Help desk
< May 31	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 2 >

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.

June 1

Style questions go where?

Do we have a place to ask style questions, or is WT:MOS it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Style questions can go here. Dismas|^(talk) 02:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then: I had posted a question at WT:MOS#Are editions of major works also major works? about whether the names of special editions should be italicized. Please have a look if you are knowledgeable about grammatical matters and style guides. Thanks!
I posted here because I was worried I’d put the question in the wrong place. Should they go here instead? Does it matter? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can place style questions here as the place where you posted the question is not the place to discuss particular article's style queries. I am replicating your question below for other contributors to comment. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It’s actually a project-wide query. Like I said in the question, I can’t find an answer in the MOS, and it’s inconsistent throughout WP. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original question by the editor:
If a video game has a “Game of the Year Edition,” or an album has a “Collector’s Edition,” or a movie has a “Director’s Cut” release, should the edition name be italicized as well (per MOS:T#Major works)? Is “Game of the Year Edition” considered a partial title, part of the name of the major work, for instance Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception: Game of the Year Edition? (If so, should we also say “they released a Game of the Year Edition”?) A brief internal search shows italics inconsistently applied to such labels, so some guidance would be helpful. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to this would be, that it depends on the actual name of the game. If the company has released it with the full name of the edition being "Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception: Game of the Year Edition", then italicise the full name including the Game of the Year Edition part. At the same time, do note that many a time, consensus on the article's talk page can reach a different conclusion, in which case you should follow the reached consensus. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that quite works. From a quick internal search, I find:
- Call of Duty 2 does not italicize “Special Edition” or “Game of the Year Edition,” and doesn’t even capitalize “a collector’s edition” or “the mobile version” (the latter of which is indisputably a different game).
- The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind italicizes “Game of the Year Edition” alone and both with and without a preceding colon, but not “Special Edition Soundtrack.”
- Batman: Arkham Asylum has “Game of the Year edition” roman with a small E, but italicizes “a Collector’s Edition.”
When, if ever, should an edition name be considered part of the name proper, and when should it not? It sounds like your answer is always. The Lord of the Rings Extended Edition? Alan Wake Demo? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve posted again at WT:MOS to ask about adding guidance on this to MOS:T. Personally, I’d advise treating any “edition” label as not a part of the work title proper unless there isn’t any doubt that it is: the Payday 2 demo, Doom collector’s edition, but Dead Island Definitive Edition or Resident Evil HD Remaster. Same goes for EP and LP music releases, movies, books, etc. It sounds like Xender would have us take whatever they put on the box and use it as the full title. I’m fine with however the consensus goes, as long as we have some kind of decision. Wondering if I should start an RFC. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can post at WT:MOS (as you have) for a guidance to be included in the current manual. My initial suggestion is actually the same as your statement above. I too would prefer that the additional "2nd edition" etc should be italicised only if the so titled "2nd edition" etc is clearly included as the name of the particular release. It's a tough call but, and should be finally taken on the talk pages of respective articles. The thing to keep in mind is that whichever way the article decides – like in the case of citing sources where you can use any style of citing you wish in an article – you should maintain consistency within the particular article. It's not necessary that in such cases – where individual cases of naming of video games may differ – that we have the same format followed across Wikipedia. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I Hate Everything" page deleted. Please restore the page.

The page for YouTuber "I Hate Everything" has been deleted for some reason. Previous users have cited lack of press coverage of any kind as a reason why it was deleted. However, the Nostalgia Critic of Channel Awesome cited the channel when'I Hate Everything" noted flaws in YouTube's copyright system. The Wikipedia page cited a controversy the channel was victim of. It feels like someone deleted the page to withhold useful information to the public regarding freedom of speech. Please do something about this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Informant (talk • contribs) 03:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Internet Informant: Okay, so Nostalgia Critic is one media outlet (if he qualifies as such) that may support notability. Who else? Any mainstream media?
I love what I’ve seen of IHE’s work, but frankly, I’ve never heard of him outside of YouTube. If you have, that would help. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Internet Informant: you can see why it was deleted here. Please note that an occasional cite by a third party here or there is not significant coverage. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Nostalgia Critic of Channel Awesome is a reliable source - he does not represent a news organization or publishing house that would be known for accurate information and high journalistic standards. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a place for all kinds of information – no matter how useful or on how important topics (like the freedom of speech). Rather, it's a place for a specific kind of information: encyclopedic information about notable subjects. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Hello!

I'm having trouble getting my citations to save in SandBox (I haven't submitted for review yet). I've used programs similar to this so I'm pretty sure I'm doing it correctly. Any tips?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelindy500 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thelindy500, please read WP:Citing sources for details. Generally, in the simplest form, you should write <ref>[Source details]</ref> after the statement you are wishing to give a citation for. The source details can take various forms. Do read up and write back for more assistance. Btw I have structured up your draft a bit. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boleyn

Please see my Dame Mary Stafford edit - in the Second marriage section of the above page. My comp. is stalling mid-edit and I cannot complete the new citation. Please note that I have put in the book and page number of the ref. I hope that you can do it for me. Please!144.139.149.95 (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Thanks so much[reply]

Your citation reads "Karen Lindsey, p. 73". I cannot guess what book you intend to cite. Maproom (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unable to do the edit myself sorry. The 2011 book is by Alison Weir; titled - "Mary Boleyn, the great and infamous whore". The reference is in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph in the "second marriage" section on the Mary Boleyn page. I have also given the page number.l - Page 246. Please put in this citation if you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.0.102 (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please help. See two queeries earlier and you will see that I have clarified author, book and page number - it is all online. Please put citation in. I cannot cut and paste on mobile. Sorry and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.0.102 (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my persistence. I am on a laptop now - the best I could do to add a new verifiable ref - number 24 - is now on the Mary Boleynpage. Please let me know if ref number 24 is OK. It is not how I usually do citations, but, as I have explained, my laptop is not permitting me to use the usual template. Thanks101.189.0.102 (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the citation – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=723162537 --CiaPan (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing equation images

All pages suddenly missing equation images. SVG in background does not work in all browsers - does not work in last secure version of Firefox ("secure" is such version, that has got Firefox.js in plain file available for security editing... newer versions of Firefox cannot be secured, because Firefox.js with meddle-snoop configuration is packed inside Omni.ja file. Chrome and IE are totally unsecure, because cannot switch off javascript). The math is missing in older version of IE also...

<math> is not rendered, <meta> with "background: url()" is not rendered either. The pages without equations are crippled.

Not sure, how long is that, in mid-april it worked - there was <img> with TeX in "alt" attribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.159.114 (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Download the latest chrome version and use it to view your equation images. If you only wish to view them, there is no need to log into your account any way. And if you wish to work on them, do please work freely; this is just Wikipedia, not a financial payment gateway. Do write back if you need some help. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- No sorry, Chrome is not secure and I may not use it. "Latest" does not mean "Best", almost never... There is (or was) a golden internet rule, that USER chooses his software, not the content provider! The pages, saved to MHT (mime html) format could be displayed in very old email clients too, they could be packed to CHM archives, which are opened in IE, that may be quite old... It all worked fine until this April-May, when suddenly stopped appearing PNG equations, using <math> instead... Forcing unsecure browser (among many else falsely blocking "undesired" pages, also with privacy issues etc...) and of a single software provider to internet users this way by Wikipedia would be really ugly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.159.114 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried all browsers (IE, Safari, Chrome, Firefox, older versions) and do not find such a problem. I am not sure of why the issue is occurring in your device. Might I suggest you post your query to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing? They might be able to assist the issue further. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, what you mean by "older" version. It does not work in Firefox 3.0 and IE 6.0, it does not work in Opera 9.01, it does not work in Thunderbird 2.0 (if saved to MHT (mime html + all required files) by MAFF and thunderbird configured to see attachments inline), it would not work, if packed to CHM archive file... Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing seems to be for asking general computing questions...? The question is not, how I display <math>, but how to make wikipedia use PNG for equations (as it did for many years until last month) and not <math> tags...! 79.98.159.114 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you create an account (and read logged in), you can set the rendering style under Preferences/Appearance/Math. Rwessel (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming a redirect

Unsure of where to post this. Apologies if it's in the wrong spot. The redirect Thimble Theater properly points to the article Popeye, as it was is the strip where Popeye originated. However, the proper spelling of the strip is and always has been Thimble Theatre, RE not ER. I considered just making a brand new redirect and deleting the old one, however there are pages that link to the misspelled redirect. Thanks. JeffConn (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just create the new redirect. There is no need to delete the old one as it is a plausible misspelling. -- GB fan 10:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The redirect Thimble Theatre already exists, so not a problem. You could, of course, correct the mis-spellings. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added {{R from misspelling|Thimble Theatre}} to the redirect.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And based on the fact that it is a mispelling, I changed the spelling of all of the mainspace articles pointing to Thimble Theater

If the real problem is that the primary title is now Thimble Theater and it should be Thimble Theatre, you can request a renaming at Requested Moves, but that is hardly important since both spellings will work. Is there an unwritten rule against requesting such trivial renamings? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being flagged for advertising

I've been editing a few pages by adding content about new technology in the field. The problem is it keeps getting removed for advertising. At first I made the mistake of using a company site for a source but since I used publications it still gets removed. How can I explain the new technology and not come off as selling it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrow363 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Morrow363: The tone of this addition does sound a little like you're trying to sell something - mixed with the inclusion of a link to http://www.aquisense.com/ (a supplier of UV Germicidal products) as a reference would lead many editors to belive you were attempting to promote the company. Please don't start an edit war by repeatedly reverting other editors - as Ronz stated "if there's something here that doesn't violate NOT, it needs to be rewritten from independent sources" -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I explain the new technology and not come off as selling it? Find reliable, third-party sources. Present the material in a neutral manner, with a formal tone, without puffery. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about fixing Laverne Cox page

Would this article be enough proof to say she's recently 32 therefore born in 1984: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3618872/Laverne-Cox-twerks-Beyonce-clinging-bodysuit-celebrates-32nd-birthday-Orange-New-Black-stars.html Shouldn't that be added in her article? 2001:569:766D:AB00:1102:25B5:AA3A:5A30 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, 'tabloid' style newspapers are not acceptable as WP:RS. Eagleash (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for controversial information. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI blocks

I notice a lot of people getting blocked for COI/promotion...it seems a lot of the articles they try to create are indeed about non-notable subjects (small companies they own/are closely involved in) so the articles wouldn't pass for notability...I'm wondering about subjects (companies/whatever) that are indeed notable but it would be highly unlikely anyone who doesn't have a COI would create an article about them...consider a medium-sized law firm with maybe 100 partners...a firm like this that's been around for any period of time would almost certainly pass for notability but it's probably unlikely anyone without a COI would have any interest in creating an article about it...this is just a random example..there are probably better examples...so are there at least theoretically many notable subjects that will never have articles because of this? Or in practice would the technical COI likely fly under the radar?....general input please...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the question is. Conflict of interest blocks, which are normally paid editing blocks (a more specific and more serious kind of COI block) are not based on the notability of the subjects of the articles that they submit. Editors do not get blocked for submitting articles on nonnotable subjects (except for very rare situations, such as repeatedly submitting the same article after it was deleted). Editors do get blocked for failure to declare that they are paid editors. That is done regardless of whether the subject is notable or not notable. As to your comment that many theoretically notable subjects will never have articles because of lack of interest, I disagree. Out of hundreds of millions of Anglophone writers, any of whom can create an account (why don't you?), there is likely to be one person who is interested in a notable topic. I don't know if that was your question. However, conflict of interest blocks are not based on the notability or lack thereof of subjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there are a lot of blocks for promotion/coi..the promotion seems to be the primary reason for the block but the coi is usually referenced too in the block etc (the two ideas seem to be highly intertwined in the blocks)...what about my example above about the law firm...would it be disallowable for a partner in that firm to write a Wikipedia article about the firm (that passed for notability and for non-pov article content etc)? or would the article have to simply not exist because he wrote it? (I'm assuming in practice for a article topic like that the coi would fly under the radar anyway)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(also, see above thread "username" since you have demonstrated interest in the topic)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to an account that has been blocked where COI was referenced so we can look at what you are talking about? It is not against the rules for someone with a COI to create an article. It is highly discouraged but not prohibited. It is against the rules to get paid to create articles without declaring that you are a paid editor. As long as paid editors follow the rules they can create articles about something where they are paid to do it. So in your example, if a partner or more likely an intern created the article on behalf of the firm and they are getting paid to do it, they should declare their COI and that they are paid to create the article. They should not get blocked if they follow the rules. -- GB fan 15:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

idk this is kind of what I'm talking about (recent entry for unblock): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_SKETCH_MAN ...but I think you've basically answered my question in that COI article creation is not prohibited...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That block does not mention COI at all. It mentions that the account was used for advertising or promotion and that the username does not follow the username policy. Usernames can not be the name of the company. They can include the name of the company. A bad username would be ACME Fireworks, a good username would be Bill @ ACME Fireworks. The first one indicates that it is the company that is editing and may be shared by the employees there. The second one says it is Bill that works at the company. As a side note when you linked to the user talk page above you included the whole address, You could have easily linked just using the page name, User talk:A SKETCH MAN with [[ before and ]] after. -- GB fan 15:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

true, but the COI issue seems to implied to some extent and you'll notice he's being questioned about it below his unblock request....but, again, it appears proper COI editing is allowable, which basically answers my question...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this interesting case that is a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kylejax.twenty20 Based on the links he provided I think the company at least has a reasonable chance of passing notability...his draft may have been poor but I can't seem to be able to see it...how should this play out? Should have he been blocked or simply worked with in a less aggressive fashion?68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't COI per se. If, however, that someone thinks we're free ad space instead of an encyclopedia, their conflict of interest is far too strong to write neutrally about their chosen topic, and Wikipedia has no use for their contributions. Would anybody without a conflict of interest think that "Get discovered and sell your [xyz]. Earn money doing what you love." is appropriate content for an encyclopedia article about a company? I doubt that. Huon (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image array

I am working on the aromatization article and would like to include a block of four images as follows:

Column 1: File:DNA animation.gif
Column 2: File:DNA intercalation.svg above File:DNA intercalation2.jpg (adjusted so they are each of the same width)
Column 3: File:Benzopyrene DNA adduct 1JDG.png

Each column will be the same height, and a single caption below to describe all four images. I have been experimenting a bit with the multiple image template, but am still learning. Is there a template to do what I am describing? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this?

Table caption

Some additional info may go here, if you think it would be helpful for readers. And even more end more. But watch out – if it's too long, it may cause the table to expand.

CiaPan (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good approach. EdChem (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite handy for me too as I wanted to showcase some sports images exactly like this. Thanks CiaPan. Can you put the template as a reference somewhere where it would be easily accessible for others too? Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CiaPan: I put it at the end of this section: Aromatization#Significance of aromatic systems, added another column and wrapped it in a border. Thanks for the assistance. :) EdChem (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

We need help and how can I remove this error?

Soy Un Orgulloso Latino Zamboangueño 15:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acer Cyle (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

It is in Proposed Federation of the Philippines. --CiaPan (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This error means that you have added a reference name without actually assigning that name to a reference. At the first instance of the reference, you should input <ref name=XXX>details of the ref</ref>. Then when you need to use the same reference you only need to input <ref name=XXX/>. Eagleash (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there seems to be only one instance of the ref being used (after 'languages' at the top of the page). Write the full ref as a normal ref between the ref tags (<ref></ref>) and the error should disappear. Eagleash (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acer Cyle: Additional basic referencing information for new editors is also available at WP:Referencing for beginners, if you want to read up a bit more on the topic. (I took the liberty and have removed the additional redundant header in your initial message). GermanJoe (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I have removed the error for now. Use the template {{Reflist}} below the section on References to properly display your references. While I have helped you, do note that I don't agree with some of the actual sources being used, for example Facebook. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost (Fake) Artists Lists

I am sorry if this question was already discussed. I am new in WP editing/monitoring and so far didn't find it.

Recently I came across the issue of 'ghost' artist - name of allegedly dead, but actually never existed people. In different areas it may be done for different purposes. EG in art - for creating a record with sales on different auctions (like eBay) to find later in your backyard hundreds of works on this non-existent artist. I came across several names. One of them is Nicholas Kalmakoff. Here I explain why this artist is an obvious scam

https://medium.com/@vladkSF/kalmakoff-scam-art-forgeries-ghost-artists-and-manipulation-of-the-past-a65008f004af#.tfuno91e7

As I understand, Nicholas Kalmakoff page was deleted/removed several times from English Wikipedia, but Swedish page still exist.

Would it be reasonable to create Nicholas Kalmakoff page with indication that the name is a fake used in various scams? What about lists of other ghosts? Any discussions about suspicious/never existed people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladKSF (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: can you find multiple independent reliable (WP:RS) references to establish notability of the non-existence? RJFJR (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VladKSF (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Thank you very much, RJFJR! I understand your concern, but so far nobody showed even ONE, just ONE reliable academic peer reviews source proving his existence, and you are asking me about multiple sources. I told that there are no registration of the name in any Estonian or French archive, and I actually have access to chat where people discuss such things: market regulation, buying and paying to experts, promoting somebody to be an expert etc etc. You know who is one of the biggest experts on Kolmakoff? A teacher of Russian from UK who grew up in the family of British communist and studied Russian Language in Moscow. He didn't take even one art history class!!!!! You are forcing me to give information which can complicate investigation. I DID NOT YET EVEN SUBMIT IT TO FBI not to lose the access to chat. You are forcing me to do it now. When I am calling 911 and telling that I am half conscious and my wife is about to be raped, do they ask about multiple independent, reliable sources? that is exactly what you are doing now. I believe that billions and billions of dollars were transferred to Russia through ghost artist scam - people openly discuss it in chat, and as long as you are one of the mail tools, you are becoming collaborators. Yes, unknowingly, but collaborators.[reply]

Among other things I discovered using edited photos from Jewish museum Yad-Vashem for creating fake Antique Nazi artifacts etc etc.

Forum shopping to another venue because you didn't like the answer you got the first time is not going to change the answer. Wikipedia only documents material which has already been documented in reliable sources (which your own blog is not), so unless you can find mention of this scam in academic publications or the mainstream press, we're not going to mention him. Incidentally, Nicholas Kalmakoff page was deleted/removed several times from English Wikipedia is complete nonsense; at no point have we ever had a page by this title. ‑ Iridescent 16:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VladKSF (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Please do not answer about things I don't ask. I do not want to write anything anywhere, I just alert people about scam, and I know that the name of Kalmakoff was used by Russian mafia in different scams. I know it from my old journalistic contacts. Dear Iridescent, You are constantly projecting on me something I am not. I was a journalist in popular newspaper before the time of Internet. Now, I am quite old and it is not my intention to put name under anything whatsoever. If you want to respond, please for the God sake, please read attentively what you are responding on. And if you are mentioning links for dozens of years, could you please check these links first. Maybe the all are not working. VladKSF (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, dropping Nikolai Kalmakov (the more typical way to Anglicise a Russian name in this form) into Google brings up multiple coverage of this man in reliable sources across a span of decades, so unless this conspiracy has been ongoing for a century and involves multiple art historians across multiple continents, the simplest explanation is that you're wrong. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get any answer first time, and it was not in forum, I just alerted moderators. But they wrote that it is to much to read in info I provided, so I just concentrated on one particular person. If you really respect Wikipedia, you should read before writing an answer. I provided a link to my article where I have briefly explained everything. if it takes too much to follow the link, I post it here, below. Than you would probably not teach me how to Anglicise Russian names, because my father participated in decision-making process of changing -off ending to -ov. -off was common in the age when second language in Russia was French. HOWEVER names of Russian emigrants who left earlier and adopted -off -eff for their new documents are spelled in the old way eg. Leontief, Tarasoff, Smirnoff... Nobody, (except probably you) will write Tarasov case, because the name is Tarasoff. Regarding your links I can show you why they are fake. You can, actually see it yourself if you will make some research. The fact that Russian mafia invested a lot of money in is one of the reasons why I write about it. Their goal is to reach million dollar sales for their "artists", so they hire top level professionals to incorporate their info everywhere. They even go that far to change text of the poem (though not the most known) of Russian poet Игорь Северянин.

And here is the text of my article.

Extended content

Kalmakoff scam: art forgeries, ghost artists and manipulation of the past. First time I came across the name Nicholas Kalmaloff, ascribed to never existed artist, after buying fake Antique postcards on eBay. I started googling names on the cards and found a card made after image belonging to Jewish Museum of Catastrophe, Yad-Vashem. The image was very slightly modified and ascribed to some non-existing German photo artist. Many links of artist’s names directed on metropostcard.com where I found an amazing masterpiece of human ignorance — biography of another “ghost” artist — Nicholas Kalmakoff. Spelling of the name Kalmakoff made me feel something similar that native speaker of English would feel looking on the name Jhon Smiht. “Kal” is sh*t in Russian, “mak” could be the root of verb “makat” — to put in. So the name Kalmakoff sounds very special. Common Russian family name is KOlmalov, not Kalmakoff. While the endings of Russian last names changed their spelling form -off to -ov (common way of spelling now), never ever in history O could have written as A. Research with google and other Internet search engines confirmed my feeling that there are no people named Kalmakoff in Russia. However, this last name happened to be common among Aleuts of Alaska where first European colonizers were Russians. Apparently, initially Nicholas Kalmakoff (or at least his name) was created by the native speaker of English who mistakenly took Aleutian name for Russian. Reading the biography of an “artist” on metropostcard.com was truly unique experience. It was amazing to see how creators of Kalmakoff’s image who made by shill bidding million dollar auction sales for Kalmakoff’s art were not just ignorant of very basic historic realities. They were I would say aggressively illiterate, showing tones of contempt to any knowledge about the world outside regulations of online auctions. In the first sentence of biography it was said that Italian Russian artist Kalmakoff was son of Russian general and Italian woman who was born and grew up in the town of Nervi in Italy. The existence of Nervi was probably only piece of correct factual information in this sentence. However, in 1873 Nervi was a remote fishermen village, not an upscale resort on Italian Riviera, favourite destination of post-Soviet nouveau-riches where they regularly organize days of Russian culture. What kind of Italian woman supposedly was Kalmakoff’s mother? Remember that 19th century was still the age of slavery. If she was a peasant, she would have been considered sub-human by Russian aristocrat, so baby Kalmakoff had no chance of having such parents officially. If she were of noble birth, Italian aristocrat — 19th century Russian nobles didn’t know the word divorce. It was virtually non-existing. In that case, what was the family of Russian aristocrat doing in fishermen village in Italy. I will stop examining Kalmakoff’s bio not to be boring, but in reality it goes on and on having at least one anachronism in each and every sentence. Reading it is like getting information about first gold seekers in 19th century Alaska entertaining themselves by watching TV in their RVs. Believe me, as a former teacher of history I would commit suicide if one of my students wrote such an essay. Just one more thing from bio, which I wanted to mention is that after coming to St.Petersburg, Russia at the age of 30 to study at the Imperial School of Law (there was no such thing in St. Petersburg in 1900) Kalmakoff joint the Skoptsy sect. Well, in 19th century people usually didn’t start their career and go to school at the age of 30, but never mind. Skoptsy was tiny, boorish, crazy sect initiation to which was ritual castration. what did Russian aristocrat had to do with it? Logically, it is absolutely clear why counterfeiters put skopsty in Kalmakov’s bio. This was the way of justification ascribing to Kalmakoff erotic and sexual imagery. As they said it themselves, ritual celibacy of skopsty subconsciously turned Kalmakoff to erotism. Apparently, in their ignorance authors of the bio didn’t find better justification for Kalmakoff’s erotism. It all could have been just funny if not for reaction of Russian internet on the appearance of Kalmakoff. Almost nobody dared to question introduction of the new artist, and if somebody did, it caused a response in the best traditions of Goebbels’ propaganda: if somebody doubts “the truth”, repeat it thousand times for them. Times when somebody was not 100% sure in existence of the new classic of the Russian art coincided with the appearance of new articles about Kalmakoff and dozens of the newfound masterpieces (by the way, all created in different styles). Suddenly the world became very flexible — poems of Russian classics were changed to incorporate the mentioning of Kalmakoff, books about classic appeared in the library of Stanford university and on Amazon. Partially the silence of Russian experts was explainable — every word against the ruling party could resulted in hundred new evidences of Kalmakoff, disappearance of books from archives, so it totally makes sense to remain silent otherwise the number of newfound works of Kalmakoff would exceed that of all other Russian artists together. I wrote this thoughts based on material which is closer to me and easier to explain, but unfortunately phenomena of counterfeit in art is not limited to Russia. Browsing fake images and names I meet similar ghost assigned to every land, so that after creating million dollars sales for the ghosts authors of the scam could come with hundreds of works to put money on their bank accounts. By nature I am very quite person and probably would not mind new edition of the art world if it were done with at least minimal degree of knowledge and professionalism. But when bunch of gangsters comes forward with their stolen billions and lack of knowledge of the grammar of any human language whatsoever; sorry I am against. Keep the world at least somewhat literate.

And to repeat what I've already told you, this is a well-documented artist who's been referenced in books going back decades. Unless you have some actual evidence that multiple academic publishers in multiple countries have been conspiring for decades to falsify history, Wikipedia is not going to host an article on your conspiracy theory. ‑ Iridescent 20:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tell me about multiple links and books going decades away. Please provide ONE, just ONE article from scholarly peer reviewed academic source (I hope that you know what it is) Regarding any of mentioning from google search you may also see that there is something wrong. There are no books about Kalamkoff. If you mean one on sale in Amazon - you are welcome to try to buy it. By the way, I need to alert Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladKSF (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC) And by the way, here is the report of speed deletion of one of the Kalmakoff drafts. http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Draft:Nicholas_Kalmakoff For some reason there is no log. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladKSF (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry for publishing here notes, actually draft, but here are some I started writing from online chart which I am afraid may be closed every minute now, but here they are:

The online forum/chat of Russian mafia (business people) on art forgeries. There is everything their - experts for whom to turn to get certificate for painters, drafts of biographies of ghost artists even hints on prices. Forum contains discussion about making “old” published books about artists, putting them on Amazon etc etc. Forum participants do not discuss counterfeit business openly, but it is pretty clear from conversation what are they talking about. I saw among other things a thread with initial version of Kalmakoff’s bio and edits suggested by participants.

Technologies The most common way is modification of the works of corresponding period. These business people buy everywhere old works of unknown painters, say early 20th century. In US such works are easily available for $1-10. In some remote areas of Russia you can but as cheap as 5-10 cents. They have technologies of some of the paints, but it costs a lot of money to buy, and may not give it to me, so I decided not to try. Anyway, not all the colors are available)))) So, they find a painting which is fit enough to be modified for this particular style, modify it and sign by author’s name. Consisting 100% of early 20th century materials, such painting is ready to pass any chemical expertise. Another, less common way is reattribution. If the work of art is really very fit to be modified, but it is signed the way original signature can not be removed than either signature could be proclaimed earlier fake, or with the help of reliable experts painting could be proclaimed the work of two artist. The most ambitious project in which was invested millions of dollars was re-attributing to Kalmakoff famous patriotic Estonian painting which previously considered to be work of Estonian artist Maximilian Maksolly. This project was accomplished with the use of friendly expert Bilybina. In the world of art, if an artifact is passing a chemical expertise the decisive word belongs to expert.

If you think that I am crazy - I also feel this way. When I read this online of Russian so-called art dealers. I thought that I am hallucinating! It is just UNBELIEVABLE. If I were writing a book of fiction, I would not dare to create such audacious plot. Participants of this “art dealers” forum didn’t even bother to protect their chats with some sort of security. Well it wouldn’t appear in the search engines like Google, but after I found a link in somebody's blog, it let me open all the pages - no secrets. But life is a final editor - I think that billions of dollars were transferred to Russia from European countries by ghost artist scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladKSF (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

What does one do if they are blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Try1st (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Try1st: Please see WP:GAB. Do you have another account that was blocked? GAB^gab 16:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Try1st If you're blocked, then a reason will have been given on the talkpage of the blocked account. You need to login to that account, and request an unblock using {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}. You would need to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked, and how you would behave differently and contribute to the encyclopedia if unblocked. It is not acceptable to create a new account for yourself, as this is sockpuppetry. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TINY MEEKER ALL-TIME BENCH PRESS WORLD RECORD

HELLO,

HOW OR WHY IS SOMEONE ABLE TO CHANGE OR TAKE DOWN MY WORLD RECORDS ON THE BENCH PRESS? I BROKE THE ALL-TIME RECORD 3 DIFFERENT TIMES. HERE IS 1076 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7t7DIbK3LU

Choose weight and equipment to see the top 100 in each area: Weight Class: Equipment: Sex: Division: Submit Weight Class: SHW Equipment: Multi-Ply Gender: Male Division: Open Rank Date State Name Total 1 2013-04-13 Texas Tiny Meeker 1076 2 2011-12-10 Ohio AJ Roberts 910 3 0000-00-00 California Roy Goodwin 843 4 0000-00-00 California Ray Bradshaw 843 5 2011-03-05 Connecticut Robert Mccray 840 6 2012-07-07 Ohio Tony Bolognone 825 7 2011-06-19 Alabama Jack Kottwitz 760 8 0000-00-00 Alabama Curtis Dennis 760 9 2014-03-08 Tennessee Ryan Hebron 755 10 2012-07-07 Ohio Josh Connelley 735 11 2013-05-25 Ohio Jake Anderson 725 12 2011-04-30 Ohio Matt Smith 725 13 2011-05-15 California Treston Shull 722 14 2012-01-28 Ohio Matt Smith 715 15 2011-11-12 Tennessee Mike Beaty 700 16 2014-03-08 Tennessee Jason Carter 620 17 2013-04-06 Oklahoma Chris Thompson 550 18 2014-10-25 Virginia Roscue Ware 540 19 2015-02-07 Tennessee Anthony Maddux 540 20 2010-10-02 Tennessee Scott Grandstaff 505 21 2010-06-06 Indiana Jesse Vest 475 22 2010-06-06 Indiana Jesse Vest 475 23 2010-06-06 Indiana Jesse Vest 475 24 0000-00-00 Georgia Kevin Crump 470

HERE IS 1080 AND 1102 FIRST MAN EVER AND ONLY TO BENCH PRESS 1100 POUNDS. 1102 -500 KILOS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQWh7A33z8M

THANK YOU

TINY MEEKER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinymeeker (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

youtube videos are not a reliable source...there would have to be an article by a reliable source describing what you've done..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this would probably work, however: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/columnists/chronicles/article/Humble-s-Tiny-Meeker-is-king-of-the-bench-5136906.php ...note: I can bench about 200 but with that much spot help and defining a bench press like that I could probably bench 600 :)68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page admin not responding to update requests

Hello,

I work for a PR/Marketing agency working with ShoreTel, and they are interested in making some corrections to their company wikipedia page. A edit request has been made on the Talk page, but the page admin is being unresponsive and we are unable to contact him. Is there an alternative/acceptable way to make page edits?

Thanks,

Hillary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjwerronen (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It was unreferenced promotional puffery. I have removed more advertisng of your "solutions" as well. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When suggesting edits, it's useful to provide reliable third-party sources (sources not written by or commissioned by the company) for that information, as all information on Wikipedia is based on such sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link ShoreTel. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjwerronen: There is no "page admin". Everyone here is able to edit most every article on Wikipedia. I've left a welcome message on your talk page that has links which might help you understand Wikipedia more. Dismas|^(talk) 21:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures upload

I want to upload pictures of my city on it's Wikipedia page,so what can I do?? How to upload the pics?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.185.217 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright status of said images and why? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you took the pictures yourself, see WP:UPLOAD. Note: You'll need to create an account. Dismas|^(talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does use of Template:Current attract more editor attention, making it easier for articles to develop faster?

Example: The well-known EgyptAir_Flight_804 has had a lot of coverage recently, but soon after that, there was also Korean_Air_Flight_2708.

I'm wondering if one reason the latter event has less coverage might be because it did not use the {{current}} template. (I know it was a much smaller event, but I'm also curious if the template can affect anything.)

Question: Would adding the {{current}} template somehow help attract more attention from editors to help articles develop more? Thanks~:) Zeniff (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the biggest thing is that everyone survived that incident. Dismas|^(talk) 23:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems dark Dismas.... I would think that coverage depends on the scope and depth of the incident (one such scope would be mortalities). -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I calls 'em like I sees 'em! I find it amusing that you, The Voidwalker, accuse me of being dark and then point out the very same thing that I was pointing out: the lack of mortalities. Dismas|^(talk) 04:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is dark, but it is what it is. However, I was trying to use a more general statement for which can be applied to more than just the one example. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 12:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I sounded too specific by using that example. I mainly meant to ask about Template:Current in general. I mean, does the template itself help to attract editors in some way, maybe in some similar ways as the Main_Page or Watchlist do by showing recently-edited articles? I hope that makes sense? o.o? (As for the earlier example, I was only considering the template on there if a template like that can be used to attract more editors to help it develop, which is what made me wonder about the template in general) Zeniff (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To try to answer your question... I'm going to say that we probably can't answer your question. Not definitively. In order to see really test it out, we'd need two articles of relatively the same importance and put the tag on just one of them. You could perhaps go into the history and count edits to various current event type articles both before and after the tag was applied. But again, there are a lot of outside factors to consider such as the even being publicized in the news. Dismas|^(talk) 04:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your ideas. :) After looking more at {{Template:Current}} and seeing that it says it adds pages to Category:Current_events, I guess editors who might want to help develop current event articles could maybe just keep those categories in their Special:Watchlist or maybe use Special:RecentChanges with some kind of specific settings (or some of the "Utilities" it has at top). I guess that's the best that I could think of. Thanks again and have a great day:) Zeniff (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]