Help desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

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.

August 3

Website

I want to write an Article about a subject(which I feel Isn't currently on Wikipedia) and am thinking about putting a link or two of my website where people can purchase the product that I will be writing about. My website also has some good reference as well to help with the page that i want to write. The page will be written in a encyclopedic manner and as a neutral party.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilova22 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote sales of your product. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Spam, and What Wikipedia is Not for more information about our policies against this sort of behavior. --Jayron32 02:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article Dlasta get deleted

I don't mind if someone wants to delete the Dlasta article. I understand if it has to be done. 00:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptunekh2 (talk • contribs)

If you feel it should be deleted, then you should nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. However, I don't see why it should be deleted. It needs some expansion and cleanup, but I don't think that, as a topic, it doesn't deserve an article at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beside that it has only one source, and it is massively plagerized, copying that source almost word for word. —teb728 t c 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is that. But, presumably someone could simply write it fully in their own words, and that would solve that problem. It's still mainly a cleanup issue. --Jayron32 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related thread on ANI. Chzz ► 05:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wiki (except for reading); I do not know where to go to address an issue.

I have recently read an article (actually, this was labeled a stub... but it did have a not-small amount of information).

It was very helpful, I'm very glad it was there, and in no way do I want to 'complain' about the article. I am quite grateful that it was there because it helped me quite a bit.

However, there were some issues with the article in terms of the writing/proofreading, such that it made some of the information that was being conveyed a bit ambiguous. Maybe the writer knows and doesn't care, but by the quality of the page, I'm inclined to believe they don't know there might be an area that could be changed to make it better.

As I said, I'm new to wiki. I know enough to know that there isn't a central group maintaining every single page on a micro level, but that's as far as I know. I don't know what I'm supposed to do to mention that an article needs a clarification in a certain place. In some of the FAQ trees I've read, I have seen where I might start if I know there's a fact issue, but in this case it's not that a fact is incorrect, but that it is unclear what the fact is.

So, I don't know where to start. I don't really know if this is the place to ask where to start, so I apologize if I have chosen the wrong place to go first. Regardless, I would be very much appreciative if I could be thrown a proverbial lifeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreyRichards (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas for you:

If you can fix up the article yourself, please do so. Everyone, almost literally every single person, here at Wikipedia got started like you: noticing something small that they could fix; which they did, and then got hooked.
If you can't fix the article because you're not sure what is wrong, there is a good chance that the article is maintained by a WikiProject. Check the article talk page (click the discussion tab) and see if there is a "WikiProject" maintaining it; if there is you can go to the WikiProject page and notify someone there.
If you can't find any information about a WikiProject maintaining the article, if you can post the specific name of the article here, maybe someone can give you more guidance.

If no one has done so, let me be the first to welcome you to Wikipedia, and I hope you find your stay good! --Jayron32 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle's tag functionality.

In addition to the above,

4. We have a number of template messages that you can add to the top of an article, which a) put a box at the top, explaining a concern, and b) put the article into a category, so that people know it needs attention. For example, {{copy edit}}, {{POV}}, {{expert-subject}}. Note that it is best to elaborate on the discussion page (see below). There are other messages that can be added to specific parts of the article, e.g. {{unreferenced section}}, and some can be added inline, e.g. {{fact}}. The page Wikipedia:Template messages lists them, and there is a gadget called Twinkle which makes it easier to add these tags (see pic).

5. General comments about an article should be put on the article discussion page - which is also called a talk page. For example, to comment on the article on Sausage, you'd leave messages on Talk:Sausage. See Help:Using talk pages. Chzz ► 03:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posts deleted

Everytime I post a page link is deleted, why??? The source is correct!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.132.95.110 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:External links for more information; in general Wikipedia articles should NOT link to someone's social media accounts (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.). This was also explained to you on your user talk page. --Jayron32 04:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

adding to an article.

How do I add an LP to a recording artists list of LP's which is now mistakenly listed as "complete" The artist is Alirio Diaz and the LP is "Récital de guitare Nº 1" I could also insert a photo of the album cover if someone told me how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.44.76 (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article does not contain a discography. The "Discography" link leads to an external site, http://www.aliriodiaz.org/disco.htm. To request a change there you would have to contact the administrators of that site.

Thank you for your offer of a photo. However, since the album cover is almost certainly copyrighted, it cannot be used here to illustrate the Wikipedia article on the guitarist. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference question

Hi there, We have edited Nicola Emmanuelle (a living person) to Wikipedia, and we have entered references/reliable source to it, but WIkipedia is still not happy. Could you please tell us what we're doing wrong and help us to bring Nicola Emmanuelle's page up?

That would be very kind! Thank a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.46.128 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There appears to be some concern over the sourcing for this page. For example, there are multiple mentions of her working relationships with George Fenton and other noted musicians, which are not sourced. Whilst one review has been included as a reference, it does not demonstrate her notability, which is the benchmark for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can track down and include reliable sources which both indicate Nicola Emmanuelle's notable status per WP:BAND and demonstrate that the statements about her are verifiable, you can remove the article template. Yunshui (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Standard is a reliable source, so I have removed the "unsourced biography" deletion notice. As User:Yunshui says, the article still needs work, and other editors may choose to add other kinds of maintenance tag to it. You say "we have edited", which leads to wonder if you are Emmanuelle's agent or similar. If so, please check the conflict of interest guidelines. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We have edited..." - why the plural? Who is 80.171.46.128? Possibly a COI "role account"? Roger (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An unregisterred IP address cannot be a "role account". There is no prohibition against multiple people editing from the same IP address, and we can't really stop that. --Jayron32 12:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I flag users?

I want to flag Kneedle because of his biased editing. He keeps deleting my contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericdxx (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has done no such thing recently. You haven't edited, prior to yesterday, since May 15 and none of your recent edits have been reverted or deleted. I don't see where you have ANY basis for complaint against any user given what your recent editing history shows. --Jayron32 12:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be related to edits to Rob Barnett. Made a month and a half ago. Яehevkor ✉ 12:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Which I have re-reverted, as it's only weakly (if at all) supported by the source) Яehevkor ✉ 12:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ericdxx's last edit to that article was July 1, 2010, which was 13 months ago. Unless he is intentionally disguising his identity to cover his tracks since then, it seems rediculously arbitrary for Ericdxx to try to drag someone over the coals for an edit made 13 months ago, even if he had been in the right. I make not statement on whether or not he was or was not in the right, just that 13 months is a LONG time to hold a grudge... --Jayron32 12:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary wikilink

Is there a better way to link to Wiktionary definitions than the clumsiness I just committed in Jonathan Agnew's biography? I'm sure there is, but [[wkt:]] didn't seem to work... --Dweller (talk)

It's wikt: ... You missed the "i". See Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects for a list of prefixes for sister projects. --Jayron32 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! <smacks forehead> TRM got it anyway. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Coul you transfer File:No Talking Just Head.jpg on Commons. It is not so elaborate for the copyright.--95.247.175.165 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Commons can only accept free content. It can not accept images released under Fair Use laws. See Commons:Licensing.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that the album cover meets the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection. It's just simple text and red and white squares. If I am right, then it does qualify for transfer to Commons as {{PD-simple}}. – ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually would disagree with that. Even simple colored geometric shapes and the arangement thereof represent creative choices, otherwise wouldn't the artworks of Piet Mondrian have been in the public domain? This is clearly a case where one could make a case that it was PD, but one could also make a substantially good case that it wasn't, and at Wikipedia we should always default to the more conservative approach WRT copyright: for borderline cases where we can't be exactly sure how, say, a court of law would decide, we should default to assuming that the work is copyrightable and not free. --Jayron32 18:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only said that it wasn't clear that it was copyrightable... – ukexpat (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheBeatles68LP.jpg is on Commons, but I would agree—the album art here in question is not as obvious. Maybe this should be brought up at WP:Media copyright questions? —Akrabbim^talk 13:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for naming articles about buildings

As I discussed earlier here, I've been working on editing Bloomberg articles and I have a question about naming the Bloomberg Tower article. I'm wondering if it's better to re-name the article "731 Lexington Avenue" or keep it named "Bloomberg Tower". Is there a standard for naming articles about buildings? I appreciate your help. Ordwayen (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can try asking in WikiProject Architecture or WikiProject Skyscrapers. They may have a specific manual of style when it comes to article names on buildings.

But usually, article titles are the names by which a subject is most commonly known as (Recognizability). In this case, I think 'Bloomberg Tower' is a more common name for the building. See Wikipedia:Article titles.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of deleted article?

How I can know how many articles have been deleted on Wikipedia since it's inception? 92.156.11.199 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked hard myself, but if you are going to find that information, some places to start looking would be Wikipedia:Statistics or Wikipedia:Database reports. --Jayron32 14:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the closest I've found Jebus989 ^✰ 14:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that just an article being deleted does not mean that we don't have an article covering that subject. There are duplicate articles created with a variant of the name of the existing article, or a defective article (copyright violation, for instance) might have been deleted and later a properly sourced article created on the same subject. Sometimes a vandal repeatedly creates the same inappropriate article. Edison (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Links to Richard Ebeling

He left a message that I received that he felt that listing these articles was somehow a "conflict of interest" or "unverified."

Well, I am Richard Ebeling, and the articles are "real," and I don't see how listing links to some of one's own articles is a "conflict of interest."

With all due respect, I consider this outrageous behavior, particularly since "CRETOG8(t/c)" clearly disagrees with the economic theory and policy views that I hold from the way he phrases his comment.

So who, here, is guilty of a "conflict of interest"?

I presume that there is no problem about my going into the page about myself, and reconstructing the section with links to some of my articles?

I would very much appreciate a verification that there is no problem with my doing this.

Most cordially,

Dr. Richard Ebeling Professor of Economics Northwood University Midland, Michigan, USA 14:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Ebeling (talk • contribs)

Without getting into the substance of what CRETOG8(t/c)'s personal opinion on the economic theory is in this case, one thing you Richard Ebeling should do is read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the definition of what that behavior means at Wikipedia. It is a specific set of behaviors, and your use of the term above shows that you don't actually understand what is meant by the term at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 15:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Wikipedia is not the place for promotion, neither is it a public directory or a personal profile/resumé. External links, particularly to commercial products or websites, are used as sparingly as possible and are not normally placed in the body of the article.

Also see Wikipedia:Autobiography.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you adding to your article is practically the very definition of conflict of interest. That said, you have written a great deal, much of it in highly respected journals, so it would be a service to our readers to let them know how to find your writings. What is not acceptable is a single long list dropped into the middle of the article. Frankly, it didn't look very professional. There are better ways. For example, it might be appropriate to directly link to representative examples, or award winning examples, and add a link to an external site that lists every article. The best thing to do is to make a proposal on the article talk page, and editors will consider the best options. Talk pages sometimes are slow moving, but I'll make a point of watching that talk page and helping with the discussion.SPhilbrick T 16:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to reach consensus on minor update to BLP

Hello, I proposed a few minor changes to the Pete Snyder article on that article's Talk page, and followed up on Wikiproject Biography to ask what others thought about the edits I suggested--but it seems that those areas are not active enough to prompt any response on this topic. While I would otherwise be bold, I want to be especially mindful of the WP:COI guideline as the subject of the article is the CEO of my present employer. This article is currently out of date and omits several reliable sources that would help it more closely align with Wikipedia's citation guidelines, but I prefer to leave such changes up to an editor fully independent of the subject. Would another editor(s) be willing to take a look at the changes requested here and either provide feedback or make the edits as you see fit? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anders Behring Breivik: New section becomes new subsection.

See the page's recent history. When I tried to create a new section, the page insisted on creating a new subsection instead.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section above it was missing some characters. Please try reposting. TN X Man 17:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks a bunch!

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! TN X Man 19:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled word through out Wikipedia

Hello, The word "recognized" is spelled "recognised" throughout Wikipedia. The reason I noticed, is that my text to speech screen reader will not correctly pronounce misspelled words.

All the best,

Richard

Hi. What you're seeing (or hearing) is an alternate spelling of the word. Because Wikipedia's contributors come from all over the world, you may see different spellings of the same word. This spelling appears to be British English. You may also want to read our page on English variations to learn more. TN X Man 17:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, depending on the article, it may be spelled either way. Articles on British subjects should use British spelling, ones on U.S. subjects should use U.S. spelling etc. If there is no obvious choice given the article, it comes down to the preferences of the first contributor. I can see how this might be problematic for text to speech software though. Maybe this is something for the more technologically clued-up contributors to look into? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an issue to raise with the author or company that makes your text to speech screen reader. There are many other words that also have multiple valid spellings (British vs U.S.) that I encounter on the web. The author should try to accomodate that. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect spelling of town on map

The town of Morganton is incorrectly labled as Morgantown on the area code map of NC which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Northcarolinaareacodes.gif

Since it is a gif file, I cannot edit it myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.163.234 (talk • contribs)

That file was created by User:Gooday.1 who is now under the username User:Triadian. I have left a note at that user's talk page, but they have become inactive; they haven't done much in about a year. Perhaps they will get the note and fix the file some time though, since they seem to check in about once a month. That's the best solution I can think of. Perhaps another Wikipedian with graphics skills could recreate the file with the correct spelling. --Jayron32 19:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake is present in the original map (the wikipedia file is just a copy of a file published/hosted by the North Carolina State Library). Isn't that crazy? Doesn't mean we can't fix it--someone with the graphic-editing ability can and should:) DMacks (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina: 48th in the nation in teacher salary. This is my adopted home state. I'm not saying, I'm just saying, ya know... --Jayron32 20:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected it, by editing the GIF. Let me know if there's any problem. Chzz ► 11:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the articles for improvement page?

Resolved

Hi, busy cleaning up the Chevron article, I visited this page, Lawachara National Park, to wikilink to it and, although what one could consider a 'full article', it appears to have serious issues which would need quite a lot of attention - amongst others, not very English English, lack of wikilinks for animal species, overcapitalization, lack of captions to images, some peacock words, lack of NPOV in last section and so on. Anyone brave enough to take this on or bring it to the attention of the relevant wikidesk?
It is very enthusiastic though and I do love the primate gibbon who "in an attempt to flee, jumped onto the electric cable and surrendered to death". Very poetic. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god... I'm horrible. I can't stop giggling at the image that sentence evoked. Anyway will see what I can do with the article.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best. Wikipedia. Sentence. Ever. Seriously, it is stuff like this that makes me miss WP:BJAODN. There should be a place to enshrine writing of such sublime beauty. --Jayron32 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, in tragic memory of a very dramatic ape. :'( Ok, I'm stopping. LOL -- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, there is some sort of sublime beauty in not simply dying but "surrendering", in French se rendre, "giving oneself up", to death especially by electrocuting oneself. Oh where is the Wiki-shrine to good faith edits that are unintentionally hilarious. RIP dearly departed gibbon. This (and your replies) are still making me :=) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the copy editors' guild may be of assistance, but other than that, I don't think there's a specific request page. TN X Man 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the tags listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup will add the article to a maintenance category. Ideally, these categories should act as "articles for improvement" pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! It seems User:Annilkhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) scattered similar crud through many low-profile articles during his short stay. All seem to pertain to Bangladesh economics in one form or another. Possibly connected to Shrabon publishing or to a university. Needs serious cleanup work.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the replies, will take on board the cleanup tags, sounds like LSD (?) has given us a hitlist of articles to check, Obsidian, when you've finished giggling will you do what you can? Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, already on it, heh. Will take me a couple of days at most. P.S. only the park heh. The rest of his contributions should probably be given to the guild for cleanup.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I had to completely replace virtually all of the existing text and find new sources. Please copyedit further if necessary.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! that was fast and radical :=) cheers! Now I can link to it from the Chevron controversy section, great work OS. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Also found out that the poetically tragic phrase was apparently a copyvio from a single source with no other confirmation elsewhere (which is odd, considering they are critically endangered). So no gibbons may have actually died. Which makes me feel a bit better for finding it hilarious, lol.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, saw that, now the poor thing only "allegedly died", maybe he's still dancing around, swinging from electric cables and just generally flipping death off. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a miracle! This may even start the Rt Rev Edmund F. Gibbon on the path to canonization. (sorry, couldn't help myself!) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL. First poetry, now a sneakily perfect perfect pun?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice

Would offering cow urine as a welcome drink as part of a welcome message be offensive? Please advice. I think it's very impolite, but I need some neutral opinion on this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone should comment on the situation unless you can provide a diff or link to show where this has been done. The question you ask is so silly I can't imagine it being a serious matter for discussion unless you are somehow misrepresenting the situation. Please show us where this has happened, or it has been proposed to have happened, so we can all be knowledgable enough to comment on the situation you are asking for advice on. --Jayron32 20:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jayron for commenting on this. I too think that it is very silly. You may want to look at the snap on the extreme right of the welcome message.

Please see if this is appropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dotty%27s_Bappa You may want to use something to translate the text in "Hindi" to English. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Panchgavya for some context on the drink.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would an experimental thing be considered polite to offer, specially having 'cow urine'. I read about it and till date 700 odd people use it. That too when 'cow urine' is being highlighted. Is this appropriate? Please advice. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that you are presenting this in a way which makes it seem more foul than it is. I could describe milk as "glandular secretions from a large mammal." I could describe beer as "fungal excretion products". The template in question didn't say, in English "Here, have a warm glass of cow urine!" I don't find the template terribly welcoming, but then again I don't come from a culture where the drinking of Panchgavya is commonplace. Where I live, it is common for friends to share a beer, however if I greeted a devout muslim editor with "Welcome to Wikipedia, here is a nice beer!" he may be horrified at the prospect. I don't think the person who created that welcome was necessarily being rude or disruptive; perhaps they were merely earnestly trying to be friendly, but came off at worst as being culturally insensitive in my opinion. My feeling is that they should desist from using that particular welcome message, but not because it is cow urine per se, but because Wikipedia is a multicultural venture, and to avoid unintentionally offending people even in a friendly gesture, try to use a more culturally neutral welcome message. --Jayron32 22:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response. I appreciate your time and effort in looking into this. Drinking 'cow urine' is not a common practice in India, drinking coffee or tea can be considered parallel to 'beer'. Thanks again for the effort. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to India, so I will have to take your word on that. I was merely trying to WP:AGF and not assume that the person who left that welcome message was intentionally trying to be insulting or offensive. Sometimes, it is an accidental (if avoidable) offense rather than an intended one. I agree that the welcome message in question is inappropriate, though for a different reason than it seems that you do... --Jayron32 23:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never been to India as well, but I suspect the beverage is not quite as commonplace as hinted. Probably consumed only for medicinal/religious reasons, and not equivalent to the coffee, tea, or cookies offered in the usual welcome messages. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage, in the strongest possible terms, the distribution of cow urine to new editors. Bottoms up! Abyssal (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to get one contributor's permission to authorize an article for publication that has over 500 anonymous and robot authors?

I am writing a book and I plan to use some information from Wikipedia. However, my publisher requires that I obtain authorization from each contributor to Wikipedia. Some of them are no longer valid usernames, robots, and anonymous editors who can only be identified by their IP addresses. Given the large number of contributors and the uncertain number of "valid" contributors, who exactly would I turn to for authorization? Is it possible to obtain authorization for the entire article from just one valid contributor?Selfawareness (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IINM, authorization is already given provided a list of editors is given credit for it and it is released under CC-By-SA 3.0; see Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License and Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Every page should have a link on the side that says Cite this page - if you click that, you'll see that the authors or any given page is simply listed as "Wikipedia contributors". This is fine by our licenses. Also, each editor has agreed to our Terms of Use, specifically the "Information for re-users" sections, which states: Attribution: To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikimedia community. On the Cite page for any article, you'll see a link given as "Permanent link" - this is what you'll want to include for attribution under section a, above. (You could use the other methods as well, but I believe this is the simplest.) ^Avic _ennasis @ 00:45, 4 Av 5771 / 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting vs. merging

I KNOW I'm not supposed to take offense or get personally involved and all that, but I created a page on the Draft Trotter a few months back. I spent MANY good hours on the article, inserting photos and researching info. Now, checking back, I see that the page has been turned into a redirect to something they call the "coldblood trotter". The new article, contrary to my old one, is essentially a stub, doesn't carry much interesting info, and just isn't as good as my old one. I know. Objectivity. Anyway, I would have liked to CHECK on my old article to see what was so damnable that it was deleted - but I can't seem to find it anywhere, in deletion logs or elsewhere. I read somewhere many years ago that information on Wikipedia never disappears, but I'm drawing a blank here. Help, anyone...? Thanks, Nimloth250 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Nimloth250[reply]

Changing an article to a redirect does not delete the article. It is still in the page history. Click "Redirected from Draft Trotter" at top of Draft Trotter. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You created the article 25 April. A merge discussion at Talk:Draft Trotter was started the same day. Your last edit to the article was 26 April [1] when the article had a merge tag but I see you didn't enter the discussion. The article was changed to a redirect 3 months later. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler: click here. That will give you a list of every version of the article, ever. Click a date to see whichever older version you want; if they're all the same kind of horse, then you can 'edit' the old version to copy the old text and finish up a proper WP:MERGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ever so much for your help. Now I actually have access to the information I'll pull what I can out of it and try to write a better article out of the one that was created from the merge. I feel quite stupid for dropping out on the merge discussion. I should have been there for it! Nimloth250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

How is this possible?

Ζ Apodis is a redirect to Zeta Apodis, while Z Apodis is an article. How can two articles have exactly the same title? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same way that Ζ redirects to zeta: the character is a Greek zeta, not a latin Z. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The first uses the "Zeta" character from the Greek alphabet (check the URLs for the code for it) while the second uses the letter Z. In many fonts, they look indistinguishable. --Jayron32 23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my browser there is absolutely no difference which led to my confusion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the first link is to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%96_Apodis, while the second is to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_Apodis. There clearly shouldn't be two different articles though - this needs fixing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the redirect shouldn't also be deleted as an improbable redirect. —teb728 t c 23:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, there is a histmerge that needs to be done. But I think the OP was fundementally confused about the Zeta vs. Z issue. Seperate (but still important) issue. --Jayron32 23:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an astronomer but according to the data it is two different stars. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, perhaps there should be two different articles. --Jayron32 23:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V confusing. I've asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Zeta Apodis. Chzz ► 08:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more research on this, and *both* articles are correct. For the Latin Z, the terminology for Variable Stars was originally to use single latin letters starting with R and then double letters in a certain method followed by the Genitive of the Constellation (Apu -> Apodis). This star is (latin letter)Z Apodis. For the Greek Z, the "normal" stars in constellations are designated by a greek letter (lower case) followed the Genitive. I've found some redirects from the latin looking equivalent to the Greek (latin letter) A Centauri to Alpha Centauri. While I haven't seen any other with the capital Greek letter part of the redirect to the greek letter, it certainly seems reasonable and were it not for the existance/significance of the (latin letter)Z Apodis, it wouldn't be confusing. An astronomer wouldn't be confused in most literature because the Variable star would be written as Z Apodis and the "normal" star would be ζ Apodis. Not sure what to do other than a well worded "Not to be confused with", I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 11:30, 4 August 2011

Ah. Does this help, then? See [2]. Chzz ► 12:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've added hatnotes, [3] and [4]. Does that sort it out? Feel free to edit/improve on it, of course. Chzz ► 12:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I didn't realize that the lowercase template worked in alphabets other than latin. There is nothing in the lowercase template documentation that discusses anything other than the latin alphabet. Is the limitation that pages can't start with lower case letters extend to lowercase greek letters (in the english language wikipedia) Naraht (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the limitation still applies - if you type "α" into the search bar, it automatically goes to "Α" (alpha) with no redirect, just like "a" goes to "A" ay. —Akrabbim^talk 13:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and а to A which redirects to A (Cyrillic). Armenian appears to do it as well, and I don't have the unicode set up to do Coptic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I joined your book club

ON JULY 19,2011, I JOINED YOUR BOOKCLUB AND NOW MY PRINTER IS HUNG UP WITH YOUR E-MAIL AND I CAN'T PRINT.... MY E-MAIL IS:[redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.219.29 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.6 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. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 August 3

Contents