Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 January 26

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.

January 26

Icons at top right of user page

Resolved

I'm not sure what you call them but I have two icons at the top right of my user page. One is the trout and the other the new Autopatrolled tag. The problem is that they're stacked instead of next to one another. How do I fix this? Dismas|^(talk) 00:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Both templates have parameters to change the position. You can read about them at Template:Trout me and Template:Autopatrolled. --Mysdaao ^talk 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry. Don't know how I missed that. Dismas|^(talk) 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Change to your site stinks

Hve you changed the format on the year page. ? I use to plug in a year and would love using your sie.m Something is different. It is hard on the eyes. You used to show each month in a box on the right hand side. Why did you change it. I know alot of people that hate it now and will not be using it anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.141.133 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you register an account you can load the old format. --Jayron32 04:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Hi there, and Happy Australia Day! My questions are this. I have submitted a few photos that I have taken myself and when I upload them I put them in the public domain. I have also spent an incredible amount of time adding coordinates for places in Australia (I had it down to none required but now it is back to about 90) and am currently doing Queensland.

Is finding the coordinates for an article (And some of them were extremely hard to find!) classified as original research? If it is not, why not? The same goes for a photo. For most photos, there is no proof of what the photo taken of really is except the word of the uploader. I have put in many coordinates as well where if you look up that location on google maps etc there are no markings to prove that the coordinates are correct. This is especially true for outback Australia.

Maybe I am being pedantic and so on, but it is just a question.

Usually not exactly original research, because coordinates can often be looked up trivially easily in published sources. In the United States, for example, the United States Geologic Survey has published highly detailed, public domain topographic maps of the entire country with most natural features clearly labeled and with latitude and longitude on them. Therefore, just about anything which is labeled on such a map in the U.S. is easily verifiable. I am not sure about the specific situation in Australia, but presuming you can confirm your latitude and longitude on a map which also identifies the features in the picture, you are probably in the clear. --Jayron32 04:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info...... I don't seem to be able to find anything like what the USA has in regards to the United States Geologic Survey. (Maybe it is to help keep unwanted tourists away :) ). All coordinates I have entered ARE verifiable, but some will give you several hours of enjoyable internet browsing trying to find it!

Regarding images, please see WP:OI.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy on use of honorific titles

I recently received a message on my talk page from an editor who wondered why I had removed the title Shaikh from an occurrence of the name Ghulam Ahmad in a list of notable people from Rawalakot.

My explanation in reply was: "According to the title and infobox of Ghulam Ahmad's article, his proper name is simply 'Ghulam Ahmad'." Wikipedia's article on the word "Shaikh" describes it as an honorific term commonly used to designate an elder of a tribe, a revered wise man, or a scholar. I removed it from that name in compliance with Wikipedia's policy discouraging the use of honorific titles. So I pointed him to WP:HONORIFIC as the page explaning that policy.

The editor has now written back: "I read the section that you quote, it is the most confusing piece of information that I have ever read. Maybe you can put it in simple english. As I see it says that an honorific may be used."

I understand the editor's confusion. WP:HONORIFIC did strike me as contradictory when I first read it, and even still I am not sure I've grasped the whole thing. My application of it in my editing (often to remove instances of "Dr." or "Mr.") has been learned from mirroring common practice as much as from what I absorbed from that policy page.

So firstly, was I correct in removing the "Shaikh" from "Shaikh Ghulam Ahmad"? Secondly, could you help me formulate a "simple English" explanation for the editor of WP:HONORIFIC as it applies here, if it applies here? Your help would be greatly appreciated. AtticusX (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The most important is this line: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix." So, the honorific might be tolerable in a list where I'd delete it from body copy in an article. In any case, the title should not be wikilinked, any more than you'd wikilink "Sir" or "Mrs.". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

While that is true, it is OK to use the honorific later in the article now and then, just to mix up the monotony of constantly referring to the subject by his last name, or to refer to him by title, as in "the judge".--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

creating/keeping book option open

Every time I exit and come back in the 'save this to your book' option is gone. I click on create a book and click OK when asked to open previous book. I then enter the name of the article again but the 'save this to your book' option still does not show up. I then tried opening a previous article from my book so that the 'save to book' option shows up and then enter the name of the original article I wanted to save to my book but still the 'save to book' option does not appear.

How do I get the option to show up on an article I would like to save. Better yet - how do I keep the option to save to book open all the time wheter I exit or not.

Thanks, RiacostaRiacosta (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As a long time, experienced and constant editor here, with quite a few arcane processes under my belt, I have found the book interface so unfriendly that I gave up on it. I'm sure this is unhelpful regarding your specific question, but it is my offer of commiseration.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your account is not autoconfirmed yet so it should not be able to permanently save books. Make 9 more edits to become autoconfirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a question - why do readers need to be autoconfirmed to save a book - although they can create one without being autoconfirmed? It is not the same as editing - where autoconfirmation slows/stops people creating an account just to edit a semi-protected page, move a page, etc.Arjayay (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 47#Disabling "create a book" and bugzilla:18902. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Section header added

developing smaller countries where employement oppertunities are bright for indians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.11.228.5 (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your question appears more suited for the reference desk, this page is for help about editing Wikipedia. [CharlieEchoTango] 06:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Helen Bamber Foundation

Dear editors,

I am a little confused (and the hundreds, maybe thousands, of Wikihelp pages haven't helped me! I almost don't know where to start, it is daunting). I wrote a page yesterday having made an account, but the page has not been linked to my account (Samuelmiles) - will this be a problem? Also I cannot find where my page is progressed to in the edit stakes...it hasn't seemed to have gone live, at any rate. It is called 'Helen Bamber Foundation'.

Any help appreciated!

Samuel Miles

11:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.211.221 (talk)

Samuelmiles (talk · contribs) Helen Bamber Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't think you managed to save the page. Your account has no recorded contributions (and no deleted contributions), and the only article here named "Helen Bamber Foundation" was one deleted in 2008. Did you use the Preview button and not the "Save" button? I'm sorry not to have been more helpful. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks for the help. But I think the problem may be that I wrote the article without tagging it to Samuelmiles...so maybe it still exists? If not I have it saved on a word doc including some (attemped) html coding. Shall I sign it, re-make it, and submit again? I don't want to bother editors with it coming up twice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelmiles (talk • contribs) 12:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you weren't logged in, you could not have created a new page.

BUT I've just noticed that the Foundation's fundraising officer is named "Sam Miles". If that's you, then I'm afraid that you should not submit your text because you have a conflict of interest. Please instead read the FAQ for Organisations. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Unregistered users can create pages in some namespaces but I haven't found sign of the mentioned page at Wikipedia:Articles for creation or elsewhere. I guess it was never saved. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

@John of Reading,

Yes I work for the charity. But surely it's not a conflict of interest as the tone is neutral? Similar organisations Medical_Foundation have a wikipage, presumably also made by their staff. Can I upload it and then the editors can have the discretion to see that it's not biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.211.221 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes, it certainly is a conflict of interest. Staff and adherents of non-profits have a long history of appallingly promotional efforts, apparently based on their inability to see anything but the worthiness of their organization and its goals. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.

2. Similar organizations must follow similar rules; and articles such as the one you mentioned probably have not been made by their staff; we work hard to prevent that. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Well I have striven to make my entry neutral, in the best interests of disseminating knowledge surrounding the topic. I don't think I have an 'inability to see anything but the worthiness' of the Helen Bamber Foundation, I just thought it would be good to lay out the central tenets, description, and projects on Wikipedia.

2. But their entry does not cite any references or sources - it's got an alarm icon at the top of the page. It also has an icon saying it 'may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information'. Mine is similar in wording, so why won't mine be approved if theirs was?

Thanks for any help on this.

--81.136.211.221 (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Wikipedia has no editorial 'board' that oversees and 'approves' every single article. Anyone can create an article at any time. If that other article you mention is inappropriate for Wikipedia someone will soon notice and either fix it or propose deletion. Because we are now aware of the problem with your article, we can act proactively to make sure it's appropriate. -- œ^™ 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As to the MF article: It clearly was not created originally by their staff, but its content was replaced in early July 2008 by this series of edits, probably by their staff, as you suggest. Since then much of the promotional content and copyright violations have been removed piecemeal. Having seen that article, I feel I need to warn you that if you do post an article, do not copy material from your foundation’s website (or other websites) unless it is clearly marked on the site as licensed under a free license. For copied material is summarily removed as a copyright violation. —teb728 t c 06:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Oh, and your foundation's "central tenets" are probably not appropriate content for an article. —teb728 t c 06:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks for this, it is becoming much clearer. I'm sorry I'm being so dense about it all, there's just so much to learn! I have edited and re-edited the entry so I think it is neutral, and added internal Wikipedia links where relevant, plus the website link, the charity commission link, and a link to a newspaper article (I read that paper links are more acceptable than online links). I'll post it in the sandbox and hope that it's ok.

Many thanks.--81.136.211.221 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't post it in the Sandbox; the review process will work much more smoothly if you log in to your account and then create the page by clicking this link: User:Samuelmiles/Helen Bamber Foundation. As for paper/online sources, either will be fine. Many newspapers keep their archives online nowadays, so you may find you can give both a title/date/page number and also a web link. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and don't spend much time on the formatting. It's the sources that are most important at this stage; if the sources are good then the formatting can be fixed up later. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cannot 'move' my first page into Wiki proper - why no tab?

Hello, I have created my first page on Wikipedia, and it's ready to 'go public'. But I cannot see any 'tabs' for moving it from my private editing page, into Wiki proper? I have had my account for more than 4 days and I have made more than 10 edits - so i think I meet the requirements for rookies, but where are the tabs as mentioned in the section 'how to move your first page'? They are not on my toolbar, up top, as promised. I had hoped they might appear, by magic, after 4 days, but, so far, on this, day 5, they have not. Please advise? Thank you. I can provide the name of the page if you need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Ormsby (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The period of "four days" is counted as exactly 96 hours, so you have another ten hours to go.

But I see that the only page you have edited is your user page. The text there is definitely not suitable for a Wikipedia article, for the reasons explained on the Wikipedia:Autobiography page. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note, it's always preferred that you provide a link to the page in question when asking questions related to that page. Dismas|^(talk) 12:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John of Reading, for your prompt and helpful advice. To respond to your last point: I did not add a link because of the warning not to include any contact details; I misunderstood, although I did say I was willing to provide the page name, if required.

I've just read the Autobiog page that you recommended, and yes, I was aware that there might be a COI and so I tried to stick to the facts/be neutral but informative. I hope you're not thinking: "what an arrogant person", but please advise, if you can: May I submit a 'proposal' for my page, seeking a neutral consensus/editing by more experienced Wiki editors, such as yourself, and if so, how do I do that? I expect you'll say: "No way." Fair enough, but, here's why I ask.

My book broke new ground in Romania and received not just 'good' but rave, ecstatic reviews, in-country. It's a rare bird: a book by a foreigner that nails the locals in a way that makes them wince, but they love it. These facts can easily be verified by my link to a selection of professional Romanian literary critics. The same goes for my Kigali screenplay - I actually played down the response of Rwandans, who went nuts for the film, because of its tragi-comic story and the fact it was the first ever film made by an all-Rwandan team. Regardless of who wrote the script, I assure you these are facts and the BBC link verifies it. They reported on my film, and the festival. Btw, I did not mention that Presidents Kagame and Clinton attended the screening at the New York Academy of Art. True and verifiable, but irrelevant and desperate-sounding.

The info about my Kinshasa videos is, likewise, all true and verifiable. Those videos highlight a huge moral and social problem in modern D.R. Congo: what to do about 'child witches' being tortured, often to death, in the name of Christianity? Please note: I did not say that the films combined have, to date, generated close to 50,000 hits on You Tube. They were also shown on Congolese state TV and used to help train 68 local journalists in the art of objective reporting.

Back to objectivity: if the work of writer Mike Ormsby has had a small but significant social and cultural impact in three countries in recent years, and this impact can be verified, does Mike Ormsby warrant a Wiki page? If so, would you and your colleagues be willing to edit my submission to date, so that it fits the criteria? Feel free to bin the musical elements, they are not relevant to my status as a writer. But a writer is what I am and what I do. My readers often ask: how come you're not on Wiki? I used to reply: I'm not know how one gets on Wiki. Eventually, I found out and you've seen the result, today. I used my own email address to flag up the fact that my contribution might not be considered 'neutral'. Can you help me make it so?

Thank you, best wishes, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Ormsby (talk • contribs) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

After you post your aticle you could try to ask for help at WP:FEED. 216.120.192.143 (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (ignore the hits for other people of the same name)

Although your user page has some links to reliable, independent sources where people have written about your books or your projects, I don't see that people have yet written about you. Have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and especially WP:AUTHOR. For a second opinion, by someone more experienced at assessing sources, you could post a link to your user page at WP:FEED. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, I was not the first to note the autobiography. I posted some more information on his talk page. Pim Rijkee (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FEED is not very well patrolled, and you may not receive a reply there. I would try posting at the Notability Noticeboard, state your case there, and ask others if they think you would meet the notability criteria. -- œ^™ 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

picture not updating...

I uploaded a picture on the page for Groove_Armada (first picture), then I cropped out the white bit at the top but the thumbnail still shows the old version. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish2k (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I purged both the image page at commons and the Groove Armada article page, and it's now looking OK for me. You may have to bypass your cache as well. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks Hamish (Talk) 13:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I purged page, wikipedia image page, and commons image page, and I still see the old version. CTJF83 chat 13:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Purging the commons page seemed to fix the problem for me. Strange though. Rehevkor ✉ 13:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I got it now...perhaps ' ?action=purge ' doesn't work on Commons? CTJF83 chat 13:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It only worked for me after manually adding ?action=purge to the url of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Groove_Armada_at_Chi_Dubai.JPG/220px-Groove_Armada_at_Chi_Dubai.JPG about 7 minutes ago. I'm not sure whether this was the real fix or just coincided with something else. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Advice for Multi-entry references.

(This is more of an advice question rather than a technical one) On the Designated survivor page, there is a list of the people who have been the Designated Survivor during the US State of the Union Speech. The references for this list fall into two different categories. The first is links to newspapers or other similar sources for individual years, the other are lists from *almost* every year (1984 and onward) at the US Presidency project at UCSB and at the Senate Historians office. I'm sort of torn on how to do the references from the existing links. While I can have it so that the references for each row look like [1][2][3], [1][2][4],[1][2][5] etc., (using ref name) I think there has to be a cleaner way. However if I pull the UCSB and Senate entries into external links, then some of the entries are left without references (since entries for every year in newspapers haven't been found. I'm wondering which would look better...Naraht (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to picture the alternatives you are describing in words. Your question will be clearer if you make some user subpages with excerpts of the designated survivor list, and the references in whatever arrangements you have in mind. Then everyone can look at the alternatives you came up with and form an opinion. Also look at {{Reflist}} to see the options for grouped references. Maybe you can use that (I have no idea). As far as having lots of superscripted footnote numbers at the end of each entry, I can't imagine why that would be a problem. It doesn't interrupt sentence flow when the references are at the end of each list item, because that's not a prose paragraph where the multiple references could be obtrusive. --Teratornis (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenner Army Health Clinic Facebook Page

I am the Public Affairs Officer for Kenner Army Health Clinic. there is a Wikipedia FACEBOOK Page for Kenner that is showing if you search for Kenner Army Health Clinic. I did not create this FACEBOOK Page and my Commander would like for the page to be deleted. Can somoene please tell me how to delete this page? If you search Kenner Army Health Clinic it is an INTEREST page. i created the Government Organization page and another FACEBOOK Page that is entitled Kenner Ft Lee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.141.196.12 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia has no control over which pages are posted on Facebook. You may need to contact Facebook about this issue. TNXMan 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook does mirror Wikipedia content - so if you search Facebook for Honeywell, for example, you will see this page which is Wikipedia's article on Honeywell mirrored on Facebook. That is perfectly acceptable as it complies with the terms of WP:REUSE. We have no control over the mirror on Facebook, so you will have to ask them to take it down, but I doubt that they will agree as the content is already freely available here. – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

When I search for Kenner Army Health Clinic, I don’t see any page that is both Wikipedia and Facebook. Perhaps you are using the work “Facebook” incorrectly to mean “wiki.” If you are asking about this Wikipedia page, I’m sorry but it is not subject to your commander’s approval. —teb728 t c 20:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Facebook page does not appear to be a mirror of the Wikipedia article. – ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ben Sherman [Southland]

Ben Sherman is a fictional character on the TNT show 'Southland'. He is portrayed by Ben Mackenzie as a rookie cop who joins the LAPD and realises that it isn't as he imagined it to be. Partnered with John Cooper, a senior officer, Sherman learns about the troubles of the Los Angeles police officer the hard way - through experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattman69 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. Is there anything with which we can help? TNXMan 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

re: minor addition to the article on Daniel Bell

There are two issues.

1. My correct email address is <redacted>

2. The basis for the correction is personal knowledge. I was an undergraduate and graduate student at Chicago during those years, and was personally acquainted with Dan Bell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.145.5 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is not useful to us, because it cannot be veriable. We need information from reliable published sources. I've also done you the courtesy of redacting our your e-mail address so it won't be harvested by spambots. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC) (who was also at Chicago)

Request Review of First Article Before Launch

Hello,

I've drafted my first article on my user page as recommended in the article wizard.

How do I request a review of this article before I post it?

While I have you, it should be a redirect from the "Engineering" page which lists the book I've written about. It is my first post... how do I do a redirect?

Thank you.--pjm (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FEED is the proper place, but now that you have asked here I am sure one or two of the regulars will take a look at it. Presumably you are referring to the draft on your user page? – ukexpat (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. My user page article titled "What Engineers Know and How They Know It."--pjm (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Rushes~meaning unfound

I am a big reader of mid evil books and I am often reading about rushes and how they needed replacing, cleaning, etc. I finally let curiosity get the better of me, came on my favorite site to look it up and see what it was. After typing Rushes in to the search bar, Only to find out there was no information on rushes. I instead found this: Note, it redirected me to rush not rushes:

                     "Rush
                      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                      Look up rush in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
                      Rush or rushes may refer to:
                          * Rush (band), a Canadian progressive rock band
                          * Rush (name), a surname and given name
                          * Rush (psychology), a sudden pleasurable effect induced by a psychoactive drug
                          * Rush (Thorpe Park), an amusement park ride in Surrey, UK
                          * Rush, any plant in the Juncaceae family"

So I am left to wonder, what is/are rushes, origins, use, and so on. If you would be so kind as to update/add this word to you encyclopedia it would be most appreciated for may readers trying to understand mid evil era. Thank you for taking the time and looking at/into this for a fan of this website!

Information in quotations was copied for informational reasons only from the fallowing page:

<Wikipedia.org> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.192.145 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So what are rushes in the mid evil [sic] context? Without knowing that it's hard to answer your question.&[nbsp;– ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See Juncaceae#Domestic uses. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Rushcart has further information on the same topic. Karenjc 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Could "mid evil" possibly be medieval? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Has my Commons account been hacked?

Is there a way to tell if my Commons account has been hacked? I received this notice regarding lack of permission for a photo uploaded to the commons on July 21, 2010, which originated from this site. But even though this is indicated in the file's edit history, I know that I never uploaded this image, as I would never upload a copyright-protected image from someone's website. Hell, I won't even upload a photo taken by someone else even if I have their permission, because the last time I did this with a photo of Dina Lohan that a friend of mine took, it was eventually deleted because I wasn't the one who took it. So is there any way to know if my account was hacked, or something? Nightscream (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you responsible for the contributions at Commons:Special:Contributions/Nightscream? —teb728 t c 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is something weird here. On July 21, 2010 you made 6 edits to Dave Simons between 17:54 and 18:01 UTC. On the same day, in the middle of the span of these edits, the history of the image shows your upload at 17:58 UTC. But then I would expect you to have immediately added the image to the article, but checking the diffs, you did not. Meanwhile, the documentation for the image at the Commons shows that its author is Daniel Best, and User:Daniel best is the person who added the image to the article, here. So it looks like Daniel best uploaded this but how your name got associated as the uploader is a mystery that someone else will need to shed light on. The only way I could think for this to happen is if the image was local and you simply moved it to the commons and got associated in that way, but that does not seem to have happened here. However, the correspondence of edits, times and users involved smacks of a software origin for the file history error, i.e., that there was not any type of hacking involved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This happen to me some time ago and none was ever able to explain y (no damage done image was fine). I found that since i did the Wikipedia:Unified login thing it has not happen again.Moxy (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, was there a discussion when this happened?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the edits in my Contributions appear to be ones I remember, but these do not. I've moved free images from WP to the Commons before, but only when their free status was clear. Is it possible that the upload edit was deleted somehow? Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Grand Prix

Pacific Grand Prix is our licensed business in the state of Washington. Wiki has recently posted this business name on Facebook. Our Facebook business name is : Pacific Grand Prix. Any other business, organization, or person using our registered business name has not been authorized to do so. Please remove the facebook page immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.2.138 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Provide a link to specify what page you are talking about. CTJF83 chat 23:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pacific-Grand-Prix/110640592321022. Facebook has made a large number of Community Pages with content copied from Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Lots of other websites also reuse our content. These Community Pages are created and controlled by Facebook and not Wikipedia. See http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=382978412130 although some of it may be outdated. You will have to contact Facebook if you want the page removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying with me. CTJF83 chat 01:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)