Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 October 29

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< October 28 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 30 >
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.


October 29

edit

Ready for Submission page replaced

edit

Someone has replaced the Ready for Submission page with the article they're wanting to submit. Is there any other way to post an article? Danaphile (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I have restored it.
I'm just about to head for the office - but someone needs to userfy the misplaced draft article -- John of Reading (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user's actually copied it into articlespace at Henry Martyn Congdon already, so I think that's covered. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-encyclopedic picture?

edit

I'm not sure where to raise this, so please forgive me if this is the wrong place. I am concerned that the picture in the article Princess Anna of Montenegro, is non-encyclopedic. It has been colourised. Although it is very pretty and much nicer on the eye than the original black and white version, it includes all sorts of non-encyclopedic 'original research' or taste choices by the uploader. People looking at the photo might think minor royalty of Montegnegro wore pale blue trousers or green sashes. They may well have done, but we don't know that, and to suggest it in a photo that the casual viewer might not realise has been colourised in recent times is misleading. I also wonder whether the uploader has been doing this to other photos, and whether he/she should be asked to stop. Colourising is a considerable step further in manipulating and changing the photo than cropping or rotating. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is on this, but feel it can't be condoned, surely? 86.159.192.30 (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well be contemporary colouring. It was not unusual for photos back then to be handcoloured, especially photos of celebrities. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a user has uploaded a colour version which looks contemporary and the black and white images appear to be smaller black and white copies of the colour version. Certainly doesnt appear to have been recently coloured and the coloured images are bigger in area. MilborneOne (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bot

edit
  Resolved
 – thanks everyone

hello,

i want to create a bot, which adding {{WP-Tennis}} to discussion pages of atp and wta tour articles. this bot should add them, shortly after and user create an article of a tournament. my question is now: can i create this bot or isn't it allowed? thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find Wikipedia:Bot policy helpful. (Among other things, you have to request approval before running a bot.)--SPhilbrickT 12:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i red it already, not really a help. i just want to know if its k -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can create the bot, but you're not allowed to run it until you've received approval from the bot approvals group. You should review the submission process before continuing. TNXMan 15:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would venture to suggest that if your grasp of the English language is not sufficient to understand the bot policy, you may have difficulty persuading anyone to let you run a bot.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you request an existing bot to do this work. See Wikipedia:Bot requests. There are alredy many bots doing such work in Category:WikiProject tagging bots. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have one more question: what programming language is the simplest, because im a noob in causa programming. thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most bots are programmed in Perl. Dismas|(talk) 10:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity in edit summaries

edit
  Resolved
 – Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just rolled-back a vandal attack at Talk:Vertical boiler with horizontal fire-tubes. Since the anon editor created a new section and included profanities in the section heading, these are now perpetually visible in the article History. Is there anything that can or should be done about this (eg to hide or remove the text)?

In this case the language visible is just a bit childish, really, but that's not really the point.

EdJogg (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have revision deleted under WP:CFRD#3.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was easy, thank you!
This is thankfully rare (in my watchlist at least) but, for future reference, is there a better page to request such assistance?
EdJogg (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answered my own question: The mechanism used here is 'Revision deletion'; a tool which is tightly controlled and used sparingly, and only available to administrators. Further instructions for reporting cases may be found at CAT:RFRD
EdJogg (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look from an experienced editor, please

edit
  Resolved
 – Per comments below. Saebvn (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please take a look at the link below. I posted yesterday to another noticeboard, and it may not be getting attention there and/or may be on an incorrect noticeboard. Thanks. Saebvn (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some digging in the early days of the redirect histories led me to an alternate page. What Wikipedia thinks it is originally redirected to Wikipedia:Itself, but that was in turn moved to Wikipedia:Self-claims so that 'Itself' could be a new redirect to WP:SELF. So I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Self-claims.
I have corrected What Wikipedia thinks it is to suit. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes much better sense. Thanks, EdJogg; appreciate your kind assistance! Am marking as "resolved." Saebvn (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching a Word Document

edit

Is there a method or service thta would allow the text of my word document to be searched for wikipedia articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveMcGann (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want to highlight words in your document that have Wikipedia articles associated with them? TNXMan 17:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am either looking for wikipedia to searcha specific word document ttha I authored and find links to wikipedia articles, or I am looking for WORd to search the contents of the document for Wikipedia for relevant articles.

In short I am looking to aviod having to go through a document by hand and looking to see if concepts cited in the document have associated wikipedia articles to which I can link —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveMcGann (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to talk to Microsoft about adding that functionality to their software; it's nothing we can do here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eager to publish!

edit

Wikipedia

The belief of people on you for obtaining the information/knowledge is incredible. However, if someone wishes to add the information without the references (as you require) which is not available because of very different concept, you shall encourage the individual and publish; or what should be done in regard to the concept.

Link: lostphd.weebly.com If you can find the correlation with any piece of information, that may work. This is my sincere request to you.

Grateful to you.

Sushil S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.132.98 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about how to write a new article on Wikipedia, see WP:YFA, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOTABLE. --Teratornis (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sushil. As was explained here after your last question on this subject, Wikipedia 'does not publish original research, and only permits articles on subjects that can be referenced to reliable sources. I appreciate you're eager to get your new ideas more widely known, but you cannot use Wikipedia to do so, I'm afraid. The only encouragement we can offer is for you to find other ways of getting your ideas known and generally accepted; if this happens, then they will eventually become eligible for a Wikipedia article. Good luck. Karenjc 09:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afd nomination for deletion

edit

I'm not certain if my nomination is complete. Need some assistance in understanding how to properly nominate for deletion and complete the process.l —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibox (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so here's what happened. Bruce Lefkowitz was nominated by Buckshotshorty on October 27[1], an AfD page was created but the page was never listed in the AfD log[2]. Then Tizwitch nominated the article for deletion a second time on October 29 [3] and created a second AfD page [4] (still not listed in the AfD logs). Then I came and copied the comments from the second nomination page to the first and left an explanation on both pages [5][6] and listed it in the AfD log. Can someone make sure that my changes were ok, I didn't seem like there should be two nominations before one had closed.
For Sibox, you can read about the AfD nomination process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. There is also a tool called Twinkle that you can use to help you through the process. It will do most of the work for you. All that you have to do is fill in the reason for deletion. The tool can be installed in your gadgets under your preferences. Hopefully this was the article you were talking about. Let me know if you have further questions--D•g Talk to me/What I've done 21:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Unauthorized Bot

edit
  Resolved

Where do I go to check that an account is an authorized bot account? If it's not an authorized bot account then where do I go to report a suspicion of a normal user account being used by a bot? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the username of the account? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Bots/Status seems to provide an up-to-date list of all accounts that identify themselves as authorized bot accounts. As for reporting a likely unauthorized bot, it would probably be best to approach the user, and if that doesn't work out, take it to the administrator's noticeboard and/or bot owners' noticeboard. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SuperHamster. I'll keep an eye on things and, if needs be, follow your advice. Thanks again. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the suspected bot account a trick question. If you can't make sense of the answer, the user is a normal human :) Else, if the answer's intelligent and correct, it surely is a bot account. Wifione ....... Leave a message

Unjustified deleted edits

edit

I am a top "masters" level certified industry expert in the field of high quality man-made water features with over 25 years of verifiable service. I work directly with the 2010 top Water Feature Contractor of the Year for all of North America. I made several edit contributions for existing articles and they were all deleted. I sit on the board of directors for the organization that is ultimately responsible for the "worlds" definitions in this particular field and serve on the committee that writes these industry definitions and usage intentions for all of the topics I edited. Some of the deletions were made by people I personally do not feel are qualified to make that judgement call. Who would know better about the true meaning of a term for a specific industry than the industry organization that sets those definitions in place and the people in that industry that sit on the organizations committee writing those definitions?

Who do I correspond with about this. I believe I have a lot of sound, verifiable, valued and beneficial information to share with your readers. However...it does no good to add this information if someone is just going to delete it! Our industry definitons were sorted and changed and altered over a two year period by hundreds of comments by dozens of qualified industry officials and professionals with great care until exact terminology and true definitons were established. Why would Wikipedia not want this most up to date and accurate information posted on their site? And why would someone outside of this industry change or remove those well defined phrases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wburny (talk • contribs) 22:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your work was reverted by User:Velella who has already contacted you at User talk:Wburny#Creek, Brook etc. You can reply there or at User talk:Velella. See Help:Using talk pages. Wikipedia is a general international encyclopedia. It is not aimed at people in a certain industry (like man-made water features), country or continent. Your American industry definitions of common English words may not correspond to how other people around the world use those words. Without knowing much about the topic, I don't think any organization has the authority to define what common words like river, stream, creek and brook should mean to everybody in the world. Also note that Wikipedia works by consensus. It sounds like Velella knows about former editor discussions about these topics. Experts are welcome but they are not allowed to control a topic alone. Your edits are more likely to be accepted if you make citations to published reliable sources, but see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you want to cite your own organization. Note that Creek is a disambiguation page which is only intended to guide readers to an article about the meaning they are interested in. Disambiguation pages are not real articles and are not used to write details about the topic. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use this Creative Commons material?

edit

I'm on a Random Page cleanup, and I used this page to help me source Maungatua. However, I noticed that the website is actually licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 New Zealand Licence. Can I incorporate the text directly if I attribute it?----occono (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should never directly quote a webpage, unless you are directly quoting a webpage. Summarize the information, wikify it if it applies, and cite the author. Thats all.  A p3rson ‽ 23:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well I've already found an example today that does, which I assume made it okay: William Jay Smith (Tennessee politician), which is a direct copy of the page on the Congress Biograpghy site, which it attributes. That's Public Domain, though.----occono (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just please remember that attribution is always nice, and that copying is always frowned upon, legal or not. Also, there are subtle differences between CC-BY-SA 3.0 generic and the individual country licenses, many of which can make a difference in the legality of copying licensed material. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's frowned upon, why is there a template for it?----occono (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Occono. The answer is a clear no. You cannot copy the content you have quoted here. As per the reference you have provided, "All text and images are copyright to the original authors and/or publishers where a work remains in copyright." Due to the fact that the website has not clearly differentiated what work is copyright and what isn't, and due to the fact that the website has clearly mentioned its copyright claim (© 2008 Victoria University of Wellington), you cannot and should not copy the text or images. Do kindly read up Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Creative Commons licenses for more details. Write back for further assistance. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess I'll have to look over how Creative Commons works a bit more. I wasn't going to copy again without asking first, I promise. :) ----occono (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2010_October_29&oldid=1144602430"