Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 April 12

< Wikipedia:Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< April 11 << Mar | April | May >> April 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.


April 12

edit

Conflict of interest template

edit

I'm concerned about the article on Zondervan, and I want to template it. The tone of the article itself is fairly NPOV and doesn't read like much of an ad, but it is concerning that all of the sources are Zondervan, and doesn't mention anything about the Zondervan pornography controversy, in which several prominent Christian leaders have criticised Zondervan for its connection to pornography through its owner, Rupert Murdoch of News Corp. The template I'm looking for would say something like:

  • Most or all of this article's sources are all from the publisher this article is about. Please help by expanding the article or adding neutral sources!

All of that article's sources are either:

  • Zondervan's web site
  • A book of Zondervan's history published by Zondervan
  • A book of Zondervan's history published by a parent company (HarperCollins)
  • A press release by one of Zondervan's partners, announcing the partnership (Logos, Benson Music)

Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also -- whether or not the argument over porn, Satanism, or other dubious connections has any merit, it is a fact that most or all of that article's sources are from the company itself. That, alone, seems concerning to me. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does {{third-party}} strike you?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. That'll probably do just nicely. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

edit

We are looking for a mailing address as we intend to take Wikipedia to Our local court in New Jersey Reason being that your org has stop anyone from using our Name Foodfacts.com and taking all references to our company off your site Thank you Stanley Rak [details removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.216.42 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This forum is for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia, not for announcing legal action or asking for legal advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to hypothesize that this is User:IngredientsMaster, who tried twice to create spammy "articles" about foodfacts.com, the first of which was deleted as a copyright violation and the second as obvious spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:IngredientMaster I assume? DMacks (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. They're suing because they can't have an article here?
As if anyone believes you tried at all. I had to look up the joke - it's a Wikipedia-only joke if I understand properly after doing 30 seconds of research.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll volunteer to create the foodfacts.com article, with a link to this page saying that they threatened to sue Wikipedia on 12 April 2011, or would that be original research? ;-) Jsharpminor (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be original research. We don't have verification that 98.221.216.42 is from the site. And if we had that verification then the incident would seem non-notable for mention in an article about the site. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Rak: Allow me to attempt to explain in more detail what's going on here.

If, in fact, your company is notable in its own right, you probably don't even need to bother creating an article, someone else will do it for you -- and threatening to sue us won't help. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, some background at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheEatery/Archive. --CliffC (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The site is blacklisted, so one could assume they just discovered that by trying to add a new link. --CliffC (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Should I strikethrough my fourth point? Or should I assume that the blacklist simply resulted from this site being spammed to the wiki, and future notability would revert the blacklisting? Jsharpminor (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be clarified that the link is blacklisted because it was used inappropriately but that if used properly and in good taste it can be removed from said list? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit like suing a homeowner for refusing to let you into his house after he has caught you stealing a few times. Hilarious.
  • Hint 1: Wikipedia is not a public service. It's not obligated to publish or mention your company in any way whatsoever. In the same way that I can't demand to be mentioned in your site.
  • Hint 2: Wikipedia is not a billboard for your ads, if you took the time to read the policies you would have known that easily. It's free and user-contributed, that doesn't give you the license to abuse it for monetary gain.
  • Hint 3: Threatening legal action is not helping you get into the good side of the thousands of international editors currently in Wikipedia.
I say keep them on the blacklist until they understand what they're doing wrong.--Obsidi♠nSoul 05:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

edit

I have recently found a bot that has been approved, but I have concerns that it may be used against project policies. Which is the right place to voice my concerns? Cambalachero (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Bot policy#Dealing with issues. I found that by going to WP:BOT and poking around. Dismas|(talk) 02:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
edit

I would like to know how would one do a normal seach on a search engine and my wiki info pops up.Like when I search for people on google and their wiki info pops up with autobiographical info. This is what I wantAJ KELLI (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article about you on Wikipedia? Also note that it there is, the Wikipedia article is not yours, it's about you. Many people seem to forget =) 212.68.15.66 (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure what he means there. But there are plugins for different browsers that integrate Wikipedia into search engines. Try here and here. Disclaimer: I have not used any of them. Use them at your own risk. :P --Obsidi♠nSoul 05:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that they're talking about self promotion such as this. In which case, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY would be the best thing for them to read. Dismas|(talk) 05:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page View Statistics

edit

I see that the Page View Statistics under View History for the article Greeks in New Zealand shows that 0 people have viewed this article the last few days which I think is incorrect especially since i have visited this site a few times on each of these days. Is there aproblem that can be fixed? Thanks. Edititok

It looks like the Page View Statistics figures are currently broken for all pages. Several people have already notified the person who maintains the tool. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reprinting article I wrote from MormonWiki to Wikipedia

edit

I wrote an article on MormonWiki and would like to put it on Wikipedia. Other people have attempted to write the article here, but at the time, there wasn't enough reliable published sources. I believe there is enough now. Can I copy my article with a few changes, like removing the religious citations? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargieM10 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably not. For one, all articles must abide by the WP:NPOV policy (all information have to neutrally worded, verifiable from third party reliable references, and facts not held as true by scientific consensus not given undue weight). An article coming from the MormonWiki about Mormons has a very high chance of being biased. Secondly, there is nothing in MormonWiki that indicates that its text are released under a license compatible with Wikipedia (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are two such compatible licenses), copying text verbatim from there (even if you wrote it) would constitute a copyright violation and be deleted on sight. Still, if you think your article can be included, you might want to check with other editors interested in the same areas as they might be interested in collaborating. See WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement --Obsidi♠nSoul 08:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I should have been more clear, the article has nothing to do with being Mormon with the exception of mentioning that he is indeed Mormon. So I don't think the LDS Project wouldn't be a place to get help. Could you perhaps direct me to a group doing articles on YouTube personalities? How do I find people who wish to colab? I'm not worried about writing it, I'm just not confident in my Wiki skills (none) to do it myself. Thanks for helping! MargieM10 (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gotcha. Still, be aware that copying text that has already been published online under a non-compatible license will still count as a copyright violation, whatever the subject. The easiest solution is to simply reword the article.
You might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, even if no one volunteers to collaborate, that page contains advice on how to write biographies in line with Wikipedia's policies. You might find those helpful. This is also required reading for anyone wishing to write a biography of a living person: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the rules for which are stricter than other subjects.
But before that please ensure that your subject meets the notability criteria outlined here: Wikipedia:Notability (people). And please also consider writing a draft first through WP:WIZ and having it reviewed. This ensures that you can work on the draft for as long as you like (there are no deadlines for drafts created in userspace) while making sure that you meet the guidelines. Posting it directly on mainspace will only make it far more likely for it be deleted immediately due to one problem or another. I have also posted some helpful links in your talk page. If you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask me directly on my talk page or post here again. (I can't offer to colab though, so sorry for that, heh) And an advice: the actual formatting and whatnot (the one requiring wiki skills) is of secondary importance to adhering to policies (particularly with providing enough independent and reliable sources), so worry about the policies first, formatting can be done later --Obsidi♠nSoul 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree about licensing: it's perfectly acceptable to add content you wrote to Wikipedia even if you've licensed it elsewhere under different terms. It would be different if, rather than licensing it, you had granted the copyright to MormonWiki, or if you had written it for an employer. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem with using text published elsewhere under a different license is that there is no way anyone can be sure that the user is the same person as the one who wrote it on another site. In absence of evidence otherwise, it has to be assumed that the license in the other copy holds. The only way through this is through OTRS of course, outlined here: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.--Obsidi♠nSoul 02:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable or OR on its face?

edit

Paul Johnson (writer) is a widely published author, who is notable in a variety of disciplines from journalism to history. If referring specifically to material in one of his books on history, is the following no-wiki construct acceptable for notable relevance, or just WP:OR on its face:
Historian [[Paul Johnson (writer)|Paul Johnson]]
Thanks and regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of his article specifies that he's a historian. So I don't see a problem with referring to him as such. Or am I misunderstanding the question? Dismas|(talk) 07:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You understood perfectly, as I intended, but the construct does include the inherent question. Resolved and thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nip it in the bud

edit

we're having a disagreement at tempo (chess) I keep posting something in the article and this user Quale keep changing it back, is there a way to get a vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.152.93 (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be a "vote", as such, but why not join in the discussion that has already begun on the article talk page? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes take it to the talk page - that is why talk pages exist. BTW both of you are running the risk of a 3RR block - the rule applies to any repetitive reversions regardless of the purpose or motive. Roger (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Except for the reversion of blatant vandalism) – ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article reads like an advertisement.

edit

This article should not read like an advertisement, and instead be a factual encyclopedic entry (or not an entry at all). I also fear there is a copyright violation, you can see this by "google-ing" parts of the first paragraphs. Thank you. A retired user - 08:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged it for copyvio. The page seems to have been put together by copypasting different parts from different sources without modifying them. If an admin reads this, I also recommend checking the other contributions of the author, User:Defabritus.--Obsidi♠nSoul 09:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the editor's only major contribution (others edits consist of adding a link to this article). RJFJR (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for checking. :) To be fair, the subject is notable, but like A retired user noted above, the tone is very unencyclopedic in addition to it being a copyvio.--Obsidi♠nSoul 17:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NBTVlive

edit

<<advertising removed>>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbtv (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT use Wikipedia for advertising. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.
Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article.

Slashed tables

edit

I was considering how to present information in a table. The table I have in mind is inherently three-dimensional, but of course that won't display well since roughly 100% of Wikipedia viewers see it in two (or fewer!) dimensions, e.g. on monitors. The paper table I sketched out splits table cells in two, or crudely represented: 

+------+-----+-
|     /|     /|
|  A / |  C / |
|   /  |   /  |
|  /   |  /   |
| / B  | / D  |
|/     |/     |/
+------+-----+-
|     /|     /|

Is there a good way to do this, or alternately a different solution to my problem? The purpose is to organize the data so that similar things are in analogous positions; displaying the data in separate tables defeats the purpose. I suppose I could just write

A / B C / D 
. . .

. . .

but this is visually unappealing esp. since the actual text is longer (say 25-75 characters rather than 1).

CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not follow your explanation of what you want the table to appear as but I do have a possibly relevant idea. Can you create the table offline in some image program in the form you would want it to display? If so, you could then save that as an image file, upload the image to the Commons, then add the image to the article. This way it will display however you made it, without needing to render it with wikicode.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but then I wouldn't be able to use wikilinks.
All I'm trying to do is display two triangular 'cells' in a single table cell, maybe with a template. Hopefully it would let text wrap properly (so the text, left-to-right, in a rectangular cell might be aaaa b on the first line, aaa bb on the second, aa bbb on the third, etc., where the different letters represent text from the two different triangular sub-cells.)
CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note from work: I think you could make any part of the image link using an image map.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how can i get my page re-reviewed?

edit

There was a copyright issue for pepid knowledge base and pepid. Since permission for use of content from their website has been sent to wikipedia. How can I request that both pages are re-reviewed? Particulary PEPID as the content has been blocked completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilliamspepid (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're affiliated with PEPID. Please clarify your concerns. Have your pages been deleted? They may have been tagged for deletion because it fell under an advertisement category. User:Goswamir14 talk- www.rohangoswami.webs.com 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the OPs articles, PEPID Knowledge Base. GB fan (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think her post here, however, is mostly with reference to a rejected AfC, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PEPID and/or a reworked draft, User:Awilliamspepid/PEPID. —teb728 t c 19:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wont let me change my article's Title

edit

I cant change the Title of my article. It currently reads:

User:Jacob DeGering/Joseph C. Fratto, Jr

or it can be reached at the direct link of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jacob_DeGering/Joseph_C._Fratto,_Jr

I need to delete my name and leave it at: Joseph C. Fratto, Jr

Please Help!!

If it is an easy fix and someone can just change it, that would be great!

Jacob DeGering (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please submit it for review first by placing the following code on top of your draft and then saving it: 
{{subst:AFC submission/submit}}
If successful it should show a yellow box saying "Review pending". The reviewer will take care of renaming it for you if the article is accepted.--Obsidi♠nSoul 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Moved, as requested. The move option is available as a drop-down just to the right of the watch button. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the standard things have begun (Categorizing, changing sections, etc.) :)Naraht (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding logo to Infobox on article "University of South Dakota School of Law"

edit

Dear Sir/Madam:

I can't figure out how to do add the same logo from the Infobox on the "University of South Dakota" page to the Infobox on the "University of South Dakota School of Law" page. Any help you can give is much appreciated.

Caleb aka "5acrepool" (Redacted) 5acrepool (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done; just copy the line from one infobox and paste in the other. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images up to their old tricks

edit

File:TivertonTown.png is not showing up, refusing to appear on the article page, the image page, and not even on the blank page. Why is this? Velociraptor888 19:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please reply

Seems to be displaying fine for me, have you tried purging your cache? See Wikipedia:Purge. Rehevkor ✉ 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work for me either. I have cleaned out the temporary internent files on my computer and purged the cache also without any results. I am running Win XP Pro SP3 with IE7. GB fan (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It works fine for me: Win7/FireFox 3.6.16 Jarkeld (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, works for me in Firefox 4/Win 7. But if I try to view in IE 8, nadda. Rehevkor ✉ 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: no-go on IE8 Jarkeld (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very strange, it works for me with Vista + Opera & Firefox 4.0 but not IE8 Dbfirs 20:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same for me. Any tested size reduction displays for me in preview with IE8, but the original fails. I guess the original file contains something IE8 doesn't like, and it's removed when MediaWiki rescales. You can remove comment tags in the source to preview, but don't save with the fair use image displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get the same problem viewing the source page with IE8. So apparently the problem is not in the handling on our servers. —teb728 t c 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Buckley

edit

Could I get an administrator to remove the latest revision to this article by Kcxo715 and protect the page from further vandalism? Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and reported the user to AIV as a vandalism-only account. I don't think revision deletion is necessary at this point since the edits are run-of-the-mill vandalism and Olivia Buckley is not a BLP. Protection is not necessary either because only Kcxo715 (talk · contribs) has vandalized this article. No one else has targeted it. Goodvac (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2011_April_12&oldid=1142597151"