Help desk
< September 20	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 22 >

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.

September 21

New logo for our organisation

Hi,

I seem to be unable to replace our old logo with a new one on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Aid

As I am sure you can imagine it is pretty urgent that the wikipedia page carries the correct brand identity for the campaign so help in getting this rectified woudl be greatly appreciated

cheers

Nathaniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanAshford (talk • contribs) 10:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not urgent. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to act as part of the organisation's marketing campaign. You will find information at WP:logos. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh.

Done It's an uncontroversial improvement to the article to have an accurate logo, and it's pd-textlogo anyway. GMG ^talk 10:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a PD text logo. It was created in the UK, so it has copyright protection. It needs to be on Wikipedia, not Commons. See [[1]] - X201 (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That... is silly. Anyway, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Will Aid logo 2017.svg. GMG ^talk 13:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree its not life saving urgent but it was not accurate and therefore not useful / misleading on that page so either needed updating or deleting - thanks to GreenMeansGo for sorting, ta — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanAshford (talk • contribs) 11:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian classificatory systems. Help needed

I posted this request at the Wikipedia help with tables page, but may have put it in the wrong area. I'm reproducing it here just in case.

There is a glaring gap in wiki devices to tabulate these class/skin divisions which are otherwise described for several hundred tribes. Some are simple (but inadequately represented so far (see the makeshift at Kariera). At the moment, I'd appreciate if someone could give advice as to how one might tabulate the minimal data on the following source page here. Not all of that need go in (e.g. the circle/square design could be left to verbal description inside cells) of course. Thanks and sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether your query is about the formatting of the table at Kariera_people#Kinship_and_social_organization, or something else. I find the section impossible to follow – it refers to "Burong" in the text and "Burung" in the table. It refers to "Palyeri" in the text when there is no similar name in the table. Maproom (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that grammatically atrocious passage, which I am now fixing, together with the orthographic differences. No, I gave the Kariera passage as an illustration of a type of mapping I need. The aim was to find some workable template to inscribe the elements in the link given here regarding the Dalabon, who have a more complex system. If it's not practical, forget about it. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're looking for is a good way of portraying the "skin" system of a tribe, and then developing a Wikipedia template to allow its use here. While the literature on the subject hasn't (AFAIK) developed a good standard portrayal, this seems a worthy, though ambitious, objective. I have long been fascinated by these systems, and the way they forbid ortho-cousins as partners, while allowing or even encouraging cross-cousin partners – something found in many cultures around the world. I believe the article Australian Aboriginal kinship could be improved: much of it lists of the names of the skins in different tribes (which will be of little or no interest to most readers) while saying little about how a skin system actually operates. Maproom (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sophisticated templates for complex kinship diagrams on a a few Amerindian wiki pages, but they're not of the type required here. One is dealing with a four, six, eight classificatory system by moieties and submoieties required for an estimated 600-700 articles. I can do those articles' ethnographic content on my own, but the template work requires a different form of competence. Perhaps I should post a note on the Australia Project page, where also maps of each area (readily available in dozens of page links that show how tribes are localized, are needed to bring the area to a basic level of basic encyclopedic quality.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skill with templates (which I lack) will be more important than understanding of the subject matter. You could start at the Australia Project in case some there is good with templates. You might also try Wikipedia:Requested templates; but there's been no activity there for seven months. Maproom (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Material ?

Can I use Public Domain material on a Wikipedia page ?

FDLeyda (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, FDLeyda, you can. Read the instructions here: Wikipedia:Public domain. Importantly though, make sure the content is actually in the public domain, which is many times difficult for a non-expert to determine. Please also bear in mind that public domain content is often not suitable because it was not written in the encyclopedic tone that we necessitate, is outdated, or is biased in some other way. If you have some specific use in mind, you could tell us what the material is and where and how do you plan to use it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

_ I like to edit pages that deal with Lakes, Rivers, Canal, etc. I want to use information that is shown on U.S.A. government sites. I will study the the Public Domain page. Thank you. FDLeyda (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbeam1812

This was some time ago now but I would like to contest this decision. Thank you. Moonbeam1812

Every single edit of yours on Wikipedia has consisted of adding links to your own blog - linkspam. I have reverted those few that were not undone immediately. Consider this a warning: If you persist in spamming Wikipedia, you will be blocked and your blog blacklisted. Driving traffic to your blog is not what Wikipedia is for. Huon (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I would like to contest this decision. 1. You are factually incorrect in stating that every single edit I made was to add a link to my blog. I have corrected errors on other articles written on here by most other people too, for example. Perhaps you feel I am being pedantic here but where Wikipedia is concerned it is important to be accurate. And your statement was inaccurate. 2. Yes, most of the links I added were links to my blog. I would argue that all of the links I added were of a high quality and of genuine interest to the readership of the features in question. I agree that "driving traffic to (my) blog is not what Wikipedia is for". However, whereas before somebody looking up The Ballad of Halo Jones or George Brown MP or House of Cards under "external links" would have been directed to a useful and interesting article about these subjects, now they cannot. You have removed them and made the site weaker as a result. Please look at these links again. 1. Are they irrelevant? 2. Are the articles of a poor quality? If you can look at them and feel they are either of these things, you are justified in removing the links. If you can't, then perhaps you should restore the links? Adding links to relevant high quality articles is not spamming! Thank you for your time. Regards, Chris Hallam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonbeam1812 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to your own blog is spamming. Maproom (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted post is from 17 July 2014. At the time every single edit [2] by your account was about adding links to your blog except [3] which added a link written by you but maybe not on your own blog. I would say the statement was around 99% accurate. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are still linking to your blog which should be avoided. uhhlive (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've left this message regarding the issue--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Research paper about Wikipedia

Do we collect/list academic papers about Wikipedia somewhere? I've just stumbled across one here. It was published only yesterday so might not already be noted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Academic studies of Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also perhaps Meta:Research:Projects? GMG ^talk 17:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a reference to that paper somewhere else today but didn't realize it was so recent.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well worth reading. Thanks, Roger, for supplying the link.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted about it at WT:Academic studies of Wikipedia but there has been no response yet. The Meta page seems to be inactive as the latest topic on the talk page is almost a year old. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard errors

I have inadvertently caused some Harvard errors at Barred cuckoo-dove. Part of it, I think, is that I don[tt know how to account for editors in WP:SFN. I am told that you have a tool that will help. I would like to get that tooldThanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.

No more than four author names in {{sfn}} and the {{harv}}-family templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Haley married to Nikki Haley U.S. UN Amb

her husband is stated as being in the army national guard. There is no such org there is the national guard and the army, and army reserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.109.125.158 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Army_National_Guard. RudolfRed (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for verification they have a website https://www.army.mil/nationalguard on the official home page of the United States Army. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding References

Most of this already present on the Talk:Carol Smallwood page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Who can add these references to update my entry? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Marilyn Taylor In Hubble’s Shadow http://www.poetrymagazine.com/poetrymagazine_reviews_marilyn_l_taylor_ph_d.html

Alex Phuong In Hubble’s Shadow http://www.millerspondpoetry.com/index.php/reviews

Aline Soules In Hubble’s Shadow Writer Advice July-September 2017 Vol. 20, Number 4 http://www.writeradvice.com/hooked-on-books

Vera Gubnitskaia Interweavings: Creative Nonfiction http://www.scarletleafreview.com/non-fiction4/vera-gubnitskaia-book-review-interweavings-creative-nonfiction-by-carol-smallwood

Ronald Primeau Interweavings: Creative Nonfiction http://www.raintaxi.com/volume-22-number-3-fall-2017-87/

Lara Lillibridge Interweavings: Creative Nonfiction http://momeggreview.com/2017/04/25/interweavings-creative-nonfiction-by-carol-smallwood/

Patti Gibbons Interweavings: Creative Nonfiction https://thenewbookreview.blogspot.com/2017/09/university-librarian-reviews-creative.html

How do I get the template message now up removed about conflict of interest?

Carol Smallwood (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further similar request

How do I get the COI Template removed?

Could these references be added to my entry to update it?