Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 November 7

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.

November 7

factualy error

There is a factual error on the seventh day adventists wiki page in the first para and wiki says to change it ourselves which i do and it keeps reverting back to original scripting which is incorrect . and references were even provided.

It is NOT a christian denomination. To be a christian denomination one must MUST recognise and teach that Jesus is the Lord God almighty. They state he wasnt.

I keep changing it to the facts so who keeps reverting it to what is incorrect?

They currently say in the opening paragraph- "is a Christian denomination which is distinguished by its observance of Saturday,[4] the original seventh day of the Judeo-Christian week, as the Sabbath, and by its emphasis on the imminent second coming (Advent) of Jesus Christ. The denomination grew out of the Millerite movement ..."

and the correct wording and the facts are- (references provided and the first point was stated and written by the founder Ellen herself in her teachings)

"is a Religion which began in the mid 1800's and is distinguished by five major points. The first that (quote) 'The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God almighty'. Ellen G.White (1903, ms 150, SDA Commentary V.p 1129). The second that Jesus used to be Michael the arch angel. . And the last three points, that to be saved, Seventh Day Adventism teaches 1. the need to keep the sabbath on a Saturday, the original seventh day of the Judeo-Christian week, as the Sabbath; 2. the necessity to be baptised (fully immersed in water); and 3. the need for an ongoing life of obedient discipleship. , and without these three things a person cannot be saved. It also has emphasis on the imminent second coming (Advent) of Jesus Christ. The religion grew out of " ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.34.130 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 November 2011‎

You may or may not have a point, I have no opinion on that. But do not repeatedly add the same text (see Wikipedia:Edit warring). Instead, start a discussion on the article's "talk page" (click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page when you are viewing the article) and explain your position, then engage in a discussion with other editors to arrive at a consensus solution (see Wikipedia:Consensus. That is the proper way to handle these issues. --Jayron32 04:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Master Dana Wong article deleted

There was an article regarding Sifu Dana Wong and now it has vanished.

Neither Dana or his students know why it has been removed.

cheers Maurice 122.108.106.211 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article's entry in the logs states:

• 18:39, 23 February 2011 Nakon (talk | contribs) deleted "Dana Wong" ‎ (Expired PROD)

Nakon is an admin here at Wikipedia and PROD is a tag that is put on articles that don't necessarily meet the notability (or some other) guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. To have an article here, a person must first be notable and that notability must be explained in the article. If a PROD tag remains on the article for seven days without any improvement to the article or without someone removing it (and contending that the article should be kept), the article is then deleted. Our notability guidelines can be found at WP:N. Dismas|^(talk) 05:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article was deleted back in February because the article did not establish, through the use of reliable sources that the subject met the minimum standards for having an article about them (see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) for more details about what those minimum standards are). If you believe this was done in error, you can register an account and then request that the article be placed in your account's userspace as a draft version. This would not be counted as an article, and you would be expected to be working on the article to establish the subject's notability. Also, please note that not every person in the world will meet Wikipedia's minimum standards, it is possible that the subject of this article is one of those people. I have no idea one way or the other, and take no position on that. --Jayron32 06:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to delete a file I uploaded.

I want to delete this file. File:Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers.jpg

I uploaded the wrong file and I'd like to change it.

Please delete off of wiki. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinnanmatt (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have marked it for deletion per your request. Goodvac (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictorial Illustrations

How do I insert illustrations in .jpg file format into a contribution? Kendrick Pereira (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

1. See Wikipedia:Image use policy first to understand what sorts of images are acceptable for use at Wikipedia (in simplest terms, we only want images that YOU created YOURSELF, and which you own the rights to, and which you are willing to liscence to Wikipedia under terms compatible with Wikipedia's own lisence)
2. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for help in uploading an image (or you can use the Image Uploading Wizard by clicking the "upload file" link in the "Toolbox" on the left of your screen)
3. See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for help in adding an uploaded image to a Wikipedia article.

All of this depends on you being an "autoconfirmed user". Becoming autoconfirmed happens automatically once your account is 4 days old and has at least 10 contributions in its history. --Jayron32 06:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The part about being an autoconfirmed user is not quite accurate. It is true that you need to be autoconfirmed to upload here on Wikipedia, but if the image is free licensed, you can and should upload on Wikimedia Commons, where there is no need to be autoconfirmed. —teb728 t c 07:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review

I am pretty sure this does not go here, but the links brought me here.

English words with uncommon properties was recently quickly deleted and I would like to give my opinion, hopefully in order to reopen the debate which flew past me despite the fact that in the past year I have given the article considerable attention to sort it out (but not as much as it deserved it seems). Basically, it was an article that had been around for many years and received around 1,000 viewers a day (which is substantial) and had a great deal of edits. The problems with the article are that the topic of the article, being about peculiarities the English language, can be seen as partially subjective or based on pedantic dictionary definitions (e.g. the semi-consonant nature of the letter "w"), that the article kept getting too long and that IP users, often in good-faith, would very often add sections and opinions. I would like the debate to be reopened and I would like to propose that instead of deletion an active act of improvement be taken. --Squidonius (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For security reasons, the page is not visible from Wikipedia, but can be seen in Google cache of the page. The deletion discussion is here --Squidonius (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If you believe the article was deleted incorrectly, then you need to start a thread at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Jayron32 13:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

mark howard goalkeeper

Hi can you change the height and weight of mark howard. Born 1986. Goalkeeper who plays for blackpool. Height. 191cm Weight. 88kg

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.81 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If you've got a reliable source then you could change the article yourself, but the figures above disagree with the link from the article to Soccerbase, so it may be worth discussing the sources in the article's talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

His official Blackpool profile [1] says 183 cm and 76 kg. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Publication and Third-Party Verification

Hello,

The article for Fordham University's Center for Ethics Education has not been approved, and I am unsure as to the specific reasons why. The editor's comments were as follows:

"we are sorry, but we cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please cite reliable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed so the information can be verified and to establish the notability of the topic."

Would it be possible to point to the specific areas of the article where this occurs? The Center's third party sources are verified through Fordham University and other notable resources as per the external links provided.

Thank you,

Center for Ethics Education — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfisher2 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion which should happen on the talk page of the article in question. Please click the "discussion tab" at the top of the screen when you are viewing the article where your edits are contested, and start a discussion with the users who disagree with you there. --Jayron32 17:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The University is not a 3rd party source. See Wikipedia:Third-party sources. Anything besides the University website and anything related would be a 3rd party source, such as magazines, books, newspapers independent of the University. CTJF83 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fordham is not a third party. We need verifiable citations to independent, third-party reliable sources. Since this article by your own admission is being written by somebody at the CEE, it will probably be rejected anyway, since you have such a major conflict of interest. If the Center is actually notable, somebody who does not have a conflict of interest (does the CEE not have any course on or interest in the idea that conflicts of interest are to be avoided?) will write about it someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles must contain citations to reliable sources as explained in the WP:Citing sources guideline. The citations must be to specific published sources, not a vague allusion to an organization. In the case of large sources like books, page numbers or the equivalent should be given.

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise, and articles should not read like advertisements. Also, an article about an organization must cite sources with no affiliation that demonstrate the organization is notable.

Finally, the Wikipedia user name policy requires that accounts be controlled by a single individual, whether the individual prefers to use his/her real name, or a pseudonym. Accounts controlled by an organization, or that reflect the name of an organization, are not allowed. Although the policy does not specifically mention making ones signature appear in talk pages as if one were writing on behalf of the organization, it's likely that would be viewed as not in the spirit of the user name policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

adding Bangla language

Dear Sir, We will be please if you add Bengali in Wikipedia. We don't understand why we are being ignored in the international community. We fought for our country, we fought for our own language. We are the one and the only nation who gave Bangla as a mother language in our country. The whole world will have no other example except for Bangladesh. We know we are Low Developed Country, but we expect to be Medium Developed Country within 2015 with the help of several strong nations worldwide. It hurts me when I see our language has no respect throughout the world. At least I request you to add our language Bangla(Bengali) in your website as well as many other websites in the whole world.

Thank you.

ABU RASHED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.180.43 (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this [2] what you are looking for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm always amazed at the rumors that float around, that Wikipedia doesn't have an edition in some major language (usually of the Global South). I'm sorry you were so badly misled by someone, Abu. I respect your people a great deal, and I wish you great success in improving your language's version of Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

True. The full list is linked from the foot of the Main Page. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, you can link to the Bengali wiki by using bn: before the article name. For example, bn:প্রধান_পাতা will take you to the Bengali Wikipedia's Main Page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dysentery

In the Article Dysentery, phrases like "Heil Hitler" and "nyggers" comes up. The problem cannot be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.197.50 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have (I think) fixed the page and temporarily protected it from anonymous vandalism. TNXMan 20:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Page Name

How do I edit the page name so I can capitalize words that I left uncapitalized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbradasch (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't, yet. So I moved the article you have been working on to Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena. GB fan 21:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture rotation problem

I've added pictures to a couple of articles in the last few days. On Commons the pictures are oriented correctly. However, when I add them to the articles Bussy, Fribourg and Cheiry, they are rotated 90 degs. I haven't been able to figure out what is causing this. Does anyone else have the same problem? Any suggestions? Tobyc75 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I downloaded File:Saint-Maurice Bussy May 2011.jpg, rotated it to the correct orientation, brightened it a little and re-uploaded it to Commons and it looks OK now in the article. I suspect that Wikipedia does not support auto-rotation of images, so the fix is to rotate the images before uploading them. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably related to this archived discussion, but I'm not familiar with the technical details. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I downloaded the other file and rotated it as well. That seems to have cleared up the problem. Tobyc75 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Adaptive Planning

This article is pure advertising:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Planning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.155.194 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think so, you can nominate it on WP:AFD. But the best option would be to be bold and elaborate it. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

PROD of BLP

Should I immediately propose the deletion of a sourceless WP:BLPPROD? Should I wait 10 minutes like one should with an A1/A3? Thank-you! Themself (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What page is it? I'd tag it WP:BLPPROD by now, almost 2 hours. CTJF83 01:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just asking in general.Themself (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)