Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 January 16

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 16

How to repair cam position sensor 1990 BMw 750il

<ref>How to repair cam position sensor 1990 BMW 750il </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.132.36 (talk • contribs)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How to announce a radio program about Wikipedia

Dear editors: I am listening to an amazing hour-long radio program analysis of Wikipedia's effect on the world, on CBC Radio One. It's called "The Great Book of Knowledge, Part 1", with Philip Coulter speaking to moderator Paul Kennedy in the program Ideas. I wanted to report it, but the closest page I could find is Wikipedia:Press coverage, and it seems to only be geared to print sources. Is there another spot to list reports in other types of media? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

PS - Since this is Canada's largest radio network, with 4.3 million listeners per week, it would be interesting to know if there is a sudden influx of new editors from Canada in the next few days. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

there appears to be Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio although that seems to have stopped in 2011. (I would just use the {{episode}} template and place it on Wikipedia:Press coverage) . Also, if they talked about any specific pages you can tag those pages with the {{press}} tag. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mention it on Jimbo's talk page. No doubt he'd be interested and the talk page is widely watched. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You can also put a notice at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Did that. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

US Politicians' parties customarily mentioned?

Per Talk:The_Record_(Bergen_County) I forgot to put the parties of both the Democrat and Republican who had exposes done by this paper and an editor removed the one I did put on and hasn't responded to my comment both should be added. (He often won't respond to me.) I don't want to "edit war" so need to know if it's customary to mention US politicians parties so I can put that in. In this case it is relevant to indicate that the paper is nonpartisan. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing looks like a WP:COATRACK - there is no indication that these stories are in anyway important in the history of the paper. It would require third party sources commenting on the importance or awards for these stories for it to merit mention (and not merely repetitions of the stories the Record has printed). It is an article about the newspaper after all. At this point, the only potentially appropriate content would be something like "The Record filed a FoIA request that brought to the publicin Jan 2014 e-mails that Gov Christie's cabinet had sent connecting them to the bridge closure." ( Businessweek)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mission Viejo

Current Mission Viejo infobox photo

WPPilot aerial Mission Viejo photo (proposed infobox photo)

I placed a aerial photo of the city of Mission Viejo, on the page for the city Mission Viejo and for some reason a user is dead set on removing it, to replace it with a photo of a few homes, on the lake and a mountain 50 miles away. The user simply removes the valuable aerial photo and provides NO reason whatsoever for the removal of a valuable aerial photo. Aerial photos on Wikipedia are rare and in just about every city in Orange county at least that is the norm. The user has no reasoning whatsoever for his actions, I posted clear and respectful dialog to explain that everyone should be able to benefit from the aerial photo, and the user just removes it altogether. Thanks in advance for help, WPPilot 04:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The current Mission Viejo infobox photo has consensus to be in the infobox due meeting WP:LEADIMAGE and it being in the Infobox for a while. If you want to change the InfoBox image, you need to get consensus at Talk:Mission Viejo, California using the standards in WP:LEADIMAGE. After a 30 day RfC, you post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to have the discussion closed. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Infobox photo" is misleading. While all the city's on southern Orange County have aerial shots as info box photos, this was more about the summary removal of a quality photo from the page altogether with the replacement photo not in any way representing the area that it represents without any effort to consider the editors objective, "to improve the story". While that is a artistic photo, it clearly gives the reader the idea that Mission Viejo is a lakefront community that sees snow. Nothing could be further from reality.WPPilot 05:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The description at File:Snow at Lake Mission Viejo 005.jpg refers to it as mountain unusually covered in snow, so that might go against the photo being a "visual representation of the topic" per WP:LEADIMAGE. In your discussion, just stick to the advice on selecting a lead image listed at WP:LEADIMAGE and how each of the images meets or does not meet that advise. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In view of the public funding that Wikipedia uses, how is the article approval process kept fair?

It seems logical that since public contributions are solicited and used to fund the operation of Wikipedia (WP), the individuals and qualifications of those who approve what the public is able to read on WP should be made both public and accessible to any reader who requests such information.

If that logic is somehow flawed, it would be good for WP to explain why it thinks so.

If the logic is correct and agreed, then I make a formal request that the article approval process, along with the names, backgrounds and qualifications of the admin people responsible for said process be made public on WP's home page.

I further request that WP state what safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the article approval process remains consistently unbiased and free of racial, political, religious, national or any other prejudicial or personal influence and restriction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.251.168 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no mandatory "article approval process". Anyone can sign up for an account and then create an article which will appear in "mainspace" (i.e., on Wikipedia) as soon as the Save button is clicked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

And while admins may delete articles, they have no special powers in the creation of them. Also, I still haven't gotten my check from the Foundation, either for deleting or writing articles. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

And before the IP asks, article deletions are usually made after a public discussion or notice or if the article strictly matches our criteria for speedy deletion. Any admin deleting articles for personal reasons would be quickly shown the door. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

For the most part, Wikipedia uses quantity of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to determine whether Wikipedia should have an article on a topic. (See WP:GNG) It doesn't take a whole lot of qualifications to look at a quantity of news, magazine, and book coverage on a topic to determine whether there is enough information from which to summarize into a Wikipedia article having a few paragraphs. Do you have a particular article topic for which you would like the Help Desk to look at to determine whether Wikipedia can have an article on it? -- Jreferee (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia's privacy policy forbids compelled disclosure of editor identities or personal information except in very limited circumstances. Note also that editors have no information about financial contributions, and so cannot be influenced by who has or has not made such contributions. DES ^(talk) 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note too that the phrase "public funding" can be misleading, particularly for speakers of some varieties of English. The individual Wikipedias are not "publicly funded"; they are supported by voluntary individual donations to a nonprofit organisation. Access to that organisation's resources is made freely available to all, whether they donate or not, provided they follow the rules. The user-generated nature of the content, and its inherent unreliability, are explicitly stated. Processes for reporting and correcting problems are in place. I can't understand where you get the idea that any passing member of the public should have the right to demand sensitive personal information about fellow members of the public who spend some of their spare time generating and editing content on a private website which they themselves are equally entitled to edit if they choose. - Karenjc (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(see Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_December_25#Question_about_Wikipedia -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)]]

Stockton Beach

Please look into the Stockton Beach article per theherald.com postings: January 14, 2014 "Recently the Herald ran a couple of stories about Wikipedia and one of their volunteers who will not allow "his" Stockton beach information to be edited. ("Taking myth to the Max" Herald 7/12/13)." -- Jreferee (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, firstly, there's Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, but to me it looks like sour grapes on the part of the letter writer.

His comment that "Try and include any of the above as part of Wikipedia and your computer will more than Iikely be banned due to, I quote, ‘‘an act of vandalism and sock puppetry’’." suggests that he used an IP address to try and edit, then when he was reverted went to his local library to try and re-enter the info, hence the next paragraph of "Submit the edit on a library or school computer and that computer may be banned along with the public’s right to contribute to other subjects within Wikipedia."

Also, let's not forget that the public doesn't have any right to edit Wikipedia, despite being the encyclopedia anybody can edit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

All that may be true, but it looks to me as if the sources now used in the article for this issue are quite questionable. I posted a one sentence addition citing the original story (not the letter) and was promptly reverted. More views at Talk:Stockton Beach would be very welcome. DES ^(talk) 11:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Just to provide some context here, Wikitout began making some pretty peculiar edits at the article in November. The first included unexplained personal analysis, original research, unexplained removal of cited content and some pretty silly statements like "dragged by submarine".[1] It got worse from there so I took it to ANI.[2] As a result, because he refused to discuss his edits and continued to edit disruptively he was indef blocked. Coincidentally, two days later the article in the Herald appeared, although I've only learned of it today. The link between the editor and the individual mentioned in the article is obvious. Since then he has, as Chaheel Riens has identified, engaged in multiple acts of sockpuppetry and his edits continue to be be disruptive. The Herald article is based on the claims of a disgruntled, indef blocked sockpuppeteer and the owner of a self-admitted fansite, which is why its inclusion in the article was reverted. Wikipedia editors (especially blocked ones) are not reliable sources, nor are fansites and we don't let them sneak into articles the back way just because somebody else decides to trust them. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• When a reliable newspaper bases a published article on interviews with people, that article does not become less reliable because we might not accept their direct statements as reliable sources. The newspaper exercises editorial control, which means we have better reasons for trusting the statements it chooses to include than we otherwise would. And when I examined the statements supporting the claim currently in our article but being challenged by the newspaper article, it seems to me that none of the sources that support it is in fact reliable. This is now being discussed at Talk:Stockton Beach, where I have posted specific analysis of the currently cited refs. DES ^(talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've not having looked at the article, its talk page or any of the edit warring/sockpuppetry analysis. However, the Herald article mentioned above says "When quizzed about his parliamentary assertion, [Port Stephens MP] Craig Baumann was apologetic. It appeared he had accidentally misled the house, he said, and he promised to correct the record when the chance arose." It should be a pretty simple matter to look this up in the relevant Hansard records and provide a reliable reference for the whole tale. Astronaut (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hansard report is one of the sources i analyze on the article talk page. DES ^(talk) 13:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

To date there has been no retraction or apology by Baumann in parliament so we still have a disgruntled, blocked editor, a fansite and an unsupported claim of an apology as sources for the opinion piece. I don't see how it could possibly be regarded as reliable. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

request for copying of some photographs

I am writing a book on plants and animals mentioned in sacred scriptures- quran/bible. in this regard your website has been of great help to me and I appreciate your services in the dissimenation of knowledge at global level. may I request you to allow me to copy some photographs from your site for their inclusion in the text of the book. in case you allow me I shall forward the list of the specific photographs. I will highlight the source of each such figure adopted. thanking you

N.A. Zeerak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazeerak (talk • contribs) 09:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Each image on Wikipedia (or hosted on Wikimedia commons and used on Wikipedia) includes information on its licensing terms on the image description page, which you can view by clicking the any displayed image. As long as you comply with those terms, you may use images without receiving any special permission from anyone on Wikipedia. All images hosed by Wikimedia Commons, and many images on Wikipedia, are released under free licenses, so that anyone may reuse them for any purpose. Most of these require that you attribute the image to the original creator or source, often with a link if possible, but without any other requirement. Some require that you grant the same rights to others. DES ^(talk) 10:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

query about venue

Sir/ma'am, as i have been referred by one of your employee for referral interview i got my application form but didnt get any information regarding venue...so i request you to give me information so that i can reach there on time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.19.134 (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 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. DES ^(talk) 10:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

how to add a picture on the infobox

Hello, i am making a new article and i wanted to add a picture in the infobox, but i cannot understand how to do it. i have the original picture on my computer and i want to upload it from there. any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniandguypk (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

To upload, click on Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. To put it in the infobox, you would need to tell us which one, as they vary. CTF83! 11:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Toniandguypk. You will not be able to upload an image at Wikipedia until your account becomes autoconfirmed; that is, until you've made at least ten edits (you've made six thus far) and you account is at least four days old (which it will be on January 19, 2014 at 06:29 (UTC))

However, please note that if the image bears a free copyright license – one that is compatible (if you took the photograph yourself you can in many cases choose the license) or the image is in the public domain, then it should not be uploaded to Wikipedia, but to the Wikimedia Commons so that all projects have access to the image and extra work is not created for us to transfer it there. And the Commons does not have the autoconfirmation threshold for uploads that Wikipedia does. Once an image is uploaded to the Commons it can be used on any other language Wikipedia natively.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Also note that if it is NOT free, it probably is NOT going to pass our requirements for using copyright materials see WP:FAIR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Note though that the article in question might not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, it reads like a resume, and you might have a conflict of interest. Your username is also problematic because it appears to represent an orgainsation - see the relevant policy here. Astronaut (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

more than a resume, it reads like an advertisement and in fact may qualify for WP:SPEEDY deletion as unambiguous promotion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not surprising that it looks like an advert; it's a copyright violation from http://www.fashioncentral.pk/blog/2014/01/06/launch-of-toniguy-islamabad/ --David Biddulph (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Steve Freeman

Wanted to add a comment regarding Steve Freeman. He was all state in high school at Whitehaven in Memphis Tenn where a few years later won the decathlon.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.5.8 (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about the article Steve Freeman? If the information is relevant you are free to add extra detail if you can provide a reference to a published reliable source to support what you propose to add. If you are not confident in making the edit yourself you can propose it on the article's talk page, but again you need to give a reference to the supporting information to meet Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

designated class of my biography

My biography of Frank Eliscu 1912-1996 was designated as "start class" in November. I then added more information and references and believe it to be a thorough biography. How do I get the biography to be designated at least a "good article" class?NBELQ (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Quality scale for a list of the various levels and the criteria that each specifies. Note that there is a large jump from "start" to "Good article". DES ^(talk) 14:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On a quick look this seems well above start, but I'm not sure that it meets GA. Perhaps C- or B-class. But anyone can check it against the criteria and adjust the rating. DES ^(talk) 15:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a Notifications bug??

I got a Notification, telling me Mark Miller mentioned me in this edit. The problem is... he didn't, nor do i have anything to do with that article. Can someone tell me if this is a bug or something else has happened? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting; I got a notification for the exact same edit. Mark transcluded the entirety of CaroleHenson's userpage in that edit, which contains a lot of links - you may well be mentioned in there (I gave her a barnstar once). Yunshui 雲‍水 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, there you are - you gave her a dove about a year ago. Anyway, it's not a bug, just an unfortunate side effect of accidentally transcluding a link-heavy userpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, i see! I think I remember what the Dove was for too now! Thanks a lot Yunshui ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

David Camm third trial

Hi! I am new to wikipedia and have created a page that is waiting for review. I would like feedback on it to make sure there aren't any issues with it as well as to make sure the page is clear and understandable. Is there anyone who would like to review it and give me feedback? If this is not the correct place to ask for such feedback, is there another place on wikipedia to elicit such feedback?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Third trial of David Camm Bali88 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You asked at the Teahouse, and the question was answered there. Note that it is better to give a wikilink rather than a URL, so I have changed the link in your question. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Someone did respond, but they also stated they had not read the article and did not act like they planned to in the future. I wanted someone to actually read through it. Thanks Bali88 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the Teahouse, it is in the review queue and will be looked at in due course. Asking the same question in multiple places tends to be frowned on as it can lead to volunteers wasting time answering questions which have already been answered elsewhere. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. I just didn't know if people liked reading articles. Bali88 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can not find the last article which i was addinig Lately?

Hello, my user name is hofman20

I was adding an article yesterday night. I wanted today to make some amendments to it and I was not able to find it. The article was fulfilling the General notability guideline. Is it possible that some one was deleting it without with out sending a notification or adding it to the discussion forum. Best regards and thank you for answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofman20 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions show that you had not edited since August 2013. You may have been logged out or did not save your edits. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can see your list of edits at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hofman20 or by clicking "contributions" near the upper right of any Wikipedia page displayed while you are logged in. This will not include any edits you might have made while not logged in. DES ^(talk) 15:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No edits by hofman20 are to deleted articles. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)What is the title of the article? Looking at your contribution history (can be seen here) and this tool I see only one article created by you (Royal Society of Fine Arts (Jordan)) which is still there. I am not an administrator and so unfortunately cannot see your deleted contributions. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you perhaps referring to the article Abd a. masoud? Note that that article is on Simple English Wikipedia. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that article in simple:, it look as if you are confused between wikilinks and URLs. Hopefully someone there will look at your attempt, and comment appropriately. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You also have inline external links, which certainly wouldn't be accepted here & presumably not in Simple either. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your rush answer. I was really missing The article in Simple Wikipedia. It was a bit confusing for me that I did not find any thing about it under my user contribution list, despite the fact that I was logging on and adding the article under my name. Thank you again for your kind assistance and clarifying this point to me Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofman20 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request for James Harris Simons page - COI

Hello, I need help from a wiki editor. I've proposed quite a few edits to the wiki page for James Harris Simons, but I have a COI and need to have the edits reviewed and posted for me. Can anyone help? Thank you! Talk:James Harris Simons#Net Worth update

Ljung123 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Template for Academy Award lists

Where would I go to make a suggestion about (or to edit) the template for the "Academy Award lists"? I am referring to this below. {{Academy Awards lists}} Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The V T E link to view, talk and edit. --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Vinland Map

FROM Wikipedia article on Vinland Map Examination of her anatase by a colleague, mineralogist Dr Kenneth Towe, showed that it was very different from the neat, rounded crystals found in the Vinland Map and modern pigments, and despite decades of further work, she was also never able to explain how the iron would have disappeared from the Vinland Map ink.[10][15][16]

The above should be edited to read: Examination of her anatase by a colleague, mineralogist Dr. Kenneth Towe, showed a difference in the size and shape of the anatase particles to those in the transmission electron micrograph of the Vinland Map ink that was published by Walter McCrone in 1988. However, the description of the particles of anatase in the Vinland Map ink as "neat, rounded crystals' has been questioned by Jacqueline Olin and truncated bi-pyramidal crystals have been identified in the transmission electron micrograph. These crystals have been identified as being of the shape of naturally occurring anatase crystals. Evidence of calcination of the anatase in the Vinland Map ink must be reexamined. Jacqueline Olin has proposed that the Vinland Map ink is an iron gall ink and has pointed out the presence of goethite in the particles in the crevice of the Vinland Map that were identified in the McCrone report to Yale in 1974. Goethite results from ferrous sulfate and is evidence that the ink of the Vinland Map may have deteriorated and that this can be an explanation of how the iron concentration in the ink was reduced and why iron does not appear as a major component in some locations of the ink on the Map. There are some areas of the ink, however, in which iron has been reported as major.

The following publication should be added to the references.

Olin, J.S. (2012), "Evidence That the Vinland Map was Drawn Using an Iron Gall Ink: The Continuing Need for Further Research", Advances in Chemical Engineering and Science, Vol., 2, No. 4, pp. 514-518.

Olin, J.S. (2013) "The Vinland Map: Transmission Electron Micrograph of the Ink", International Journal of Advances in Chemistry, Volume 1, Number 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqueline Olin (talk • contribs) 20:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but the right place for such suggestions is on the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I find it extremely weird that warning signs like "You are not logged in" appear when I have an honest question

Think about this: I'm 54 years old. I was a writing major. I have written things on Wikipedia for many years. Where is the guy named Jimmy who started Wikipedia? Can I talk with him? I can help HIM, with all due respect.

I am withholding my name since obviously you know it and you control the site. Or, if you don't know it, you can take the IP address that you've had for 10 years and contact me via e-mail.

P.S. Threatening older users with your red letters, blue links, etc., is useless to brave people. Have some courage, like us older folks. Tell us your names, etc., and upgrade your methods. I am UNMOVED in a word. And I have been helping YOUR ORGANIZATION for at least 10 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.212.235.185 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate questions. Everyone who is not logged in gets the same warning, Don't take it personally. What is the question you have? RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW we remind people because if you are not logged in you are providing more information publicly than you would if you had an account. From your not-logged-in post, I can tell that you are probably somewhere near Thomasville GA, USA, the computer you are logged in with likely has an account with CNS-Internet etc. All that I can tell about RudolfRed, is that he has edited some pages on Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You can reach Jimmy Wales by posting on his Talk page, which he reads (as do many other people). --ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(note - i edited the link - the shortcut was not created) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Odd wording in notification

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T56433

I wasn't sure if this question belonged here or at WP:VPT, since there might not be an actual problem. I received a notifaction recently that someone mentioned my name "on the Reference Desk/Humanities talk page". However the mention was not on the talk page, but on the normal page. The link was correct: [3]. Why did the notification say the message was on the talk page? Is this a known quirk? I haven't noticed this problem before. RudolfRed (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a known bug. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. RudolfRed (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The message is made by MediaWiki:Notification-mention so we could improve it here at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Timing of posting

Resolved

 – RayPellecchia (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please tell me how long it generally takes from the time an article is "accepted" by an editor to the time it is posted/published? Thank you. RayPellecchia (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Less than a second. When an article is saved, it HAS be published, and aside from network and server delays, will be live worldwide immediately. Normally, no "acceptance" is needed, either. Anyone may edit, although one must register a free account to create new articles. In case you are refering to drafts submitted through the articles for creation process, thre is a review and acceptance process there. But the act of acceptance is to move it into the main article space, making it live at once. DES ^(talk) 21:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! RayPellecchia (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating an article in Wikipedia without violeteing the regulations

Hi to you all guys! :)

I've got a question for you. I registered in Wikipedia and learned how to create a page on wikipedia. I intend to write an article about a non-profit documentary. Some guys who volunteers in Wikipedia for years now told me that if I write it , other volunteers are going to delete it because it is regarded as spam. But how can it be spam when it is about a NON-PROFIT documentary. Is that true?

Some other volunteer told me that it is not FAMOUS enough. Is that the way Wikipedia reasons? by how famous a topic is? because I can name tens of article in wikipedia which hardly anyone is aware about.

This documentary is renowned by thousands (not millions) of people around the world and It has been watched thousands of times on youtube and on the official site.

Can you please tell me if I CAN write this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButyRick (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

They didn't say 'famous' they said 'notable' which has a special meaning here. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability and see if what you want to write about meets this requirement. RJFJR (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(For the really simple version you can click here: WP:42) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suspect you have misunderstood both volunteers, who perhaps were not as clear as they might have been. In Wikipedia terms, "Spam" or more accurately "promotion" is any article (or part of an article) intended to promote or advertise any person, organization, cause, or viewpoint. It does not need to be a profit-making business, although much promotion is of such businesses. All articles should be written from a neutral point of view, giving the verifiable facts, and not editorializing, even in favor of a very worthy group or cause. As to what subjects are covered, the most important standard is notability with is not the same as fame, but is often confused with fame. In general, we say that a subject is notable if published reliable sources that are not affiliated with or associated with the subject have written about the subject in significant detail. If these writings are reliable but obscure, the subject may be notable but not at all famous. On the other hand, it is possible but unlikely for a subject to be very well know but not have been written about by any reliable source, in which case it would be famous but not notable. Because Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought, we need the writings of such reliable sources to have something to base articles on.

So the first question is, has this documentary been written about by people not associated with it? Not in blogs, not fansites, not by the director or producer or anyone else who helped create it, but independent published critical commentary or analysis? This could be in a book, a magazine, a news outlet, a scholarly journal, or an expert's website or any of various other forms of reliable source. If such sources exist, the film should be notable and an article would be acceptable. You might want to use articles for creation where volunteers will assist you with the process of creating an article, but the cost of this is some delay, and it is not required. See your first article for more details. DES ^(talk) 21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I should also point out that the "non-profit" nature of documentary is irrelevant to the the process of deciding whether it is, by Wikipedia's criteria, "notable". Charities which save thousands of lives are judged on the same basis as Mexican drug gangs. Maproom (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I can tell you that the documentary was written and produced by a guy who created a website to publish it free. By the way the documentary is on IMDB. that would be the only reference. Anyhow I have noticed few other documentaries which are very similar to this one, and tou didn't delete it. So I'll start writing the article :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButyRick (talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The IMDB is generally not a good reference, because much of it is "user-generated" content. If you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS you will see that "There are other similar articles and they haven't been deleted" is generally a poor argument -- the replay is "well no one got to them yet. What are they're names? I'll go delete them also." If you can find additional references it would be a very good thing. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you are not going to delete them because they're much more wide-spread than the documentary I'm talking about, so few newspapers wrote about it, it got rewarded an stuff like that; so if there's one thing for sure is you're not going to delete it; But they're basically the same: they were produced by guys who understood and were fed up of what they noticed in this insane society and wanted to change something for the good. They The difference is: one became famous in a very short time (it reached millions of people), and the one I'm talking about is spreading now as we're speaking ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButyRick (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's spreading now and is not notable yet, an article will be feasible in the future, when it is notable. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Submitted content but it was deleted

I am the owner of a website for an enterprise software company. An article was written about the company that was simply trying to be objective to the facts and make sure the company appears on the wikipedia.org site. The content was deleted before I could contest the speedy deletion due to the content being very similar or copied from the company's about us page.

How can I get simple fact based content uploaded about the company and include links to press releases that have taken place?

Appreciate any step by step guidance.

website is: www.pryamidanalytics.com Company is: Pyramid Analytics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moodyj (talk • contribs) 22:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't, and neither can anyone else affiliated with the company. See Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite right. While people with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from creating or editing an article about something that they are affiliated with, it is not completely forbidden. That said, using a company's own web page and their press releases to draw information from is not a very good practice in most cases. In order for an article to be written about a company, they must be shown to be notable enough according to WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not a directory of every company in existence. So, before trying to get an article, make sure your company meets the requirements first. If you intend on writing the article yourself, it's best to go through the articles for creation process to have the article reviewed by other editors before it goes "live". And then sit back and remember that you cannot control the content of the article because articles are not owned by anyone. Even the creator of the article. Dismas|^(talk) 23:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the input but as was mentioned the content's goal was to be objective while also incorporating in content written by 3rd parties and is public information. I did not think that would be a negative in this case. I would still like to submit my content and I can take away the summary content that is similar to the website.

Wikipedia editing/writing needed

Now and then I come across a request for help with a W-page. Of course, this is most likely to happen when I'm involved in something else. Is there one page/file/directory that lists topics that need edits, references, updates, new writing etc with a link to the place where assistance is needed?71.178.62.198 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia maintenance is one place to start. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 23:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

and there are several categories that are created when someone posts a "clean up" flag of one sort or another on the page. You can then use the main pages for those cats to find articles in need of a particular type of TLC. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for articles that need help, and are related to topics that you're interested in; there's an app (bot) for that. See: SuggestBot (or Here for how to use it). ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blood and Sand (cocktail)

Blood and sand cocktail. Wiki days that the blood and sand was developed in honour if rudolf valentines movie blood and sand... However the recipie predates the movie as the recipe was first in print in Tom bullock's cocktail book "the ideal bartender" published in 1917... Please adjust your page accordingly to save many world wide red faces... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwicam39 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken. I'm not seeing that recipe in the book you mention. Here is an online copy of the book: [4].--Rockfang (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)