Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 December 13

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.

December 13

how to edit

i was wondering how to edit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Newsted

It says his Birth Name was Jason Newsted, When it actually was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.20.251 (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hit "edit" at the top. CTJF83 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that you tried to add a comment within the article [1], but that was removed; comments like that are not appropriate within the article itself. You could comment on the discussion page, Talk:Jason Newsted.

I tried to find a reference for the name "Brown", but I couldn't see anything. This biography book, and various other places, just say "Newstead". If you can provide a reference, we could add the information.  Chzz  ►  09:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding a "Themes" section to a movie article

Hello,

I added a "Themes" section to a film article and an editor removed it, but I disagree with his reasoning and believe he has a conflict of interest. He told me I should take it up with a film Admin. I am a new Wikipedian. Can you tell me how to do that, please?

Amyluna13 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's ludicrous; there are no such "film Admin[s]" that have "the power to over-ride an editor". So long as the themes are sourced to reliable sources and your discussion of the themes does not deviate to off-topic tangents, it is fine to include them in the article. Goodvac (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. He is saying that "themes are not pivotal to the film" and so the entire section is not appropriate. He sent me links to other Film articles that didn't have a "Themes" section as proof that "Themes" are not relevant. I was careful to only quote direct dialogue and scenes from the film and to cite reputable sources. Since it clearly states on the Film Style page that a "Themes" section that is based on reliable sources is appropriate, I replaced the section and he deleted it again. I didn't want to start an edit war, so I tried to convince him and showed him the Style page, etc. but he's not havin' it. If I put it back, I think he'll just take it down again. Also, he is personally connected to the events in the film (his own admission) so I think he has a conflict of interest. What is the next level of appeal? Amyluna13 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Themes sections are eminently encyclopedic and exactly the sort of content we do want in our film articles. Though sourcing them can sometimes be tricky since you can't just make up your own analysis.
The next level of appeal is me yelling at him. (Well, not me specifically, and not yelling, but rather, getting other editors to explain that he's wrong.) Level after that is... shouting for an admin or trying the conflict of interests notice board. --erachima talk 04:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, there actually is a problem here: your themes section seemingly has no sources discussing the themes of the movie in question, instead just having sources about the themes outside the context of the movie. This is flying afoul of Wikipedia:No Original Research, one of our key content standards. --erachima talk 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

how is that different from this entry in the ''All Quiet on the Western Front'' book entry?

One of the major themes of the novel is the difficulty of soldiers to revert to civilian life after having experienced extreme combat situations. Remarque comments in the preface that "[All Quiet on the Western Front] will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped shells, were destroyed by the war." This internal destruction can be found as early as the first chapter as Paul comments that, although all the boys are young, their youth has left them. When on leave from the front, Paul feels strongly isolated from his family and removed from daily life. Another topic concerns how soldiers' lives are put at risk by their commanding officers who seem unaware of the trauma of their charges. (emphasis mine)

this article doesn't cite outside sources commenting on theme...I'm confused... If I find an independent source commenting on these themes, then can I add my section Also, theis article already cites PTSD as a major theme. Aren't I just illustrating that in more detail, like the book article I cited above? I'm confused...Amyluna13 (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the basic idea, yes, and I've given a somewhat more detailed explanation on Talk:In the Valley of Elah. No comment on how All Quiet on the Western Front does things, as I haven't read it and don't know if it's correct or not, but seeing as All Quiet on the Western Front is standard highschool lit. material it wouldn't surprise me if it slacked on sources (specifically, in-line sources) in places simply because its themes are common knowledge to most editors and therefore unlikely to be questioned in practice. --erachima talk 05:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. How did I do this?

So, hi. I was page-stalking ClueBot Commons for the ClueBot NG team and accidentally {{included}} Cobi's userpage instead of using [[brackets]] to link to him (the edit in question can be seen here). My question is this: How on earth did that little mistake manage to warp all of the text to use right-to-left? (Look at the preview of my edit as opposed to the diff.)

Thanks, -- SnoFox^(t|c) 06:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at the source code of Cobi's user page. The reverse is part of a trick Cobi uses to prevent someone from editing the page. —teb728 t c 07:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's ... Awesome. Thanks. :P -- SnoFox^(t|c) 07:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

re: "incomplete" list of Italian Films.

Question:

eg. As you know, one can search an "incomplete" list of 'Films of Italy' by a given 'Year'. This list of films includes many film titles, in red text, in Italian - these are the "incomplete" films? (Or do you mean, there is some films 'not listed on this list' - and thus this list is incomplete) Please clarify.

Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.183.67 (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly both, but more specifically, not all films are listed. CTJF83 08:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

When an entry is blue, then when you click on the title you will be directed to a page about that specific film. When the entry is red it means no page about that specific film exists yet (see Wikipedia:Red link for more information). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Where can I get feedback on my handling of an AfD?

I'm wondering if I'm doing the right thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco Sanchis Cortes and Francisco Sanchis Cortes. I've deleted the unreferenced and NPOV content - which is all of the article, basically, although I haven't technically blanked it, AFAIAC. I did so with the expectation that the 'pro' editors would make some effort to restore material with references, but this hasn't happened. Where's the best forum to post this query - or, alternatively, could I be given some feedback here? With thanks, Colonel Tom 08:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"but this hasn't happened"... I'd give it longer than 35 minutes, for a start. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant it hadn't happened from my initial edit back on 5/12, not after my edit today. I take your point, though, Tigerboy1966. And I thank you. Colonel Tom 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you meant now. It always seems strange to me that some people obviously spend ages putting an article together and then never lift a finger to improve it. That being said, the original article does have a whiff of auto-translation about it. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems quite reasonable to me (to delete that content). One would hope other editors assessing things would check the history. The admin who assesses/deletes it certainly should (and almost certaily will). But it looks like nobody can find references - I couldn't find any - so I imagine it should be deleted. Chzz  ►  09:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the feedback. It's much appreciated. I'm reassured that I haven't been too heavy-handed. I'll let the AfD run its course. Colonel Tom 22:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking for 'On hold' template

I want to put a request 'On hold'. I know there is a specific template for this, listed on a page with a bunch of other such templates like 'Approved', 'Done', etc., but I can't remember the location of that page. Can someone point me to it? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess you are asking about Articles for Creation. After discussions (here, and in later sections), the "on hold" status was removed. "Declined" submissions can of course be re-submitted at any time, as the notice explains.  Chzz  ►  10:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No. I made a proposal at WP:VPR#Bot to maintain and auto update a list and another user prematurely made a request at WP:BOTREQ#Bot to maintain and auto update a list. I want to put that request on hold, until there is a consensus at VPR. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

How about {{On hold}}? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I could've found it myself by simply searching for 'On hold' in the "Template:" namespace via the search box, but hey... Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Posting images

I would like to post some images to articles I have edited. They are jpegs in windows 'my pictures' I cannot find out how to do this

Can I just say that I think Wikipedia is missing a trick! There are lots of people like me ( I think) who know quite a lot about history, literature and the other humanities, but are not terrifically computer literate. You should have an idiot's guide to contributing, because we have knowledge which we would like to share, but are defeated by abstruce technical jargon in your instructions10:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Radegunde (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry that images are complicated. That's because the first step is to check the copyright status of the images, and copyright law is complicated. If these are pictures that you took yourself, then you should upload them to Wikimedia Commons using this form. Then, to add the images to an article, have a look at the examples in the Picture tutorial. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Name change needed to article

I was just wondering if one of the moderators could please change the name of an article. The article Victorian Public Transport Development Authority needs to drop the "Victorian" tag. The official name of the agency is the Public Transport Development Authority. The "Victorian" bit is entirely unnecessary and confusing. The article itself establishes that the agency is Victorian. That should be enough. So, if someone could please change the title, I'd be most grateful. Merci, Transaus (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. You could, in fact, have moved it yourself; for future reference, the move function is hidden below the down arrow button in the row of tabs at the top of the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Calculation of articles needing cleanup

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_needing_cleanup (internal link does not work here, however) you can find the number of articles needing cleanup. For now, there are about 71.000 of them. Does anybody know how this count is calculated? Although there is the note that the articles are placed in this category by a clean-up tag (and not only by Template:Cleanup), i am pretty sure that not only every 50th article has a certain flaw. There are listed about 400 templates to tag an article for cleanup (Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup), for instance Template:Unreferenced. But even this template occurs about 253.000 times (Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates with the most transclusions). So, which templates are considered in the calculation for articles needing cleanup?

Best regards, rabu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabu3082 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The internal link is Category:Articles needing cleanup. Maybe you missed the preceding colon [[:Category:Articles needing cleanup]], in which case it tries to put this article into the category. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The most common one will probably be {{Multiple issues}}, which can add an article to Category:Articles needing cleanup and/or to other categories, depending on which "issues" are listed as parameters. This search displays all the templates that mention the phrase "Articles needing cleanup", though not all of them are used for tagging articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Prison breakouts

I have read the the article about prison breakouts and the links to wanting more true infomation , I don't. Know how to contact you privatly , I have searched and searched for my name to come up for scaling nottingham prison in 1976 , the only person before me was alfie hinds who was made a hero for escaping , i went oout of the roof and over the wall,, but nothing said obout it , nowhere at all , how do i tell my story Charliechan222 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

First get it published by a reliable source such as a mainstream newspaper or magazine with a good reputation for checking facts. Then, if the story is notable enough, someone might write about it on WP. If you can point us to already published news reports about the event that might help. Roger (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To expand on what Roger says: Wikipedia does not accept any information unless it has already been published somewhere else (and somewhere reliable at that). Alos, there is no "you" to contact privately: the Wikimedia foundation has a small number of employees, but Wikipedia is run entirely by volunteers all over the world. --ColinFine (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

GENERAL SIR CHARLES ASGILL

How can I resurrect a discussion which was going on last month, which has now been archived and appears to no longer be 'live'?

[2]

The page on General Asgill has undergone extensive revision in the past weeks and I hope that it is now as good as it can be, thanks to the help given by several editors, including myself.

I trust that it will be self-evident, now, why it would be my wish to give some public acknowledgement to the treatment dished out to Asgill in 1782 - and again in 1786 when he was denied the right to a voice.

On 20 December 1786 he wrote to The New Haven Gazette newspaper and his letter was never published. While I had originally hoped that some particular focus could be placed on the General Asgill page on 20 December 2011 (the 225th anniversary of the non-publication of his letter) I imagine there is insufficient time for the various approvals to be achieved by then?

Failing that date, might consideration be given to next years main dates, which are:

May 2012 - 230th anniversary of an innocent man selecting the lot to be sent to the gallows December 2012 - 230th anniversary of being sent home on parole

I am hoping that there will be a Wikipedia contributor/editor who would be prepared to do whatever has to be done to achieve this aim as I am afraid that the process is beyond my abilities and I don't even understand the technical language used. If I am left to do this myself I am sorry to say that I will have to walk away from it. Thanks to anyone out there willing to help me. Arbil44 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The article can only "give some public acknowledgement to the treatment dished out to Asgill in 1782 - and again in 1786 when he was denied the right to a voice" if it is covered by reliable sources. The article should not be used to right what may be perceived to be historical wrongs, unless the available sources reflect that. So with that in mind, if you have such sources, you could discuss them on the articles' talk page and see if anyone else wants to add them to the article. – ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that Asgill's letter itself would do the trick, wouldn't it? I tried to upload the image of the first page of that letter from my photobucket account but this website wouldn't let me do that. So, how do I show a copy of the letter Asgill wrote here? Your assistance would be appreciated since I think I have already made it clear that I find it difficult to negotiate the technological side of this endeavour Arbil44 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually Asgill's letter would not be sufficient as it is a primary source, and as it is not published, cannot be verified. Uploading it would not really help as we have no way of verifying that it is a letter that he wrote. You need reliable secondary sources that deal with this issue. – ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I send a link to this page to the university professor who acquired a copy of the letter for me, what do I need to ask him to provide to satisfy the criteria here? Or does history have to go on repeating itself and this is a never-ending circle of conspiracy to silence a man's human rights? Catch 22 or what? Rather like young people today who cannot get jobs because they have no experience and their experience will only be gained by getting a job.Arbil44 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia by purpose and design is not a place to publish new information and research. Rather, we are a tertiary compilation of information already published in vetted reliable sources. If this letter changes how Asgill is viewed, then somebody will need to publish it in a reputable historical journal, where it and its meaning can be explored by scholars. Then and only then is the information ready for a Wikipedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at this: "Overview Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Could you please tell me then that History Today is not a reputable third-party? They requested to view a copy of Asgill's letter before publication of the article, and were entirely satisfied, in collaboration with the said professor, that it WAS Asgill's letter - hence a section of it appears in their hard copy magazine, the December 2011 issue. That is not the case with the on-line version here: http://www.historytoday.com/anne-ammundsen/saving-captain-asgill Arbil44 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly OK to use History Today and what it says about the letter as a source, but it is not OK to use the letter itself. The letter is a primary source and History Today is a secondary source. Also please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for a campaign to broadcast Asgill's alleged mistreatment. – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I am really taken aback that what happened to Asgill can be described as "alleged mistreatment". Innocent of any crime - sent to the gallows - voice silenced thereafter classified as "alleged mistreatment". OK, I withdraw from Wikipedia and everything to do with it, that's fine, but could you first point me to the right soap box so that I know where I should tout my wares?

Meanwhile, of course, Wikipedia benefits from a £200 image of Asgill paid for by me.Arbil44 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

With respect, you are completely overreacting. The point is that if the secondary sources discuss the (alleged) mistreatment, the article can reflect that, but it must be done from a neutral point of view and with appropriate weight. You cannot use Wikipedia to publish your own views and research. Take a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica and its various articles about, say, World War II. I bet that in its discussion of the causes of that war, it draws only from theories already appearing in secondary sources but does not posit the authors' own theories that are not supported by those sources. Mutatis mutandis, same point here. – ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that there has been only ONE point of view expressed on the subject, for the past 225 years, namely the slant put on it by WASHINGTON in his published papers on 16 November 1786 - from which ALL subsequent accounts have been drawn, I am surprised that Wikipedia would not welcome the opportunity to balance the scales. After all, History Today was pleased to do so and they also, for CONTRAST, re-published their 1957 article which had the usual "slant" as dictated by WASHINGTON - that can be found, now digitised, on the same link as given above.

Imagine a world where the ONLY account of the Second World War was that of Adolph Hitler.

The mind boggles.

So, where do I take my quest, if not here? Answers please.....anyone? Arbil44 (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a neutral reference work, and is not here to promote your noble cause. I'm sorry if this causes you distress; but we do not exist as a soapbox for the promotion of ideologies, faiths, demands and petitions, or any other causes. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have already said that you can use History Today as a source. I don't think I can be any more clear. Perhaps someone else can try to explain. – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why has the December 2011 issue of History Today been removed from the list of Further Reading on the article about General Sir Charles Asgill? It is the latest work on the subject and is the culmination of ten years research - now it only comes up as a Footnote. Arbil44 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If an external site is used as a reference within the article, it is not appropriate to also list it as an external link. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The following is a direct quote from the earlier discussion, and it leaves me wondering why on earth any time was spent on improving the article...by others, it is true, but certainly I tried my best to conform with requirements and put in a lot of time doing so:

"If you want to get the article featured on the main page, you will have to go through this process. I hope this helps, and best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Those who have the article on their watchlist will be interested to see the recent additions, and more so if the History Today link becomes readable without subscription. The article does need some improvement to meet Wikipedia's standards; in particular the inline external links need to be removed, and replaced by references. Appropriate reading matter includes WP:EL and WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"

It would have been better never to have tried to do as requested. Arbil44 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Further reading is "further" because it goes beyond the scope of the article, the section is generally used for a listing of books and materials which are not directly referenced within the article due to the writers not having time or space to incorporate them. Now, could you please calmly explain the problem you're having? --erachima talk 19:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have three problems:

1) I was previously told that if the Asgill article conformed to Wikipedia requirements that it would then qualify to apply for front page attention. Some considerable amount of time has been wasted doing just that, from others as well as myself, but now I am told it wouldn't qualify anyway. Why two different positions on this matter?

2) Is there any reason why I could not reinstate the History Today article (December 2011) in Further Reading and at the same time remove it from being linked to the footnotes? Any casual reader on the page will not now be aware that, after 225 years, there IS an ALTERNATIVE account to that which has been peddled exclusively up to now. I am still finding it extraordinary that that does not seem to appeal to Wikipedia at all.

3) If Hitler was the ONLY one allowed to put his papers into the public domain, thereby making his account the ONLY account of WWII - would that be a good thing? Arbil44 (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Arbil. I believe that your frustration comes from the fact that you are still trying to use Wikipedia for a purpose which is expressly contrary to its policies; viz promotion of a particular viewpoint. We understand that this is a matter of considerable personal importance to you, but for Wikipedia it is just a scholarly dispute.

CharlieEchoTango pointed out to you what the process was by which an article can be a featured article; but reading the page he linked to (WP:Featured article candidates) makes it pretty clear that this is a process by which an article can be nominated and must then be selected by consensus. The aim of Wikipedia editors in general is to make the quality of its articles as good as we can, and the featured article process is part of that: again, you have a different purpose for wanting this article to be featured. The work you and others put in has not been wasted, as it has improved the quality of the article - it is only your different purpose that makes you count it wasted.

If you removed the reference in the footnote, then the material that it supports would be unreferenced and should be removed, so the answer to that question is "no". However, in my view it would be appropriate, given the great difference in the views, for the article to say explicitly that a new account has been published in 2011 (with reference) that runs counter to the traditional view, and to expound and distinguish these two views, as long as the article does not attempt to draw a conclusion about the two views (which would be WP:SYNTHESIS and forbidden). If in time other publications pick up the new view, it may be that the weight of reliable citations will then justify treating the traditional view as a past error, but at present that would not be justified by the sources.

The question about Hitler is a rhetorical squib of no significance. The issue is not public domain, it is public accessibility, and "good thing" is nowhere invoked. You are seeking to use Wikipedia, a large consensus-driven organ and community, for a purpose which the community has decided is not consonant with its purposes. You have taken a step towards achieving your goal by publishing your article in a reliable organ, and Wikipedia may therefore certainly take cognizance of the article. But Wikipedia is not for the purpose of promoting new theories, however laudable.

Insofar as you are contributing to the quality of Wikipedia with your contribution to the article and the image, we thank you, even if the work is not immediately satisfying your own goals. --ColinFine (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

More apt than your Hitler question: If Wikipedia had been around before the time of Galileo, Wikipedia would have to say the sun goes around the earth, for that is what reliable sources said then. And if Galileo had tried to present his heliocentric theory first in Wikipedia, it would be removed as original research. The standard for inclusion is not truth but verifiability in published reliable sources. —teb728 t c 01:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine. The comprehensive response you have given me has helped greatly. As you surmise, I certainly do want to draw attention to the new information published in History Today. I have really already done so though - in the section on "The Asgill Affair". I will go back to the article in a moment and simply state that "The information above, taken directly from Asgill's letter, has thrown a completely different light on an event which was, at the time is was unfurling, a cause célèbre in the new world as well as the old. Further information can be found in the December 2011 edition of History Today." I hope that will be acceptable, although of course the Asgill article in History Today will not be freely available online for very much longer (once the January edition is published I imagine Asgill will have had his fifteen minutes of fame)!

P.S. I have just had a thought - would I be able to put a pdf. document of the "Saving Captain Asgill" article in my Photobucket account and somehow link to it on the Asgill page - that way anyone could read the article, as printed in the magazine (which is much better than the online version) at any time and even after it is no longer freely available on-line....if permitted....how do I do it? Arbil44 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I am still having difficulty over the issue of 'verifiable sources' when I have Asgill's letter in front of me, but thank you and good night (as it is late in my neck of the woods)! Arbil44 (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A verifiable source is something that can be verified by anybody. Something you have in your personal possession but which isn't available for other people to view is not verifiable in that sense. If you look at this from other people's point of view you should be able to appreciate it better: I could say that I have a letter which proves Asgill was guilty, but unless you can check the letter's contents and verify that Asgill wrote it, then you won't accept that. It's not that we don't trust you, it's just that we need to have procedures to stop incorrect information being posted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Colapeninsula. Your comments, and more so those from much earlier in this thread, prompted me to speak to the professor who acquired a copy of Asgill's letter on my behalf. I have talked to him about what has been happening here and he has given me his blessing and permission to fully divulge his details and to say he will confirm that the letter from Asgill is genuine and he has a copy of it still. These are his details http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/directory/rpt1000@cam.ac.uk

1) Please could someone advise me as to how best (and/or where) to include this fact into the Asgill article - or do so for me please?

2) Would I be able to put a pdf. document of the "Saving Captain Asgill" article in my Photobucket account and somehow link to it on the Asgill page - that way anyone could read the article, as printed in the magazine (which is much better than the online version) at any time and even after it is no longer freely available on-line....if permitted....how do I do it? Afterthought. Photobucket will not upload pdf. documents - only jpeg. Can I link jpeg to the article somehow - but unfortunately the article is 6 pages long, so it has to be 6 links.

Advice would be appreciatedArbil44 (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The professor's views are obviously important, but in order to verify them properly, they must be published in a reliable source. We do not verify by e-mailing individuals and asking them for confirmation. To repeat, there is no reason why the external link to the History Today article cannot be used as a reference. References do not have to be online, and references behind a paywall may be acceptable. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Catch 22 - or between a rock and a hard place. I cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel - certainly not within my lifetime. However, having spent an enormous amount of time doing my utmost to meet Wikipedia's demanding requirements (and finding the technological aspects very nerve-racking), is there any chance of the page receiving a decent rating at the end of all this? Arbil44 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Page view statistics

For the past 48 hours I have been unable to get the page view statistics link to work. It takes too long and then times out. Is there an obvious solution please? Arbil44 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am still getting the following message: "The connection has timed out

         The server at stats.grok.se is taking too long to respond."

could someone tell me how to get round this problem please? Arbil44 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am still unable to access this facility and would much appreciate an explanation...has the facility been 'locked' for some reason? This message continues to come up: "The connection has timed out

         The server at stats.grok.se is taking too long to respond." Arbil44 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

SABC Program Line-up

what on earth is the reason for such shocking DSTV program Line Ups. There are millions of DSTV Viewers that pay every single month to watch TV and we get this continous rubbish on TV. There is not one movie from 2011. Every single movie shown is between twenty and thirty tears old. All the same old series are repeated over and over again. Who is running the show? And may we know where our subscriptions are goong to. Is this just another dishonest governmental department? Please show the viewers where the money is going to. It iis not worth watching anymore... Always increasing the subs but have nothing to show for it...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.48.157.162 (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Roger (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

IPA help wanted

I need help with adding an IPA pronunciation guide to the article Sophiatown. It is pronounced to rhyme with "so fire town" but without the "r" in "fire". The stress is on the second syllable Sophiatown. Roger (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Done —teb728 t c 22:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting To and From Busan

There are ferries to and from Busan four times a day with a journey time of approximately 50 minutes, with additional services from the next port town, just south of Okpo and just a short taxi ride, called Jangseungpo. " (this information is old... there are no ferries to Okpo or Jangseungpo anymore. only the freeway with a bridge. This correction needs to be done on the Okpo-dong page 211.220.149.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

How to edit the facts/stats box on a City's Wiki page?

Hello. I'm with the City of Raymore (MO) and noticed some out of date information on the City's Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymore,_Missouri) that I'd like to update. Most fields appear to be editable, but the info box of stats located on the right side (box features the City seal, state map, etc.) of the City's Wiki page doesn't appear to have an edit option. A lot of the information in that box is several years out-of-date (population, councilmembers, etc.) and I'd really appreciate the ability to update this information. Please advise how I may edit this box. Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CityOfRaymoreMO (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Enable Preferences → Gadgets → Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page and save. When you edit the lead section, you will find it uses the template {{Infobox settlement}}; read the template documentation. that type of template is an infobox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

... or otherwise just click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page. Also, rather than showing the internet url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymore,_Missouri as the link in your question, you can just use the wikilink [[Raymore, Missouri]] to give the link Raymore, Missouri. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Making a counter proposal to an active VPR discussion

Would it be okay to start a counter proposal to WP:VPR#Call talk pages "Talk" to rename the namespace from Talk: to Discussion: or would that be considered disruptive? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it disruptive but if you feel strongly about the change you'd like to make, then go ahead.

Can I oppose in advance? Rcsprinter (chatter) 16:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's see how the discussion to rename the tab to "Talk" develops first. I guess starting a similar discussion while that one is still open would be a bad idea. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON. This entire Wiki is not true and insults every person who worked on Apollo. Refrences: The Air & Space Museum of the Smithsonian, The National Geographic Society and the History Channel. Nothing in the above named Wiki is verifable. The following not only is true, it is verifable by every scientific museum in the world. There were 450,000 people working on Apollo for 23,000 contractors such as Boeing, IBM, North North American Aviation and more. Then there is NASA of course. The author is a convicted criminal and we have his police record. The proof that our Astronauts walked on the moon was just proved without a doubt by the pictures taken by a Japanese flyby close to the moon's surface. Clearly seen are three Lunar Landers, three Lunar Rovers and many footprints all around the equipment. During the moon walks, many scientific experiments were left to remain on the moon. I know, I was part of one. This particular one used a laser gun to measure the distance between the moon and Earth. It has been active for 40 years. This person was taped on the evening news assaulting Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong. I would post the 2 min video if I knew how. I have an Honors Degree in Mathematics and Astronomy. I was an engineer on the Saturn V during Apollo. I worked on the Trident Nuclear Missile Submarine. <advertisements redacted> I knew Dr. Wernher Von Braun. Sara Howard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara1861 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that it's about a movie, and that it isn't to be taken very seriously. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Wikipedia is a wiki. What you are complaining about is an article in a wiki; an article about a notorious liar and/or nutcase. This help desk is for helping you use Wikipedia; it is not a venue for refuting a particular lie published in a bogus film years ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Request clarification in Example: close paraphrasing repaired

My query on close paraphrasing is here. Would appreciate if somebody answers it. Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio or not?

See the discussion at Talk:Oolated Luck#Rule violation. User:Lots42 claims a retelling of the story's plot in the contributor's own words violates copyright, while I think only a direct copy-paste or scans of the actual comic would be a copyright violation. What is the situation here? JIP | Talk 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Copy-paste descriptions or close paraphrasing are copyvios, but a summary in a user's own words is not. However, a summary shouldn't cover every little plot piece, since that can be considered a copyvio (See WP:Plot summaries#Avoiding violating copyright). You might also wish to see WP:PLOTSUM. Also, the article in question consists almost entirely of a plot summary, and I've tagged it as such. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific Commercial on 12/12/11 @ 6:47pm

There was a perfume commercial on TBS last night 12/12/11 at 6:47pm. I would like to know the name of the song which played during that commercial. Please and Thank you. Jill Ryan <contact details redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.161.61 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As it explains at multiple points on this page, and the page you went through to post your question, this is the help desk for assistance with using and editing Wikipedia, not for asking questions about life in general. Sorry. Try Wikipedia:Reference Desk, though you'll probably need more information than just what time it aired in order to get an answer. --erachima talk 19:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

bio

a few people have made a page about me, along with about 10 articles written in various newspapers. Most of the data is correct (99%), yet a large yellow box explains that the data might be flawed or that there aren't enough postings to verify, etc.

bottom line, if its going to be up, and it has been for 3 years, how does my team get the yellow box down as the data has obviously been vetted by the public. otherwise, it looks like i did it to get attention and makes me look like less of a businessperson.

thoughts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.213.136 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the title of the article - we can't help much without that. In addition, your "team" has a conflict of interest and is strongly advised not to edit the article. Changes to it should be discussed on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

i dont know how to use any of this so i am doing my best.

the page is "BLAKE WHITNEY THOMPSON"

don't worry about my team as they couldnt figure it out either. we just want to make sure it either goes away or appears accurate/legitimate. i have no idea where people got some of this data, but it is correct (ie mom's name).

thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.213.136 (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Blake Whitney Thompson (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Category:Jin Yong characters' family tree error

There's a typo in this category, instead of Category:Jin Yong characters' family tree I typed free. Please help correcting it. (NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)).

Moved everything. A {{db-c1}}. should be added to the old category in 4 days.Naraht (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted Category:Jin Yong characters' family free per WP:CSD#G7 (author request). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Image Use

Please help-

I am working on an article on a renowned biblical scholar, John L. McKenzie, SJ. 1910-1991. I have a photo I would like to use that must have been a publicity photo of some kind. He signed the photo and presented it as a wedding gift to a couple, personal friends of his. Other than that, I can find no way to identify who created the image. It does not appear in any of his published works. The WIKI policy on use of images is so convoluted and sometimes so lacking in internal consistency that I cannot resolve how to proceed, and I cannot afford the Philadelphia lawyer who might or might not be able to wade through this morass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixa J. Bombe (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything on the photo to indicate when it was taken? Image use on Wikipedia is complex, but I am afraid that is a result of the complexity of copyright law. – ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the person is dead the image would qualify under the non-free use rationale if there are no free images that could exist. Otherwise we could add the image in 100 years and be certain that is is no longer copyrighted :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling errors in section links (anchors)

Hi all,

In a nutshell: why do misspelled anchors appear as blue links, not red ones?

I came across a section link (since fixed) which contained a spelling mistake as the result of this sort of thing:

[[Spelling#Mispeelings|spelling mistake]]  

which - slightly confusingly - takes you to the lead rather than the desired section. Obviously when you are editing, doing a preview will flag the error if you get the name of the article wrong (unless you are Dan Quayle):

[[Speeling#Misspellings|spelling mistake]]

but if you don't actually check the blue link because it appears to work like the Reel Thing™ (and if you ignore your browser's spell-checker), the result may be somewhat misleading. It seems that only your browser's status bar will indicate the nature of the problem when casually viewing the article itself.

Is this a bug/'feature'/not a common problem/just not worth worrying about/just fix it whenevs, OK? It seems to be related to Bugzilla reports on redlinks to deleted articles and redirects and changing section names, but I lost the will to live as soon as I saw the dreaded letters API. >MinorProphet (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much a bug as a limitation of the existing Mediawiki software. It doesn't store a separate table of the anchors in each article, so in order to verify an anchored link it would have to search through the full text of each linked page. That's much more computationally costly than simply verifying that the page exists, which is the only test that is performed for turning a link blue or red.

I agree that it would be a nice feature, however—are there any devs who want to jump in and add it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

See bugzilla:16561: Make links to nonexisting sections being easy distinguishable. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a rare joy and a pleasure to find such timely, concise and helpful answers as these. Thank you. I expected something as non-trivial as the task outlined in bugzilla:16561, and the remarks about making the software more *usable* are very much to the point. The JS fix on Polish Wiktionary seems interesting (can't do that either). I'd better create that Bugzilla account after all: I may be some time... >MinorProphet (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Connecting to bits.wikipemdia.org"

"Connecting to bits.wikimedia.org" for a minute. On every single page wikipedia serves. I know you use geodns, meaning that most the the users from this part of the world have been having this problem for over 2 weeks now.

Any plan on fixing it? Or at least, remove the dead server from the round robin DNS system please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.185.92 (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)