Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 February 9

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.

February 9

Charley Parhurst

Charley Parkhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How does one go about editing or correcting and article. The info you provide to do so seems to go in circles with no end. My concern is the Charley Parkhursts articles. Being a Parkhurst and reviewing Ancestory and LDS sites I believe Charley Parkhurst was born Mary Parkhurst in Sharon Vermont in 1812. She had two siblings Charles D. and Maria. Charles D.was born in 1811 and died in 1813. Her mother Mary (Morehouse) Parkhurst died in 1812. Sometime after Charles died and prior to her fathers marrage to Lucy Chushing in 1817 Mary and Maria were taken 19 miles away to an orphange in Lebanon New Hampshire. When Mary left (escaped) the orphanage she adopted the name Charley Darkey Parkhurst and began her life as a male. While there is a Charolette Parkhurst born in Bethel Vermont in 1804 who would have been a second cousin I don't believe Mary knew of her cousin.00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Lucycushing (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that you can fix the article yourself, please do so. If the changes you need to do to make the article better written involve mainly grammar, spelling, or writing style fixes, that's pretty easy, and you can just go ahead and do it. If you need to make substantive changes to what the article says, either by changing facts in the article or by adding new facts, you need to have reliable sources which you can cite in the article. But you are still invited to make the changes yourself. Ever single article at Wikipedia exists in the state it is in today because it was fixed by people exactly like you; interested people who wish to fix up an article to make it better. --Jayron32 03:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to add a little more detail to the above. As you are a family member, some of what you want to add may be only supported by family stories etc. That is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes as it cannot be verified, so any such additions to the article will have to be cited to sources that can be verified. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for feedback diffs do not appear on my watchlist despite it being on my watchlist (the star is blue). Jesanj (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, in general, it appears everyone is ignored there. I notice that this page does not appear on my watchlist. So I have to add each day to my watchlist? Can someone fix this inefficiency? Jesanj (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It only shows up on your watchlist when someone edits it. You have to go to your watchlist after a recent edit. Go now; I just ran a little test for you. You should see it. Yopienso (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't your test edit be visible here?[1] In other words, why doesn't that history change much more frequently? At Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback there are edits daily. Jesanj (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The wiki source of Wikipedia:Requests for feedback is rarely edited. It is transcluding other recently created pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 February 9 which are often edited. You have to watch the latter to see the edits on your watchlist. Many people probably click a section edit link when they are viewing Wikipedia:Requests for feedback but as the edit url will reveal, they are really editing another page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. But can we change this? Many people are going ignored daily. There should be, in my opinion, an automatic way to put these comments watchlists. I'm thinking this shortcoming explains, in part, why these newbies are being ignored. Jesanj (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, honestly, that isn't the reason. In fact, the reason we adopted that system was, because they were being ignored even more.

Until June 2010, all requests were on one very long page. They were automatically archived after 'n' days. a) the page was ridiculously long, b) requests were often archived without anyone even looking at them, c) it was confusing to new users, because when they checked back, their request has 'disappeared'...the latter meaning that we had to keep linking them (your question from HERE is now in THIS ARCHIVE).

Therefore, after discussion and testing, and with help, I implemented the new style, with a transcluded subpage for each day.

I do appreciate the watchlist concern - and did think about it at the time. However, I do believe the benefits outweigh the difficulties.

The actual problem with requests ignored, I think is simpler: it is because there are a lot more people who wish to write about themselves/their company/their band and so on, than there are people who want to help them with it.I believe this to be an increasing problem on Wikipedia.

I hope that helps clarify a little; please do feel free to discuss this further, either on my own talk page, or on Wikipedia talk:Requests for feedback. Also, on that page and in its archives, you can see some previous discussions - in particular, look at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for feedback/Archive 2#Archiving the forum page. Best,  Chzz  ►  07:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

ss paul hamilton liberty ship

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Pat Harris. My father was aboard the Paul Hamilton when she was sunk. I was born 7 months later. My father was a member of a photographic recon group. I would be interested to hear from others whose fathers or mothers were aboard this ship.

Respectfully, Pat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.165.148 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss, but this page is only for questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. thanks! --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

More helpfully, you might get a better response at the Miscellaneous ref desk. Astronaut (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You might find joining the Ships nostalgia forums of use. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Anton Nel pianist posted an incorrect information

Dear Wikipedia,

I found an incorrect information about Anton Nel, the pianist. He claims to be a winner of 1984 Leeds international Piano Competition. However, his name is not listed among 1984 winners.... Also, he posted that he released a CD with EMI which is also an error. Please feel free to correct this wrongful information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.155.38 (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Anton Nel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I see that you have edited the article yourself. You may find that someone puts the information back again, citing one or other of the pages linked from the "External links" section. If that happens, you will have to begin a discussion on the article talk page. I haven't found an independent source for those facts. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar links

At MediaWiki:Sidebar, I can set it up so that people with a French interface see an item on the sidebar as the contents of MediaWiki:Foo-text/fr and people with an English interface see it as the contents of MediaWiki:Foo-text. However, everyone gets linked to to the contents of MediaWiki:Foo-url, even if they have a French interface and MediaWiki:Foo-url/fr exists. How to I make French people link to the right place? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.236.12 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your question belongs at the MediaWiki support page. This page is the help desk for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Change title of article being developed on userpage

Hi, I'm developing an article on my user page titled User:RoslynSKP/1st Transjordan attack on Amman - can you tell me

1. how to edit this to 'User:RoslynSKP/1st Transjordan attack on Amman (1918)'?
2. When its ready it will need to be moved out into Wikipedia - how is this done?

(I did look on some FAQs but none seemed remotely like what I need to know.) Your help will be much appreciated. :) --Rskp (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Both of these can be done by moving the page. On the Vector skin, the Move option is in the dropdown menu to the right of the other tabs. Reach Out to the Truth 05:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that User:RoslynSKP/1st Transjordan attack on Amman is probably the best looking article that I've *ever* seen in userspace by a country mile and that at least on first glance proposing it for WP:GA immediately wouldn't be unreasonable.Naraht (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks - I've still got a lot to add! I appreciate your enthusiasm :) --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I personally don't like this citation format (I know it is really common); I would confirm this statement. mabdul 14:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oh I'm not sure about the citation style. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's still in development and would have to be wikified. I'm not sure why you wanted the move but there doesn't have to be a connection between a userspace title and an article title after a move to mainspace, and "1st Transjordan attack on Amman (1918)" would be an odd article title unless there were 1st Transjordan attacks on Amman in other years. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are two more transjordan attacks in 1918. I thought it would be better to add the year in case there were ancient or very recent battles in the region which may be added to wikipedia in the future. :) --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Couple of points echoing the above -- great work for a draft article! When it's in mainspace I will be nominating it for a DYK spot on the main page. But, I agree that the citation style, although fairly common, is confusing. Why not just use the simple group reference style, citing the source in full the first time (using {{cite book}}, {{cite web}} etc) and named references thereafter, so that there is only one numbered list of references? Also a question about the title: was there more than one trans-Jordan attack in 1918? If not then the final title should probably be Trans-Jordan attack on Amman (1918) or, if there has only ever been one trans-Jordan attack, it should be Trans-Jordan attack on Amman. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Does this keep pace with radical changes? For instance, yesterday I was changing things around quite a lot and I don't want to have to re-do citations as I go. It would be better to leave it until all the info had been added and its all settled down. :) --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Not only is that style of citation very confusing it is also very fragile. It is almost as fragile as the use of "ibid". An edit, for whatever reason, of the "Bibliography" list can render a whole lot of references completely meaningless. The method described by ukexpat is IMHO the best way to deal with repeated citations of a single source.

I must agree with others, it is an excellent first draft and IMHO deserves a GA rating right from the start (as soon as the citation method is improved). Roger (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oh - I had no idea this method was fragile. But I'm not exactly sure how to change. :) --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The draft uses shortened footnotes, which seems common to the series of articles where the draft seems to fit, such as Sinai and Palestine Campaign and Battle of Jerusalem (1917). If the draft changed to long footnotes, then page numbers would have to be inserted with {{rp}} (which some editors hate) or by creating a separate reference for each citation. The shortened footnotes can be enhanced by linking the citation to the reference in the bibliography list; see Chaco Culture National Historical Park. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. I'll have a look at the Chaco page. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there would be less confusion if Wikipedia changed the label of the move tab to read "rename". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cropping a picture

There is a picture in Commons I'd like to use for an article but I want to crop out some extraneous background. My questions are, once I've done this, do I put it back into Commons as a new picture, or as an update of the existing one? And does it keep the same copyright notice as the original - do I simply copy that, or do I need to add some annotation? Thanks, Chefallen (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a commons:Template:Image extracted to use if you make new images. There is no one answer to whether you would overwrite the original image or make new images. That would depend on whether the original could conceivably be useful to someone. As to the copyright status, see commons:Commons:Derivative works. You must obey the license terms of the original image when you make a derivative work. For example, if the original license is {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} you would have to license your derivative work with the same license to obey the share-alike condition. If you need a precise answer you will have to tell us the name of the image. --Teratornis (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Then again, a mere crop might not possess the required degree of originality to constitute a derivative work, and as such the crop would simply maintain the original license. I am not a lawyer. Check the backlinks: commons:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Image extracted and see how other users handled these cases. There is also a commons:user:Cropbot that has cropped a lot of images. --Teratornis (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Before uploading a cropped image over the top of an existing image, you might want to check where else the image is used. For example, it is no good cropping Michelle Obama out of File:Michelle, Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama.jpg because that image is used in multiple places and removing the First Lady could have an undesirable impact on those other articles. Astronaut (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, these are helpful points that I will take into account. Chefallen (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

musicals of the 1930s

cocktails for two sung and danced by man in evening dress which film?. buffer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.3.92 (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick search tells me that it was Murder at the Vanities. See Help:Searching. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The song "Cocktails for Two" appears in the 1934 musical Murder at the Vanities. In the future, please ask such questions at one of the reference desks since the help desk is questions about using Wikipedia, not for general knowledge. Goodvac (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding a WikiCommons image to an existing article

I'm surprised not to find this in the FAQ... I thought it would be a fairly common question.

I found an article that's requesting suitable images, and I have such an image. Checking the help, it seems that the only ways to submit an image are either to be 'autoconfirmed' (which I'm not) or to upload to WikiCommons (which I have).

So my question really is how to get this image from WikiCommons into the article concerned?

Thanks in advance.

Astronautilus (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia. All the examples in the Picture tutorial work equally well when the picture is at WikiMedia Commons; there is no change to the syntax. If you can't make it work, post back here with the name of the article and the picture, and someone will help you. I've posted some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading a Word document

For my Wiki article,is it possible to upload what I have already written in a Word document currently saved on my computer and then make the proper changes for the Wiki format? Thanks. Drlavonne (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You can just copy-paste from the Word document into the editing interface. For example, click on the page User:Drlavonne/draft. Then go to the article in Word, select all the text (ctrl-A) and copy it (ctrl-C), then go back to the Wikipedia page with the blank editing box and paste the text (ctrl-V). Then hit save. When you are done amending the text, you can move it into "mainspace" (see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft). You may also want to read Wikipedia:Your first article. Happy editing! Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

See Help:WordToWiki. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

nowrap

Can somebody help me with my signature? I want to prevent that the first dot-line is wrapped from the rest. WP:NOWRAP explained really much, but nothing helps me since this signature doesn't include a whitespace (except after mabdul but that doesn't matter.) mabdul 13:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody knowing a solution? mabdul 11:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article is missing CSS

The article on 'Hamstrings' is lacking any CSS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamstrings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.66.8 (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Try to clear your entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

LINK CORRECTION - "Investor's Business Daily"

I don't know how to edit, so I'll pass this along for what it's worth....

In the Wikipedia entry titled "Investor's Business Daily," the second paragraph contains a colord link to "stocks." Unfortunately, the link goes to "stocks" as used in medieval times to secure a person accused of wrongdoing, not stocks, as in the stock market.

Someone might want to correct this link.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.100.59 (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for reporting. – ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it ok to have more than 1 comma per sentence? like in Mechanical fan?

Resolved

Article:

Mechanical fan

Typical applications include climate control, vehicle and machinery cooling systems, personal comfort (e.g., an electric table fan), ventilation, fume extraction, winnowing (e.g., separating chaff of cereal grains), removing dust (e.g. in a vacuum cleaner), drying (usually in combination with heat) and to provide draft for a fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moseyman (talk • contribs) 15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is OK to have more than one comma per sentence. This is commonly used to separate items in a list. You may find more info in our article on commas. TNXMan 15:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And in our Manual of Style WP:COMMA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And be sure to read Eats, Shoots & Leaves. Collect (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

...while we are at it Oxford comma too. – ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How do I delete my own addition to a page?

I should have played longer in the sandbox - I have added a reference (a book by Anthony Eden)in the wrong format to the existing article, prior to adding a small point in the text, and now I don't know how to remove it from the bottom of the references section. I would like to do this and start again when I am more confident. Please can you help? LizinEastbourne (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have undone this for you. Do you require assistance adding this reference? Rehevkor ✉ 15:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to undo an edit in future, use the History tab, look at the differences between the relevant versions, then undo. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Gerard way picture

Hello

Today i was reading the Kerrang Magazine and i noticed that Gerard way said that he would like that image changed to a more recent one.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadelovesheep (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

An AP photo is very unlikely to pass muster. Collect (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If Gerard Way was to supply an up to date photo on a Wikipedia compatible licence, we could use it. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He's on Twitter (which I'm not), I've asked for another editors assistance in contacting him and explaining how an updated photo can be added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Daily newspapers published by Community Newspaper Holdings sorting query

Resolved

 – Sorting fixed. – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This category has members (eg The Orange Leader) sorted at Curly bracket, any idea why this is happening and how it can be fixed ? GrahamHardy (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that it's a coding problem at {{CNHI}}, but at the moment I can't see it... – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I figured it out - you need to specify a sort key in the template code used in each article: {{CNHI|Orange Leader}} for example will sort that newspaper properly within the category listing. – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant, now fixed the article sorting, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. There is nothing like a little early afternoon template sleuthing! – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Commonist

With Commonist, what is the punctuation for two Categories? For example, do I enter

• Hyperbolic tilings | Poincaré Disc
• Hyperbolic tilings, Poincaré Disc
• [[Category:Hyperbolic tilings]] [[Category:Poincaré Disc]]

? —Tamfang (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you try the contact email address at the top of the Commonist page. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried the last form. It worked. —Tamfang (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a "bureaucrat" protection setting?

I assume so when I found [2] and [3]. --Perseus8235 20:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No. East718 was having a little fun, and just typed the edit summary by hand. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

stylesheet not loading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kino_(software)

Seems to render incorrectly like it isn't loading the stylesheet.

I don't know why that is.

tried in FF Chrome and IE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.171 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

OK here. Perhaps a relic of some of the Wikipedia software changes a day or two ago. Try clearing your cache, or otherwise you might need a restart. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Same problem on my home desktop running linux with Chrome and FF. Also the same on another laptop running W7 with Chrome. I don't think a restart will fix this.

It appears the stylesheet is not loading. I am assuming that all wikipedia pages run the same stylesheet and my other pages look fine. You may want someone to look into a coding problem with the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.223.57 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Learning Swiss

Hello, I am planning to move to Switzerland and I thought it would be good to know some Swiss. Are there any Wikipedian editors that are proficient in Swiss that may help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.128.153 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

French, German, Italian and Romansh are all spoken in Switzerland, depending on the region. In any event this page is for help using Wikipedia. I would suggest that you try the Reference Desk. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No doubt you will visit Lauterbrunnen at some point. BASE jumping is legal there. --Teratornis (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Swiss Wikipedians has just two members (one of whom is rather inactive, by the looks of things); Wikipedia:WikiProject Switzerland has more members. Bencherlite^Talk 23:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

See also Languages of Switzerland. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Links

If there is a red link and it was never created then deleted before, and when you search it up nothing appears, do you simpley unlink it, or do you create it? --GoldenGlory84 (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Either, or you can simply leave it be, see WP:RED CTJF83 23:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) You first make a judgment call about whether it is a suitable topic for an article—whether it is notable as we use that word here, and whether there are sufficient reliable sources existing to write an article with verifiable content. If it doesn't meet these standards, unlink it. If it does, you can write the article or leave it red inviting others to do so, your choice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you create an email form on a wiki page like with HTML?

I would like to create a wiki page which contains a form for users to fill out. Upon submission, it would be emailed to known address. Is this possible in a wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.215.213 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software would allow this if you were to set up your own Wiki on your own server, I believe. This is, however, not allowed in Wikipedia encyclopedia articles. If you create an account at Wikipedia, you can set up an email contact so people can send you emails through your Wikipedia account. --Jayron32 23:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) What kind of form? And probably not, this is an encyclopedia. CTJF83 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have your own MediaWiki installation then look for an extension like mw:Extension:FormMailer. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

External Links vs Spam

Hello, I work in the Hollywood film and TV industry, and on the side run a website that presents exclusive news and content from my industry contacts. I'd like to start posting external links to articles on my site in the proper Wiki entries and was wondering the best way to do this so as not to raise any red flags over spamming. Are a handful of entries each day acceptable? Or is there a way to get a site cleared or approved in some way so external links aren't a concern? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpa69 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please link to the site so we can determine if it is SPAM...but as you describe it, it is probably not appropriate. CTJF83 23:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know if your site would be considered an acceptable external link. However, assuming it might be, the best way to avoid a conflict would be to suggest the external link on the Talk page of the article so non-interested editors can make a determination as to whether the external link is appropriate. I would first read WP:EL carefully.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c (with e/c)) Agreed, almost certainly not. Kpa69, please take a look at Links normally to be avoided and our guideline on conflicts of interest.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The eight pages you have spammed so far will probably result in www.scifijapan.com getting blacklisted. —teb728 t c 00:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

kpa69 here... I've read the rules and links posted here and I don't see anything I've done that that would be considered spam. My site doesn't fall under any of the Links to be Avoided rules with the possible exception of #11: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". As the editors here it's your call as to what qualifies as "a recognized authority" but my knowledge on the topics I cover has led to me being hired to provide audio commentaries and content for DVDs released in the US, UK, and Australia, and I've been interviewed by major news outlets such as NPR, Reuters, Miami Herald, and TV Tokyo. Also, external links to my site have been posted on wikipedia for years (not by me) and since that was clearly allowed I decided to sign in and add more. So I'm not sure why the previous external links to my site were allowed, why sites like Anime News Network (which I think is a great site) can be external links, but what I posted today could result in blacklisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpa69 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

11 alone is a reason to avoid adding it, plus it is a WP:COI for you to add your own site, and not to mention, as far as we can tell, you are nobody notable enough. 2 might apply also, unless all your stuff is sourced CTJF83 00:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be too blunt here, but you really need to read what people wrote above about conflicts of interest, using talk pages to make suggestions, and carefully read WP:COI. Your own opinion that you yourself are a "respected authority" is hardly trustworthy and impartial in this matter. Leonard Maltin is a respected authority in the entertainment field, self evidently so because people who don't know him find his material useful for Wikipedia articles. Insofar as Wikipedia had to wait for you yourself to add your own links to your own website is clear indication that other people, as yet, don't find you respected enough. As soon as people who do not known you start using your writings as a reference in Wikipedia articles, then things will be different. Of course, if that ever happens, you STILL shouldn't be doing it yourself. --Jayron32 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Note also that in addition to the policies and guidelines linked above, the act itself of serially adding external links is prohibited because of what it implies about the intentions of the person doing so. See WP:LINKSPAM. The reason we prohibit it is because using Wikipedia for promotional purposes is in fundamental conflict with what we are. Putting aside whether the site is or is not a recognized authority; putting aside whether the links fail WP:ELNO, your purpose in adding the links, as a person vested in the site, is promotional in nature. To put a fine point on it, if an editor of The New York Times [you can substitute here any indubitably reliable, unique resource that meets WP:ELNO in spades] started spamming external links, I would undo that as well, warn and ultimately block if it continued because Wikipedia is not to be used in this fashion--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and I hope it's okay to follow up here... I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes as acceptable posting. I understand that rule 11 would be reason enough, but I don't think it applies in the case. Neither do I see a conflict of interest; if Wiki's stated goal is to "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia" then linking to reliably sourced articles shouldn't be an issue... nobody's pushing an agenda here; it's just sharing of information. And your "Your own opinion that you yourself are a "respected authority" is hardly trustworthy and impartial in this matter" TOTALLY missed my point... "authority" is not a title someone bestows upon themselves. Frankly, Muhammed Ali is the only person I know of who can praise himself without looking like an idiot. My point was this: since rule 11 is the one I had some questions about, what OTHERS have said on that subject might be worth the Wiki editors' consideration when making their decisions. That's why I brought up NPR, TV Tokyo etc because I'm not them and therefore that's "not my opinion of myself" as you claimed. Also, I wrote that there were links to my site on wiki for years, and they weren't posted by me. If the issue is that someone shouldn't post links to their own sites then I can buy that, though I disagree with any decision that limits your readers' access to accurate information (and I'm not just talking about my site)... isn't sharing knowledge and information the whole point of an encyclopedia? Now matter how big or small a topic may be, I would imagine people come here because they're looking to learn more. People can fact-check and see if a site or source has proven itself or not; maybe the editors shouldn't be so quick to dismiss that, and instead accept or reject outside sources based on their merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpa69 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I just saw Fuhghettaboutit's reply and can completely understand that point. If the same rules apply to the NYT or any other reliable sources then I have no complaints. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpa69 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Muhammed Ali - isn't that the one to crash a plane into the WTC in 2001? ;)

Kpa69, it seems to me that other wiki editors would look upon you a bit more favorably if you didn't have chosen the suffix "69" and if you had signed your posts here. Small things can go a long way and a "small" thing like proper signature can easily imply that you didn't read the rules with any greater care than you read the instructions near the edit box about signatures, whether that assumption is correct or not. I for myself assume that you read them quite thoroughly. And "Kpa69" is a good name if, for example, 69 KPa is some pressure value of interest (the lowest air pressure ever recorded by a meteorological instrument, or something like that - just guessing).

About your words that People can fact-check and see if a site or source has proven itself or not, yes they could, but WP guidelines like WP:RS and WP:V have a different spirit, namely to include only the info in an article which has already been verified. Readers who want to know more on a subject can access the talk page - at their own risk of stumbling upon unverified statementsm heated debates, and other less-than-encyclopedic content. User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As a counterpoint to this I think there's nothing whatsoever wrong with Kpa69's username and am really not sure what you mean by the "Muhammed Ali" joke. It's also very normal for new editors to be unfamiliar with the convention of signing posts, though it's good of course to pick it up as soon as possible. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't want to call the login name "Kpa69" illegal. My point was that it might appear an illegal / borderline-illegal kind of name to some other editors. Some numbers (42, 69, 666, 1337 among others) are sometimes seen as the mark of a casual editor, most often subliminally. And I mistyped the unit "kPa", silly me.

Oops again. I thought that a similar name, "Muhammad Atta" was more commonly known. My bad.

User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In this context, I believe it could be the year the editor was born. AGF man.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)