innerHTML.replace(/>\(current\)</g,">\(top\)<"); seems to work, but only when I load it as a script after the page is loaded, not before (e.g. my monobook.js page wont work). I'm still hoping there's a better solution, as as I said, the version I came up with runs even in an edit window, which caused me to automatically change the comments up above me to say that "top" was better, without realizing what I had done until about 20 minutes later. —Soap— 19:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Editors removed UK Murder Victim page 3 times. Created again

About 5 years ago, a 15 year child from UK was killed in Goa, India. Till today, no one has been convicted for the killing, or any of the senior officials in India resigned for this crime.

Three times over the last few years, someone has created a Wikipedia page for this teenager and each of the 3 times it has been removed by Wikipedia Editors. You can check Wikipedia deletion log to confirm this removal of the profile by Wikipedia Editors.

This month Feb, 2013, someone has created this page again

Scarlett Keeling

And they have left inappropriate comments about the girls mother, who lives in UK, [redacted - if you don't think the comments are appropriate in the article, don't quote them here]

The person creating this profile has written about this teenagers personal life:

(she used drugs and had sex)

All these violate norms set up by Wikipedia on pages for living and deceased people.

Can a Wikipedia Editor look into this and see if this page should be deleted. Or all such personal references removed

P.S - The following is more balanced coverage by mainstream media

Wuser999 (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it a little and tagged for speedy. Admin may wish to salt after deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The murder of Scarlett Keeling featured prominently in the British press, as evidenced by the above references. I believe that she (or maybe the murder) attracted enough attention to qualify as notable. Compare Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Maproom (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that the murder was prominent and should be covered here. But does that justify a seperate biography article for her? Just my two cents; I don't get involved in deletions so I admit I'm not the best person to do an in-depth review of such an issue. Chamal ^T•C 09:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted some of the above - if you don't think the content is appropriate, don't quote it and make it more prominent. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SANSIPS

"SANSIPS" was an acronym frequently used by the UK Government in the 1970s as a shorthand to describe items of export or import that were sufficiently large and irregular enough to make the monthly Balance of Payments figure differ significantly from either the same month the previous year of the average balance over the previous twelve months. It stood for "Ships, Aeroplanes N? S? I? and Precious Stones". In those days the UK had a large (if not flourishing) shipbuilding industry and the sale of one or two large vessels would be enough to alter the Balance of Payments figure for that month. The same was true for sales (or purchases, following the loss of commercial aircraft leadership from de Haviland to Boeing) for aircraft. The import of precious stones was also an 'unbalancing' factor. [ What I do NOT remember - and would very much like to be reminded of - is what the N, the S and the I stood for. Can anyone help me? Google comes up with nothing relevant.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.43.104 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Reference Desk, they specialise in questions like that. This help desk is for help editing Wikipedia. Good luck ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NSI part stood for "North Sea installations". Deor (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Link

Dear team,

there is a wrong link from ZSI (linking to a Canadian Institut) The Web adress of our Centre of Social Innovation in Vienna is: www.zsi.at We kindly ask you to fix this.

Furthermore I was sending about 2 years ago some information in English about our institut, but cant find it on Wikipedia (only can find our contribution in German...)

Thank you Pamela Bartar Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI - Zentrum für Soziale Innovation) Vienna, Austria www.zsi.at — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.153.111 (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any article Centre of Social Innovation here at English Wikipedia. The article is about a Canadian Centre for (not of) Social Innovation. So we can't change the link to another website. Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that entry from the ZSI disambiguation page, as the letters "ZSI" are not relevant to the Canadian organisation. A Wikipedia article about your organisation may be possible; the place to ask would be Requested articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this picture

Of my father, who while living in the U.S. posed alongside veterans of WWI, WWII and the Korean War, with the last veteran of the American Civil War, Albert Woolson. Is it possible that it's on the internet? Kotjap (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking how to upload it? There are some instructions on this matter listed at WP:UPI, but they can be kind of complicated. The easiest way for you to upload the image is to go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. From there you will be guided through the process in a pretty easy-to-understand way. There is already an image of Albert Woolson at the article you linked, but it is non-free so if you're willing to freely license your image then it might be a good replacement for the current image. -Thibbs (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are instead asking whether the image exists anywhere on the internet, then the answer depends. If this was a personal photo taken on a single personal camera then the image will only exist online if you, your father, or someone who had access to the camera uploaded it. If it was a photo taken by an organization like the military or a veterans group then they might have uploaded it as well. It's hard to know for sure unless you search for it. One simple way of doing this is to search for keywords related to the photo on Google Images. I have heard of other more complicated techniques involving facial recognition programs like Picasa, but I have never done it myself so I'd be unable to help you with that. -Thibbs (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a Wikiproject banner

Dear Editors: I was looking at the John Dopyera article and I noticed that it had a Wikiproject Classical Music banner on the talk page. This surprised me, since this man was the creator of the resonator guitar, not normally a classical music instrument. When I looked at the tag, though, it says Wikiproject Contemporoary music, which would seem to be the opposite. It displays as Classical music. Is this an error? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Wikiproject Contemporary Music is now a taskforce under Wikiproject Classical Music. It was moved in 2010 due to inactivity. So this would mean that all articles that previously belonged to contemporary music would be now under classical music, since the templates would have been altered to reflect this change. Chamal ^T•C 12:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Contemporary music task force page, and they say that the scope of their project is Classical music written in the past 50 years. I am going to remove the tag from the John Dopyera article, since he was not involved with this topic. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of a corruption of historical facts by voting?

Pardon my English because I am a German speaker. A few weeks ago I revised some untenable assertions at the article Social market economy. Another German user reverted my revisions and because of the resulting edit war an administrator blocked the article in my version. The other German user put pressure on the administrator and the administrator promised to alter the article if the other German user can find supporters and get majority. After that the other German user rounded up several users in the German and English wikipedia. This group of users voted for an alteration of the introductory section although nobody of this group can reason why the introductory section needs to be altered. My repetitious question what is incorrect about the current introductory section never has been responded. Instead they submitted always new suggestions for lead ignoring all my justified objections against that suggestions. Now they are voting for a suggestion for lead that is provable a corruption of historical facts. The statements of this suggestion are not verified by the cited sources and are counterfactual as I demonstrated explicitly a bunch of times. Can it really be true that this false assertions can be pushed through by voting? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a question about German Wikipedia (de.wikipedia) or about English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia)? If it's about German Wikipedia then I don't know the answer, but if this is about English Wikipedia then the answer is no. Voting is not a substitute for consensus here. See WP:VOTE. If this other German editor has been recruiting other like-minded editors to vote the same as he does without paying attention to consensus then this is called vote stacking (or in the worst case scenario meat-puppetry) and it is forbidden. You should be cautious about making this accusation, though, because it is a serious one. Sometimes when everyone is arguing against you then it's worth considering that you may be wrong yourself. I'm not saying that this is the case in the matter at hand, but I just want you to exercise caution before charging anyone with anything like this. -Thibbs (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Thibbs thought that the question might have been about the German Wikipedia (and I see that you are no longer permitted to edit there). There has obviously been edit-warring on Social market economy and you are both lucky not to have been blocked for violation of WP:3RR. The article is fully protected until the dispute is resolved. The admin who protected the article said nothing about "majority"; he referred to "consensus" and "civil discussion". If you are unaware of the English Wikipedia's concept of consensus, please read WP:Consensus. I see that there was a previous attempt to take this to DRN but there was no discussion there. If you fail to reach agreement at Talk:Social market economy then you'll have to follow one of the paths outlined at WP:DR. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I asked because of the line "After that the other German user rounded up several users in the German and English wikipedia" (emphasis added). The editor also suggested that the heart of this dispute was between himself (a German speaker) and another German editor. I hadn't checked the block records at de.wikipedia, but next time that would probably be a good idea for me to do. -Thibbs (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At German Wikipedia (de.wikipedia) there are also rules like WP:VOTE or WP:Consensus but in practice there are some domains where some groups can determine what is written in articles by majority even if that is counterfactual and not verified by the cited sources. The German editors that has been recruited to the conflict around the English article Social market economy are such a group. I already called some German Newspapers attention to this fact and they wrote about that but this didn't break the power of these groups. I hoped that this is different at en.wikipedia but this makes me fear that it is the same here. Maybe it is just the language barrier but I interpret this discussion that a general consensus can be reached despite my objection that the suggestion is counterfactual and not verified by the cited sources. That way a small group can overrule constitutive principles like WP:Verifiability or WP:NOR. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are principles and then there is practice. In principle WP:V is one of the primary guiding policies informing WP:CONS, but in practice it is true that small numbers of biased POV-warriors can cause a serious disruption. If this is the case here, and if you feel that the discussion (I see a lengthy and ongoing discussion at the talk page you linked) has reached an impasse, then you can take the issue to Dispute Resolution. The issue is clearly a lengthy one and I haven't read through the whole discussion nor am I familiar with economics so I'm not qualified to weigh in on it, but if I were you I'd only go to Dispute Resolution as a last step. Discussion that is directed at adherence to the policies is usually the best way to resolve disagreements. -Thibbs (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the contents the issue is not really a lengthy one. The controversial point of issue is that the others wants to characterise the social market economy by collective bargaining and social insurance schemes [1]. They wants to verify this assertion with that source although a glossary of a newspaper is not a reliable source and the terms "collective bargaining" and "social insurance" do not occur in this source. This perception of "social market economy" traces back to usage of the label by the DGB since the 1990ies. This perception is quite commonplace today but it is the exact opposite of the original conception of Ludwig Erhard [2][3][4]. This is why it is history-falsifying to write that social market economy in the understanding of Erhard is characterise by collective bargaining and social insurance schemes when Erhard was a bitter opponent of social insurance schemes [5].

The discussion has reached an impasse but this is not the actual problem. The actual problem is the risk that this distortion of history will be transferred to article by voting. But maybe I just have misinterpreted the words of the administrator who blocked the article. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My words were thus: Please seek outside input on the article by using the methods described at WP:DR, perhaps by using the procedure outlined at WP:RFC or seek other, as-yet-uninvolved editors with expertise in the area, such as users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, and develop a consensus by expanding the number of involved users to include those that have, as yet, made significant contributions nor have any stake in the current dispute. Those will continue to be my words until consensus is reached. I should note, however, that characterizing people who disagree with you in terms like "distortion of history" does not reflect well, and you should in the future consider choosing different terms and characterizations when trying to work through a dispute civilly. --Jayron32 13:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayron32. The help desk isn't really the place to discuss article content. We can direct you to Dispute Resolution (and I think Jayron32's suggestion of RfC or 3O are the best places to start if you go that route), and I think Jayron32's suggestion of posting a question at WikiProject Economics is a very good idea too. It sounds like you really need additional editors with knowledge in this area to look at this issue with you. If your differing view of the matter is notable based on the support of reliably sourced facts then it can usually be incorporated in the article at least as a counterpoint to the current article's point. -Thibbs (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I want to know is if a consensus can be reached and the page can be unlocked and updated without regard to my dissents. If you say there is no risk so I feel much less stress. If "distortion of history" is not the adequate English term for this object I am happy to learn more adequate wording. But "distortion of history" was refered to a situation and not to persons. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The broader you go in looking for other editors' input, the stronger the consensus that can be formed. So if WikiProject Economics members form a consensus then it will probably trump the consensus that has formed at the specific article's talk page. Consensus can certainly be reached even if there are dissenting voices. It's not a vote, but it's a rule-based discussion and usually the rules (policy and guideline) can be clearly understood on the point under discussion. The page can most likely be unlocked in the future unless it's been the target of heavy vandalism. -Thibbs (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I note that someone did leave a brief message at the economics project talk page, but this may have been missed. There's several lists of project participants linked from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics page; I suggest leaving a specific note requesting input at their user talk page to see if more outside voices can be found. --Jayron32 15:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don & Dan McCann Twins

I' curious how a page created about fictional characters well known nationally qualify for deletion, and a page for Bart Simpson doesn't.

Newsflash: It's the same! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronmaestri (talk • contribs) 12:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to demonstrate that the McCanns have been covered by solid reliable sources: books, academic journal articles, or news sources that endure over a substantial period of time. That's plainly the case for the Simpsons, and it's entirely possible that it isn't the case for the McCanns. You'll note that many of our articles don't demonstrate coverage by solid reliable sources; that's a problem with those pages, as they need either to have those sources added or to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say they are "well known nationally", and the article says "from national television commercials". But you don't specify what nation you mean. They (unlike Bart Simpson) are not well known here in the UK. Maproom (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you see such unspecified use of terms like "nationally", "our nation", "the government (or any government department or agency)", or similar expressions here on WP, it is absolutely certain that it was written by a Yank. Roger (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Normally, I'd agree with you. But as an American, I've never heard of Don and Dan McCann. Dismas|^(talk) 14:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are fictional characters created and portrayed by actor Ron Maestri in television commercials shown somewhere in the United States for the obscure company Consumer Cellular: aren't they... User:Ronmaestri? See WP:AUTO and WP:PROMOTE. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing User:Ronmaestri has ever tried to do here was to attempt to put promotional "articles" in here, first about himself (starting over two years ago), then about these characters he says he plays in commercials I've never seen or heard of for an allegedly national U.S. company that I (an American) have never heard of. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Feeding the troll) I've no idea who they are, nor, it seems, does almost everyone else, based on search results. They certainly haven't been written about in any reliable source, nor should they as one/two of thousands of non-notable characters created for ads every year. I know a number of hard-working actors – some famous and some not so much. Comparing your work in a commercial with a character that represents hundreds of man-decades of work, and is watched by millions of people every week for decades, would be routinely laughed at by all of them, and is unlikely to earn you any respect at all. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Maestri is the actor who portrays the McCann twins, so this is a case of WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:SPAM. RNealK (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to use the same reference multiple times?

There's an article where various editors over time have cited the same Rolling Stone article about five times. Each time, they link it as if it hasn't been linked before. I know there's a way to have the link appear just one time in the references section, but I'm not sure how. How's it done? --Mr. Billion (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using <ref>details of reference</ref>, use <ref name="name of source">details of reference</ref> for the first instance of the reference. For subsequent instances, use <ref name="name of source"/> (note the slash). This will generate a link to the preexisting citation. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also run the page through the reflinks tool, which will locate and correct duplicate references automatically. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you don't have to use "name of source"; you can simply do <ref name=referencename>details</ref> if you want, but you must be careful to make it just one word if you omit the quotes. Note, too, that these reference names are case-sensitive. Since the ref name is purely for citation purposes, you can pick whatever name you want for the reference. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To see the above in action, have a look at reference 4 in this version of our Roy Chaplin article. Reference 4 is first defined in the 'Hawker' section as part of this sentence '... dangerous for use as a military aircraft.<ref name="Hurricane">{{Citation ...}}</ref>' then used twice more in the article as '<ref name="Hurricane"/>'. In this case, and as stated above, we can dispense with the quotes. I usually use quotes whether or not there are spaces in the name --Senra (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All further explained at WP:NAMEDREFS.--ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the full reference need not be in the first instance – it just needs to be anywhere in the article (some, like myself, like to use the {{reflist|refs=...}} format).

Also note that <ref name=ABC /> is different from <ref name="ABC" /> and that the cite toolbar and forms, annoyingly, will quote-wrap a name (which you put in the "Ref" field) that contains spaces, but will not quote-wrap a single-word (e.g. ABC becomes name=ABC, but ABC DEF becomes name="ABC DEF"). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, quotes are unneeded when you have a single word; see the Texttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttext lines here for an example. <ref name=nris> is defined in the infobox; Texttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttext lines 1, 3, and 5 use <ref name=nris />, while Texttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttexttext lines 2, 4, and 6 use <ref name="nris" />, and as you can see, they have the same appearance and work the same way. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my content removed?

Why was my content removed from this page?

List of tools for static code analysis

I added a tool to the list on Friday, and checked today only to find it was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmminera (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed in this edit. Psychonaut removed it because there's no McCabe IQ article. Please write the article before restoring the content, since every other entry has an article. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...assuming, of course, that the product is notable enough for an article (i.e. it has been written about in multiple third-party reliable sources). The HTML comment at the top of the article in question makes it clear that it's a list article, the only purpose of which is to list (other) Wikipedia articles. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PACIFIC DRIFT entry removed... :-(

I was told that while there was a Wimple Winch addition there was not a Pacific Drift page despite being practically the same band AND more successful too! So 2 days ago i took it apon myself to rectify this. however I checked it today & receive this message-

"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 17:12, 24 February 2013 INeverCry (talk | contribs) deleted page Pacific Drift (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"

despite the fact that this is a band that had a record deal & are having a series of CD reissues out in the summer.

How do I reinstate my contribution or ask another to do their version..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merseymale (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First take a look at WP:BAND for the notability guidelines for bands. Then, if you think this band meets those guidelines, please follow the articles for creation process to create the article.--ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and the quoting of an OED definition

I have a tendency to quote attributed OED content on noticeboards, help-desks and talk-pages such as here and here. What is the copyright position when quoting one part of a definition (as above) or quoting one quotation from a definition as I did here? I examined the copyright noticeboards prior to posting here; they all seem to concentrate on media copyright issues --Senra (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's appropriate, since it's transformative and not replaceable; you're using it in order to bring the OED into play in the situation, and because of its authority nothing else would suffice. While policy officially doesn't permit nonfree material in projectspace, we frequently include chunks of nonfree text on pages such as WP:AN; a short definition from OED, used transformatively (and dictionary definitions are meant to be quoted anyway), is substantially less of a problem than a paragraph used at WP:AN for an investigation. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "transformative" mean in this context? Roger (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't emphasize the issue of a quotation's transformative nature, myself. I think the key point here is that it represents minimal usage. Quoting a single definition from a dictionary has zero market impact on the dictionary and it's clearly being done here for nonprofit purposes. Public record court cases very frequently quote dictionary definitions and if they can do it then certainly you can too. It's definitely fair use. -Thibbs (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the unexplained jargon; Sarek got at what I meant. This is a good example of another appropriate quotation — nothing's wrong with quoting the Stanford website, and the text from the website is itself what we're getting at, so paraphrasing wouldn't be as useful. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Thank you everyone. Very useful --Senra (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded photos

How do I find or search for photos that I've uploaded to Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearless LeChien (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top right of your commons page is an 'uploads' link as well as on the left sidebar of users.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your commons contribution record. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating or Editing webpage

Every time I try to update the Wikipedia page for Senator Bob Huff, Dino76 comes right in to erase everything. He's won some additional awards since the last time I edited his page, yet Dino76 erases it all.

Look, I understand that Bob Huff doesn't own his Wikipedia page. I've been told this. I've communicated it to him. We both understand that the Wikipedia page is owned by Wikipedia. While I may suggest changes, or try to make them, it appears that Dino76 has unlimited ability to erase everything I try to update.

I find it rather disturbing, however, that Dino76's efforts to keep this page static are directed just at me. In other words? Other users have made changes to this page that are incorrect. These additions to his page aren't changed, until I make them. And Dino76 erases most, if not all of them.

Please, what do I need to do to update this page to reflect the latest news or accomplishments of the Senate Republican Leader? I understand that you want to keep this page as factual as possible. But not allowing me to list Legislator of the Year awards that he won last year, while the same Legislator of the Year awards for 2011 are kept up on the page, seems a little confusing.

And please do not let Dino76 get away with the lame argument of: "it's not on his State Senate page." Because I'm in charge of updating that page as well.

Thank you,

Bill Bird — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbird2111 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that 72Dino has repeatedly asked you to to post your suggested changes at the talk page in line with WP:COI - Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. Because you are the communications director for Senator Bob Huff you have a clear conflict of interest. If you post your suggestions at the talk page (Talk:Bob Huff) then they can be reviewed by the community and if they are deemed neutral then the information can be added. At this point 72Dino is just following standard protocol for dealing with conflicted editors. If he unfairly responds to your talk page suggestions then perhaps there is cause for concern regarding his edits, but currently he is treating this as a Conflict of Interest case and for what it's worth I agree with him. Please review WP:COI to better understand the central issue. -Thibbs (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on Billbird2111's talk page recommending citing reliable sources as a way to prevent removal. RJFJR (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]