Help desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

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.

January 31

Editing "our own" entry (Monash University)

The Monash University media team has been contacted by colleagues expressing concern that our Wikipedia entry now includes a "This article is written like an advertisement" notice on it.

More than that, we're concerned that the offending introduction also contains several factual errors.

We'd like to change this introduction , but we're not sure about what the "etiquette" is. We've drafted our own revision, but should we post it ourselves? Should we recommend changes to someone else? Should we take a different course of action?

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monash University (talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well first your user name violates policy as a company name. Second, if you post yourself, it could be a WP:COI. Do you have a rough draft you can post on your talk page that someone can review? CTJF83 02:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't edit the article, the way to address the problems is to use the article talk page, Talk:Monash University, to address your concerns. It would be good for you to read WP:COI, our conflict of interest guideline. The other concern I have is that your username appears to violate our username policy. Usernames are per individual and you username appears to indicate that your username is for a group of people. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and sorry about the name - we only chose it to be as transparent as we could. Up until now we've very deliberately chosen not to create a Wikipedia account, but have now become concerned with some of the misinformation in the article's introduction.

I've posted the draft on my page. What's the best thing to do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monash University (talk • contribs) 02:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing the footnotes as well? I see that you have numbers on the draft which seems to imply footnotes, but you did not provide them. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the footnotes are the same as on Monash University CTJF83 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the footnotes, aren't the same and use of outdated footnotes is one of our concerns. The article seems to be using old references in some cases. For instance, our 2010 "Pocket Statistics - http://www.opq.monash.edu.au/us/summary/pocketstats-2010.pdf - would be better used for basic figures such as student numbers instead of our 2009 statistics. Also, we would suggest making certain deletions that would remove certain footnotes entirely. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRRivett (talk • contribs) 03:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I Upload Screenshot of Software?

I would like to contribute by adding a screenshot of new software, but I'm not an autoconfirmed user yet. Should I use the Wikimedia Commons as a free image, or send it as an image upload request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrKeene (talk • contribs) 02:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the software is copyright, so Commons is out. You need to review WP:NFC before uploading or requesting to upload software screenshot. CTJF83 02:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Template:Non-free software screenshot. Your account is old and only needs 10 edits in total (7 more from now) to become autoconfirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things I need to discuss

1. Should Atlin,_British_Columbia go under the category Stikine_Country? 2. Should Alyson_Hannigan go under the category Category American people of Jewish descent since she is Jewish on her Mother's side? 3. Is it OK if I an article for the book called More Than Weird by English author Martyn_Godfrey? 4. Could someone help help write a plot summary for the movie The_Seventh_Coin? I find a summary from this website:http://www.movieguide.org/reviews/movie/the-seventh-coin.html But I need help putting the summary into my own words. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good idea to ask several unrelated questions together, because if some of them lead to discussions, these will get confused, and because some of your questions might just get missed.

I'm only going to attempt one of them: your no. 3. Please read WP:NBOOK. If it meets the notability criteria (and you are not connected with the book - see WP:COI - you are welcome to go ahead and create the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Bio

I may be in the wrong section. Can I submit my biography. In show business 50 plus years. You can Google me under Ray Marco - recordings - Eisenhower Library - Abilene, etc. Thanks RM Remobaldis (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can try... but autobiographies often fail Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and whatnot. Use this to create your article (choose the option where you can submit it for review), and be sure to read the notability guidelines and the reliable source guidelines before anything. [CharlieEchoTango] 06:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but you should be aware of certain guidelines. Please first read Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (in addition to the ones pointed out above). -- œ ^™ 06:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit it to WP:Articles for creation, and have someone without a COI write it. You could help them find sources, and give them direction, but it would probably be best if you didn't write it yourself. Mesoderm (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick correction : AfC is not the place to request an article to be written; we only review new submissions (and give advice). And just to clarify, the subject can (try to) write it himself if he uses the review process at AfC, thus the link above. If it is notable, appropriately sourced and conform to NPOV and whatnot, then being the subject does not disqualify article from being moved to the mainspace. [CharlieEchoTango] 08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I was think of WP:RA, not WP:AFC. Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that he can't write one, but that it's probably best if he didn't to alleviate any concerns about COI. If he can do it neutrally though, I don't personally see a problem with it (I was just concerned that other people might). Anyhow, thanks for clearing up my mistake re: AFC vs. RA. -- Mesoderm (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Creation Request

Where can I go to ask that a registered user create my user page? Would that be here? 24.177.120.74 (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be a registered user yourself to have a userpage. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Once you create an account, you can create your own user page. It's not generally something that gets done by someone else. Dismas|^(talk) 08:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can't someone just go create User:24.177.120.74 so that I can use it? I don't want an account. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, having a user page is one of the advantages of having an account. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?. —teb728 t c 09:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done You are entitled to a user page just like any other user. Has nothing to do with having an account or not. [CharlieEchoTango] 09:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to create the page for the IP, but decided against it. There are IPs with userpages (see Category:Anonymous Wikipedians), but they are mostly static IPs. 24.177.120.74 is a dynamic IP so when s/he returns, they'll be on another IP. Therefore, the userpage would not be very useful. Goodvac (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I wouldn't know how to differentiate static IPs from dynamic IPs (is there a tool for that?), but the 'opposition' he was facing both here and on his/her talk page was not called for. Any user is entitled to have his/her userpage, and IP users are contributors just like others. Now I agree that this being a dynamic IP, it makes things a bit more complicated, but nonetheless the IP is currently a user in good-standing and thus entitled to a userpage. [CharlieEchoTango] 09:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whatismyipaddress.com/ tells you whether an IP is dynamic or static.
I agree that the refusal to create the page was bureaucratic and rather unwelcoming at best, so let this be a lesson for everyone involved. Goodvac (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tool! [CharlieEchoTango] 10:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section header

This website http://www.legallyindia.com/wiki/School_of_Excellence_in_Law_(SOEL)_Chennai is a replica of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.30.129 (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIRROR [CharlieEchoTango] 09:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a mirror. This is an unrelated site that uses the same MediaWiki software that is used by Wikipedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhatLinksHere without templates?

How can I watch WhatLinksHere without showing all the pages that are included by any template. (for example: Beonex Communicator, I'm working on, shows a big list of articles that linked to this article only because Beonex is included in "some" templates) How can I exclude these? mabdul 11:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do this. But a search for "Beonex Communicator" (in quotes, using the "containing..." option) returns only eight hits. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mmh, ok. Thanks. that helps. How good that this name is not used for something other... mabdul 11:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be done. It's requested at bugzilla:3241. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, interesting bug report. Will hope that someday this feature request can be closed. mabdul 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get in line behind all of the others who have requested that feature, you can take follow the yellow arrow that will take you to the shuttle to the airport and after you go through customs, you can fly to the end of the line. I'm only about two miles ahead of you. :) (Anyone got a Wiki-essay on the (quite reasonable) multiple requests for this feature?)Naraht (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Logo in company entry.

Hi There,

I work for an organisation ESOMAR there is an entry for our company: European_Society_for_Opinion_and_Marketing_Research

Some of the information on there, including the logo are currently incorrect. I understand that Wikipedia policy about editing articles that you have a direct connection to, particulary when envolving a company or organisation.

So what is the best way to have this information changed or requested to be amended?

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcpenners1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can submit changes on your talk page, or mine (if you wish) and I can review them, and add them if they are good and pass policy requirements. CTJF83 13:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

permanent injunction decree holder can file execution petition or not

property situated at Tamilnadu, India. The Plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to not interfire with peaceful possession of plaintiff. defendant has said exparte and suit has decreed. after issued the decree in suit the defendant has interfeared with in peaceful possession of plaintiff. hence the plaintiff can file execution petition on the base of suit decree to vacate the defendant possession or the plaintiff has to file declaration suit? have any citation regard this problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.179.41 (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact your lawyer. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bots and other "automagic" to help improve a newly created stub

Is there an index page anywhere listing bots and other tools that can be used to improve this article - Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act - that I have just started. If no such list exists I would appreciate a few pointers anyway. Roger (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list of all Wikipedia bots can be found here. However I am not aware of bots that are operated for the purpose of creating article content, which I guess is what you are asking for. Bots are primarily used to perform recurring article maintenance tasks. Content creation (and of course previous collection of content) is actually our task as editors here. I think any such bot (and I doubt creation of such a bot would be possible) would make us as editors redundant and as such a bot or tool like that will perhaps never be created.Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand bots can't create content but they can check and fix formatting, add suitable templates, notify relevant WikiProjects to attract more editors and so on. Roger (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a template to attract attention of editors to a specific task that should be performed on the article, you can choose one or more of the Cleanup templates and add appropriate ones to that article. Adding these templates to an articles places that article in a category of articles having this template on it such that editors looking at the category can find the article. And most of the bots performing cleanup/formatting tasks run periodically through all articles. So you will have to wait until one runs over the article. I am however not an expert on bots and I am not sure if there is a bot that can be directly used by editors to be run over a specific article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHECKWIKI might also be helpful.Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I let the AWB General fixer add a blank line before the stub tag. It didn't find anything else to do. I don't normally allow it to save such trivial edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Urgent: 2011 Egyptian protests markup/display error

Something weird is going on at the article. Sections are present in the markup but not displaying on the actual page. Can someone with some technical expertise check it out. The sections are 2011 Egyptian protests#31January, 2011 Egyptian protests#1 February, 2011 Egyptian protests#Arrests, and 2011 Egyptian protests#Deaths. It started after this edit and we're discussing it on talk here. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now, it seems, the problem was pretty obvious though, incorrectly closed WP:COMMENT tags. Rehevkor ✉ 15:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it was <!--from tv->. Obvious if you speak markup. Thanks for the help. Ocaasi (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Sources that are Controversial: Wikipedia Policy?

I'd like to know if a policy has been developed on Wikipedia regarding including material in articles that is well-sourced to books and articles published by reputable publishers or in academic journals, but which have caused a lot of controversy and debate. In other words, the sources are legitimate, yet strongly disputed in other sources. We are facing this situation at the article on Ramakrishna. Devadaru (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If information is controversial, cite the source explicitly so it is clear that cited text is not universally accepted. For example, say "According to John Doe, the earth is flat. However, Jane Smith states that the earth is more doughnut shaped". In other words, where there is NOT agreement in academic sources, Wikipedia should also not pretend there is agreement. Let the article be in the voice of the experts, since Wikipedia's voice is supposed to be neutral, if there is a genuine disagreement among academics, then make that explicit in the article. However, and I cannot stress this enough, do not give undue weight to fringe opinions. If the overwhelming academic opinion is that John Doe is a crackpot, and no one gives his opinion any serious credence, then don't bother reporting his opinion at all. Just make sure the Wikipedia article reflects the general, mainstream understanding of the subject. And if the mainstream understanding is split, represent that as well. --Jayron32 23:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. We are having just such a problem over at Talk:Ramakrishna with a very long-running argument about which sources deserve more weight—how to decide just who are the "experts". Some ideas are propounded by a few scholars which vast numbers of other people, including some scholars, consider as lunacy. Devadaru (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that WP:NPOV is being violated on a particular article, you should take it to the neutral point of view noticeboard, or seek some kind of third-party dispute resolution. -- Mesoderm (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure, we may have to go for 3rd party (again(!); I think that was done about two years back!). Devadaru (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see authentic info in other publications on topics/bios etc.that Wikipedia doesn't have. How do I alert your folks to the source of the info so you all can continue on the path to total knowledge?

--Saw an article in "Der Spigel" on Jan 28/29 2011 about Max von Oppenheimer; bio, archeological finds, personal activites (!) and your cite was practically bare. How can I alert your folks to other info as I traverse other avenues so you can flesh out your data?72.92.119.136 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Der Speigel allows use of their material if you tell them you will use it and give appropriate citation.[reply]

Wikipedia is a website that anyone can edit! So you can add material yourself! You could start here. Also, you could post a note on the relevant talk page. Best wishes, good luck, and happy editing! Devadaru (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User message received upon opening page

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The following message was received when opening a page on your site (search for Senne Valley).

User:84.13.63.214 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:84.13.63.214. If in doubt, please verify that "84.13.63.214" exists.

   Start the User:84.13.63.214 page
   Search for "User:84.13.63.214" in existing pages of namespace User.
   Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

   If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
   Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
   If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?.

April 2010

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on the page Ball bearing worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing and its related help page for more information. Thank you. Tommy2010 19:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Duke Ellington. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Deagle_AP (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Duke Ellington, you will be blocked from editing. Deagle_AP (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

May I point out that a) I have only once edited an article, some month ago, where I corrected the spelling of "Tow Tree Island" to "Two Tree Island" which is where I volunteer with the EWT, b) I have no idea about Ball Bearings, never searched for an article or edited one of that nature, same applies to the Duke Ellington article.

It would be very kind if you could explain how I came to be suspected with such activities. BTW, our connection is not shared and not wireless either, so hardly any chance of someone else having used our connection without us knowing.

Thank you very much for your time

Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.63.214 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has (possibly) nothing to do with you. You should have looked at the dates these notifications were posted: nearly a year ago! mabdul 19:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you carry on reading to the bottom of your talk page it includes the following: "This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. ..." - David Biddulph (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I plugged your IP address into the tool cited above at Wikipedia:Help_desk#User_Page_Creation_Request, and yes, it is indeed a dynamic one and will change periodically. A year ago, the offending edits were made by whoever was editing from the address that is currently assigned to you. Ka renjc 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just add that Special:Contributions/84.13.63.214 shows the vandalism edits by that IP address in April 2010. You can just ignore it or create an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Best Nonfiction

Do you have any information on the Reader's Digesst series, Today's Best Nonfiction. Specifically I am looking for the kind of information you have on the Reader's Digest Condensed Book Series where you have listed each volume and the contents. I have a collection of the nonfiction books but several are missing, and I would like to identify the ones I do not as yet have by year and volume number.

Thank you for any help you can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.115.208 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is created by volunteers, and contains information when somebody has chosen to put it in (and has found a reliable source for it). If that information is not there, it probably means that nobody has been interested in collecting it here (though it could mean that nobody has found a reliable source for it). So the chances are that the answer is no, not in Wikipedia. However, we do have a Reference Desk where you can ask questions like this and people might dig a bit and find the information for you. --ColinFine (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian place categorization

Barcaldine Region (and many other Australian districts) is currently in Category:2008 establishments. It should be moved into Category:States and territories established in 2008. Its membership of the former category appears to be imparted by Template:Infobox Australian place which includes the code :

{{#ifeq:{{{type|}}} | lga | {{#ifexist:Category:{{{est}}} establishments|[[Category:{{{est}}} establishments|{{{name}}}]]}} | {{#ifexist:Category:Populated places established in {{{est}}}|[[Category:Populated places established in {{{est}}} |{{{name}}}]]}}{{#ifexist:Category:Populated places established in the {{{est}}}|[[Category:Populated places established in the {{{est}}}

Regions have <type>=lga and hence they are made members of for example Category:2008 establishments; this needs to be changed to Category:States and territories established in 2008. It appears an easy change but I am not confident enough to do it; can anyone assist? One other question - how quickly will such a change be reflected in the actual categorizations of the regions ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takes about 24-48 hours to go through. One question though - why states and territories? LGAs are the next level down (municipal government, basically.) Orderinchaos 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed the most relevant category Category:Populated places established in 2008 looks to be about towns and cities etc. Is there another category they should be put in ? Can someone make they change for me ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]