Help desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	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 12

So called "Milestones" in articles onsupercentenarians

Many articles on supercentenarians contain sections called Longevity Milestones (or similar). Se for example Besse Cooper, Dina Manfredi and Jiroemon Kimura. These sections seem to be less than encyclopedic and I would have thought must come close to violating policy regarding OR and or Trivia. Where/who/how can a get a ruling on this? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those look like verifiable facts (person xyz died, person abc added to book of world records, etc), so I don't think it would count as OR, and at least some of them are backed by references. If there's a particular one you're concerned about, you can raise the question on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether they are facts but whether they are notable. There are in fact no references in WP:RS that any of the prorted milestones are in any way notable. While a few could be considered important (in whcih case they are already, or should be, incl;uded inte text) most are not. They actually appear to be more fanboy listcruft, as evidenced by [edit]; and the suggestion [[1]] that every mul;tiple of 10 be considered a milestone! Outside of the yahoo user group (specifically identified as NOT a RS]] I have yet to see any citation for even reaching a Top Ten placing as being notable. Attempting to remove one such non-milestone from the Besse Cooper article struck a brick wall on the talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where this would be a useful timeline. It could be broken out into its own article. Dismas|^(talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Stations Question

Is there Wikipedia guidelines with respect to RF and Virtual TV channels when referenced in a radio station entry when the TV station is co-owned with the radio station?

The specific entry this involves is found here: WFME (FM) in the first paragraph. Another user deleted the RF channel (the one the TV station broadcasts on as assigned by the FCC) and stated that "RF channels don't matter, and it's not needed for a radio station article" Is that Wikipedia's policy? 70.111.128.88 (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things I would suggest. First edit warring over the addition is not permitted - that is what the talk page is for after the first revert, using what is referred to as the WP:BRD cycle. Bold edit, Revert, Discuss. Second, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations that is the best place to ask the question about RF channels. The question can be posed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. I see that in both the article and the infobox the radio station has a sister TV station. The way digital TV works today, is very different from the old requirement of having a transmitter and a frequency. Apteva (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Callington Mill

You have some incorrect facts on the reporting of the Mill owners. William Bradshaw and Thomas Jillett were brothers.

For further information regarding the Jillett/Bradshaw family, www.jillettfamily.com

William's father is Robert Jillett and his mother was Elizabeth Bradshaw. They were not married at the time of William's birth, and did so in 1812. Thomas is their second youngest child.

Kris Herron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.23.64 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I assume you are referring to Callington Mill. We need reliable sources instead of your original research from your family website. Could you please take a look at WP:RS and provide us a ~~like~~ link or other reference which can help establish your statement above? Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "like" should read "link". --ColinFine (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove my site link from black list

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can anyone suggest me how to remove my site link from spam links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joydas85 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist to be considered to be removed from the blacklist however from some of your recent edits, it appears you are violating WP:SPAM... Please read both and post if you still have questions. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've blocked the user for persistent spamming. —SMALL JIM 13:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the end of that. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Envwironmental Certificate for our factory.

We are Textile manufecturer. want to pass envwironmental conditions of our factory. Do you people go for any tests etc and issue necessary Certificates.in Karachi Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.78.42 (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 07:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is no. Wikipedia does not issue certificates. Maproom (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biological pest control authors

Hi! Can I know who is the author of this webpage. We badly needed it for our research paper. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_control#Biological_pest_control This is the link. Kindly reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.187.67 (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see all editors who have contributed to that article in its revision history, which is at this link.

In theory, you can find the sources of the information for the article in the "References" section of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are generally written by a large number of individuals - comprehensive mature articles can have hundreds of contributors. The vast majority of Wikipedia contributors never reveal their real names so when you cite a Wikipedia article you do not name any author(s). See WP:Citing Wikipedia for some advice. Roger (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a Wikipedia article has been written by one, identifiable, person, you don't need to ask for their permission to copy it. They surrendered any copyright they had in it by contributing it to Wikipedia. You should, however, acknowledge Wikipedia as the source of your copy. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to that last remark by Maproom. Copyright remains with the people who put the text on Wikipedia, however they have releases the information under a free licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0 usually), which allows everyone to use it under certain conditions. These conditions include that you name the authors (naming Wikipedia will usually do), and that the new work is also under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. Taketa (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite correct. They have not surrendered copyright. They have licensed the use of the material under certain terms (that allow for easy re-use). Rmhermen (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a photo?

How do I add a photo to a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuddog5 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Files for an overview and the pages it links to for details. —teb728 t c 10:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Fitzgerald photo

I noticed an Edmund Fitzgerald photo on your site with a reflection in the water. I took that picture in May 1975 from a motorboat. I have the original slide and have copyright on it. Under the picture it says Public Domain and that it came from NOAA. I had let NOAA use the picture for their web site and I'm given credit on that. I believe on your site it says NOAA. Could you take the picture off your site or take away the Public Domain part and credit to Bob Campbell Grand Ledge Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.124.49.16 (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't take away public domain status. As per US copyright law, a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties is in the public domain under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. I notice you are listed as the author, which should fulful your request above. Mdann52 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't know whether Bob was an employee of the USG, or a private individual who granted the NOAA permission to use the picture in their article.. The credit at http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mqt/?n=fitz_fitza says "Image courtesy of Bob Campbell, Grand Ledge, MI", which (I'm assuming) it probably would not if Bob had taken it in pursuance of his duties. Perhaps Bob can clarify? Rojomoke (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Of course, if Mr. Campbell were not actually an employee of the NOAA (and thus having no official duties), and had not been compensated for the photo (making it some flavor of work for hire or whatever), then the issue might be more complicated. Not that there is evidence to suggest that, but it's worth noting. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mqt/?n=fitz_links only says: "Photo by Bob Campbell, Grand Ledge, MI". Many of the other photos mention a government organization, but not this one. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you didn't make the photo as part of government work, we would like to keep the photo if you will release it under a free license permitted by commons:Commons:Licensing. The public domain claim can be removed and you will be credited as author, but others must be allowed to republish the photo with credit to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what PrimeHunter has said: Wikipedia does not knowingly use any copyright material unless licensed under a suitable licence. So that picture must be removed from Wikipedia unless you, as the copyright holder, choose to license it by following the procedure in WP:donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the disclamer link, it says The information on National Weather Service Web servers and Web sites is in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public - That seems to include the pictures on the site, but it is ambiguous. Mdann52 (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is specifically annotated otherwise: If you click on the the thumbnail here, the full size photo says "Copyright 1975 Bob Campbell". (This also settles that Campbell was not acting as a government employee.) In fairness to the uploader, the annotation was added after the upload, for the Wikipedia photo shows the part of the photo where the watermark now is. —teb728 t c 00:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

claim my benefits

I would like to know how to Claim my Prize.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.94.252 (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr/copyright question

OK...so i have someone offering to change the licence of an image i need as CC-BY at the strictest. This is the image. My question is what would happen if he changed the license back after i upload it to a stricter one where we can't use it? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it released at some point, then it is ok, me thinks. Mdann52 (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youthinks correct. Once the copyright of an image has been released on certain terms, the copyright owner cannot go back and retract that release or impose more strict terms.--ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only evidence i have is of the Flickr page showing the copyright. Once that changes, i'll have no evidence. Won't that affect it? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong here, but I'm sure that on Commons a reviewer tags Flickr images to say that they were available under the claimed license at the time of upload/time of checking. Maybe ask at Commons for that to be done? Just a thought. Keri (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's changed the terms to CC-BY now so i guess i'll worry about it later. For now, i'll just upload it. Thanks guys ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it licensed as CC BY 2.0 a few minutes ago, too. Keri (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

why is it that a free online website like www.adroadies.com can't be on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adroadies (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it lacks notability and exists solely to make money from online sales? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its purpose is of very little relevance. If it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then it is notable, and may have an article whatever its purpose. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be why i linked to notability at the start of my message. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you added a non sequitur about online sales. The person asking the question might think it is relevant. Colin is clarifying that it is not.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I threw that in to question notability. It looks like an online marketplace (like a Craigslist knock-off) to me and google shows a fair few results for it with the word "scam" in the same sentence. Had it been Ebay or something, i wouldn't have been so harsh. Thanks for the reply ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of "beating a dead horse"

, if it were a notable scam site (e.g. like those listed and operated by groups listed at List of criminal enterprises, gangs and syndicates), it could be worthy of an article. The perceived quality or value of a subject has little to do with whether it qualifies as notable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a page

hi there, I work for a few musicians and have been asked to make some changes to their wikipedia pages. I have been trying for about a month now to make changes to these pages but they never stay and always revert back to what it said before I made the change. Making these changes is very important to the artists, so could someone please let me know how to make a change that will stay. thank you. Nataliekelapire (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)natalie[reply]

The problem is that you have a conflict of interest. So you are encouraged not to edit the articles directly, but to use their talk pages to request changes. You will need references to reliable sources to support those changes. Also note that a request, for example, to remove an artist's real name from an article (where it is supported by a reliable source) simply because they don't want it in the article, probably isn't going to get a favorable response.--ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2) Is this about Clams Casino (musician)? It looks like another editor is reverting your edits without an explanation. You should raise this issue on the article's talk page. Also, read WP:COI, since you need to be careful editing an article when you have a conflict-of-interest. RudolfRed (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is incorrect information on these articles, you can remove it if it's not referenced properly in the citations given. But the Clams Casino (musician) article seems to be properly referenced, so you'll need to explain on the article talk page. Remember that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, but an encyclopedia, and we write to inform readers, not to promote article subjects. - filelake shoe  19:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. That was very helpful. Nataliekelapire (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Natalie Kelapire[reply]

Wiki-pr

I was emailed by a company called Wiki-PR offering to make a corporate page for us on Wikipedia:

Thank you. We'll craft you a rich read that consumers trust in the top 2-3 spots on Google Search. With our Wikipedia service, you get: Exposure: 482 million people view Wikipedia each month.Credibility: Wikipedia is the world's go-to source for information. With our professionally written pages you'll have instant credibility.Professionalism: Wikipedia has rules. Companies and people are not allowed to create or edit their own pages. Wiki-PR is a professional third-party that works for you. Our primary goal is to improve Wikipedia. We handle everything so your experience is worry-free.Pricing: Only $699 for us to create and upload your professional page to Wikipedia. (We charge $999 after our December promotion.) You can review the page before it goes live.Page Management (Optional): Includes a 100% money-back guarantee that your page will stick for only $29.99/mo. It includes updates to your page.Are you ready to start? We can get you on Wikipedia in 2-3 weeks. Let us know if you have questions.Best, Darius Fisher COO, Wiki-PR.com}}}

Thought you might like to know. 188.141.19.233 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very, very strongly”

— Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia co-founder^[2]

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)(Modified: removed leading space and brackets, for display purposes)[reply]

This has been discussed before. See for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive770#Promotional email for "wiki-pr.com" and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#professional wikipedia spammers. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New page?

How do I add a new Wikipedia page ... for example, I'd like to write one for the a book I recently published, The Nontraditional College Student.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.121.151 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page WP:YFA explains how to create a new article, but beware of conflict-of-interest. It is generally better to not write an article on your own book. You can request someone to create the article for you at WP:RA. RudolfRed (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read also WP:N and WP:NBOOK. Since your book is "recently published", it probably hasn't received the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that a book needs for an article. —teb728 t c 00:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]