Help desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

April 14

mesin diesel

semua hal mengenai pneumatik governor??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.211.178 (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are trying to ask. This desk is for questions about using Wikipedia, if you have a specific knowledge question, you may want the reference desk. TN X Man 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll need to communicate in English. This is the English-language Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's Indonesian. Try id.wikipedia.org. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you can read English, you may be able to learn a little about pneumatic governors at Governor (device). —teb728 t c 03:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement?

Hi, I'm placing this question here because I don't really feel like wading through all the help files to find the correct spot... I'm working on bringing the article protein back up to GA status by sourcing the material and adding inline citations, and during my Googling, I discover that the book Biotechnology, written by Christopher Lewis and published by Global Media, has huge swaths of text that are identical to the article I'm working on, including figures and figure captions. Turns out this book was "written" in 2007, which is later than when protein was last GA. The textbook, can be found here at Google books. Sasata (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tracked the earliest revision of the "nutrition" section more or less identical to a section in that book preview, and it appears to have been written on Wikipedia on 25 August 2006 [1], definitively prior to publication of that book. I expect that book is in serious breach of the GFDL. Equendil Talk 07:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why AfD frustrates me

Resolved

– Anti venin 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really resolved, but I can't go against consensus. Anti venin 07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question on Wikipedia policies. More specifically, about how they're applied to AfDs. I'd like to direct your attention to this AfD. The nominator suggested that Susan Boyle does not satisfy notability guidelines as she's just another contender on a TV show. I agree with that, as contenders do not merit their own article. Then came a flurry of 'Keep' arguments stating that as she sang so very well and the judges gave her a standing ovation right after she sang the first note, she deserves her own article. Youtube was also being used as a deciding factor about whether she was notable or not. From my understanding of policy, Youtube should not / cannot be considered. Strong Keep over 250K youtube views already amongst well over 50 videos (edit: now over 350K on one vid alone and While I always strive to maintain a NPOV, I must point out the sheer quality of her performance... standing ovation from the judges, the entire crowd, after just the first vocal left her lips. were some of the arguments used. Also, if she is notable (which I doubt), it would be because of a single performance. Wouldn't that come under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:BLP1E? All the news paper articles talk about that one performance too.

So that is my opinion up there. And yet, I must be wrong. As Looie496 pointed out, 31 people wanted to keep it, 5 people wanted it deleted. So he closed it (non-admin closure). I was rather looking forward to an admin closure, as that admin would decide whether (1) Youtube can be used as a measure of notability, (2) WP:ONEEVENT can be ignored by zealous fans, and (3) whether AfD is really a !vote process or a vote process.

So I want to get your opinion on this. What do you guys think?

On a lighter note, here are some of the more amusing !votes:

Keep - it belongs here because I looked for it here on Wikipedia.

VERY STRONG KEEP - This article NEEDS to be on wikipedia. Without it, wikipedia would be a terrible place! Please, please, please keep it!

Keep (no, that's not a typo). ...

Oh yea, and since I'm posting this anyway, I question the relevance of WP:SNOW in AfDs. It's all very well in RfAs where a minimum % of supports are required, but AfDs require consensus. A hundred people could repeat the same wrong argument and it would still get closed by WP:SNOW. Not fair.

(Also posted at the village pump) Anti venin 08:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments based on "I like it" responses should be ignored. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for more. --Gadget850 (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a case to be made here that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, ultimately, the question asked on AfD is: is the encyclopedia better off or worse off including article X. It is worth noting that this particular article adheres to the more fundamental principles of Wikipedia: verifiability, NPOV, no breach of copyright, etc.

If we'd like to indulge in wikilawyering, notability guidelines are only guidelines, inherently blurry and far from being universally followed. WP:BLP1E does not imply that notability derived from a single event is a criteria *against* inclusion, mostly it invites editors to think twice about it and whether the event or the person are to be covered. Worth remembering also is that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we do not aim to limit the volume of articles. Also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is just an essay.

Another note here, in the spirit of Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy, if something does not require admin tools, then it does not require an admin. Makes no difference if an admin or a non admin closes an AfD discussion with a "keep" or "no concensus" result.

Finally, on the AfD process, and more generally on the idea of "concensus", I would argue that "decision by concensus" is a pipe dream. Sometimes it works: get people to sit around a table and exchange ideas, eventually strong arguments are made, people rally behind those and lo and behold, a concensus was built. Sometimes it does not, and you are left with several set of opinions. No concensus was established, yet a decision has to be made. In a professional environment, decision might be taken in a despotic way, by the project manager or whatever. In a purely collaborative environment, the decision making process would naturally take the form of a majority, absolute majority or supermajority vote. I think we are a quite hypocritical about it on Wikipedia, calling "concensus" what is often merely a supermajority opinion or even that of an absolute majority. The hypocrisy of it does not go unnoticed, which is why people frequently joke sarcastically about "!vote". The Afd process, in my opinion, mixes characteristics of a (super)majority vote, despotism (the closing admin gets to decide which arguments hold weight), though occasionally, a real discussion develops and a true concensus is established. One fault of the AfD process is that it attracts people more interested in having something to show for a future RfA nomination (an even more blatant example of a supermajority vote) than in building a concensus, casting !ballots hurriedly and never revisiting the discussion. I'm starting to rant, so I'll stop now. Equendil Talk 11:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The status of Arguments to Avoid and the notability guidelines isn't really relevant, but document common practice and not following either because they're not labelled policy is exactly the sort of wikilawyering that should be avoided. When an admin closes a debate, they should do so based on the strength of the comments each of the comments the original poster mentions are forms of WP:ILIKEIT or big numbers that don't actually prove anything. Occasionally people vote to keep something with the reasoning it has thousands of google hits. (These are often bad hits because the searcher failed to use quotation marks, but even if they do, it's the content of the pages that matter, not the volume). Unless the deletion is clear-cut with no one disagreeing (apart from the nominator or creator), a debate should be closed by an administrator. (Mgm, who's about to go and thus logged out) - 131.211.210.206 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that this reply does not come after reviewing the AfD, I'm on my way out the door, sorry) It sounds like you have a valid point, Antivenin. I would suggest putting this case up for review at DRV to see if the closure was handled correctly. TN X Man 11:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antivenin, Hi. I don't want to bite, but several things come to mind as I read this post. The AfD is actually the place to make these arguments that you're making to delete this article. Some editors may see this type of posting to the Help Desk (for getting help on how to use Wikipedia), and the Village Pump (for discussion of ideas concerning Wikipedia) as Forum Shopping. Arguments such as I LIKE IT work both ways (see I DON'T LIKE IT). You may also remember seeing WP:NOTPAPER in your travels, we are not constrained by a limited amount space for our articles. I think the actual AfD is the better place for this discussion. Best of luck — Ched : ? 13:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little hard to do that when the Afd has been closed, rightly or wrongly. – ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say re-open it as an inappropriate non-admin closure. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, but I think reopening the debate so soon after closure (whether proper or improper) runs the risk of being labeled disruptive and pointy. As I mentioned above, DRV is probably the best venue. TN X Man 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note here that since this discussion started, the AfD was reopened...and has since been speedy closed again, this time by an uninvolved admin. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does certainly appear that this isn't one of those items that will fade quietly into the night. ;) — Ched : ? 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ukexpat at the time I started typing my reply it was open - by the time I finished, it was closed, I'm guessing we'll need a calculator before it's over ... lol ;) — Ched : ? 14:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open again. I reopened it because of the recent change to AfD that said to quit with the "snowball keeps" and let them run a full 7 days. (I previously !voted to keep, so I'm not trying to get the result to change.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to a cross-posting, this is also being discussed at VPM: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Why AfD frustrates me. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how long before it's an AN/I listing. — Ched : ? 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And....cue ANI: Afd now reopened per discussion at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again. – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia User Name error

Resolved

– tempodivalse [☎] 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Wikipedia User Name is mis-spelled. How can i change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashoka rajalingam (talk • contribs) 09:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Changing username. --Gadget850 (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Wikipedia:Changing username is the correct venue for this. tempodivalse [☎] 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, as you only have one edit (your message above), it might not be worth going through that rigmarole. Just abandon your current user name and create a new account with the correct name. – ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We want to start a wiki for our webshow.

Resolved

– No, sorry, per WP:ADS

Ok, so, we have started a web show based on the anime Death Note. We want to make it a wiki entry so that it canbecome more known. We already have abou 50 fans.Would we be able to do that?

Our youtube channel is

youtube.com/user/AkaMayProductions

Thank you for your considerations:

Akamayproductions (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Emily and Heather of AkaMayProductions.[reply]

You might, but I suggest you read the information on what web-content articles need and this guide on writing your first article. TN X Man 14:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no is likely to be the answer. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles about things that are notable. We have strict polices against advertising or promoting things via Wikipedia I'm afraid and a 50 memember webshow is certainly not going to meet our standards for inclusion. Pedro : Chat 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hate to disagree with Tnxman but in my view your idea is in direct conflict with Wikipedia's rules prohibiting the use of Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. Your user name has also been blocked because it contravenes the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Wikipedia can accept this article, for reasons listed above; specifically, it doesn't seem that your article meets our criteria for notability. Also, as I see your username, I would advise you to read our conflict of interest policy. Thanks. tempodivalse [☎] 14:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should clarify my response. :P Is it likely that an article can be created for this web show? Not really. Is it possible? Sure. Given coverage in one or two reliable sources, there might be a stub in there somewhere. TN X Man 14:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the intent is "to make it a wiki entry so that it canbecome [sic] more known", I doubt it will pass the spam test. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, a bad case of WP:UPANDCOMING from an s.p.a. role account. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be contrarian, I will point out that if all 50 fans of the show are Wikipedia editors with 10,000 or more edits each, I believe they could find a way to make an article stick. ("Notability" is not an intrinsic property of a thing, but is entirely socially constructed, and a sufficiently motivated and resourceful group of partisans could manufacture notability for just about anything.) However, the odds that the show would have such representation on Wikipedia are probably remote, because the questioner needed to ask the question here (instead of simply asking the fans), in which case I would have to go with the negative outlooks above. --Teratornis (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to believe that if all 50 fans happened to be tenured Wikipedia editors they'd know that the the show would fail our guidelines, and have the honesty and integrity to not even begin to steamroll such an option. Maybe I'm a little naive, but still. Pedro : Chat 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, I admire idealism, it makes me a bit nostalgic for those magical days before I became jaded and world-weary...but the guidelines are themselves the result of prior steamrolling. For example, consider how far Wikipedia has strayed from the Dear Leader's opinion of userboxes. However, I refer above to the actual construction of notability, for example by promoting the subject to enough journalists to create a few dozen reliable sources about it. No steamrolling would be required, if the partisans knew how to massage the subject into compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the article would even come up for deletion, that would constitute failure. There are lots of journalists looking for stories. Look at how the Westboro Baptist Church has attained notability despite having fewer than 100 members. --Teratornis (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Idealism and realism may be sides of a coin - or sides of a cube in Wikipedia world. Pedro : Chat 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a Challenge?

Resolved

– DanielPenfield (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent death of the article's subject, the WP:SPA User:Peterluger seems intent on turning the article Stephen Minarik into a memorial by pasting the reactions of multiple public officials into the article (compare yesterday's ambitious edit to today's more modest edit). However, none of the Category:Standardised user warning templates apply and the WP:NOTMEMORIAL only explicitly deals with article creation, not with content. Furthermore the statements appear to be properly sourced.

Anyone care to try to guide User talk:Peterluger along the path of true enlightenment?

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL still applies, as does WP:UNDUE. I have removed the excessive tributes and will leave a message for User:Peterluger.. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a page

how do you make a new wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Prime Time aka Nick (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines which all articles should comport with. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite to reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. TN X Man 15:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parse first three letters of an article name?

I know that mw:Extension:StringFunctions is not implemented. But, is there some other way in which to parse the first three letters of an article name? In particular, I'd like to parse "USS" from every article on every USN ship. This is in support of a template modification. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's the horrible hacky templates for string manipulation. Algebraist 19:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting User Account

Resolved

– I'm assuming this IP won't come back. Zoo Fari 02:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, basically how do i delete my old, never used anymore, user account: 'User:William Dady'? im guessing there is probably a page explaining it but i cant find it. thanks, --84.68.216.105 (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't "delete" an account, that is impossible due to technical restrictions. Your best option is probably simply never to use that account anymore. tempodivalse [☎] 16:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider your 'right' to vanish, though that's probably going to be more hassle than it's worth. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't revert vandalism on Windows 7 page

Resolved

– Vandalism reverted. Thanks for the heads-up. tempodivalse [☎] 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Windows 7 page has been replaced by vandals with Ubuntu content, but I am not able to revert it since links in the previous revisions are triggering the spam filter. Please help. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been fixed. The anti-vandal bot accidentally undid an edit that reverted vandalism. Thanks for the heads-up. tempodivalse [☎] 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid

Is there a Wikipedia tabloid? Soxwon (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. However, there is the Signpost, which is a weekly update on happenings around the Wiki. You can have automatically delivered to you, if you'd like. TN X Man 19:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm subscribed, I just thought it would be amusing to start one that printed absolute rubbish as long as the stories were funny/interesting and as long as it was understood the subjects of said articles would not be offended. Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean this! </humor> Actually, if there were one around here, I'd sign up for it. TN X Man 19:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uncyclopedia. -Arch dude (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia --Gadget850 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Arch Dude, I was thinking of focusing on wikipedians than stories. Where would I go about setting this up? Soxwon (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could tell you, but then we would have to ban you. See Category:Wikipedia humor and Category:Wikipedia Cabal Decrees. -Arch dude (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might find something in WP:EIW#Community or WP:EIW#News. The Wikipedia Signpost has articles about Wikipedians, among other people and things. --Teratornis (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WP:EIW#News was what I was looking for, who is in charge of it? Soxwon (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what you mean by "it". WP:EIW#News is an entry in the Editor's index to Wikipedia, which any Wikipedia editor can edit. However, the index itself is just a reference work; it doesn't actually "do" anything itself. Presumably you refer to one of the links under that entry. How to find out who is charge of a particular linked item would depend on what the item is. If it is a page somewhere on Wikipedia, you could check its history to see who is editing it, and/or ask on its Talk page. If a link points to something else, such as a mailing list, then you might have to look or ask on the mailing list to figure out who runs it. If you want to set up something completely new that is like something you saw under WP:EIW#News, the procedure would depend on what you want to set up. Note that lots of people set up lots of things on Wikipedia that fail to catch on. It's easier to start things here than to make them work. The odds of success tend to improve if more than one person wants to make something happen. --Teratornis (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my edit

Resolved

– TN X Man 19:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted my edit! Valerian456 ^{Hush, Rush} 19:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot determine to which edit you are referring. Was there a specific one you had in mind? TN X Man 19:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was add a speedy deletion tag to the Vtrim article. Valerian456 ^{Hush, Rush} 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind. Valerian456 ^{Hush, Rush} 19:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catandica exact meaning.

Resolved

– Wrong venue. Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, that is the correct place to post your question. tempodivalse [☎] 21:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, my husband want to name our 4 days old daughter, Catandica. I only know that there is a villa de Catandica in Manica. He is so much attached to it coz his youngest brother died in gairezi coming from Villa de Catandica fromcollecting weapons before zim independence. So i want to know the meaning. i know it originates from a brave son of a local chief. Please help me as soon as possible.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.213.56.153 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Humanities reference desk instead, as this page is intended for asking questions about using Wikipedia only. Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. tempodivalse [☎] 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double vision...sort of

Resolved

– Thanks! Xenon54 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I logged on Wikipedia this afternoon and discovered that there are now two UTC clocks in the user navigation bar. Here's a picture. I would like to keep the one on the left, with the bigger text, but can't figure out how to remove the one on the right. I don't seem to have checked anything and Modern.js is blank. Thanks, Xenon54 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The righthand clock is part of friendly, which you have in your modern.js (note lowercase). The lefthand clock appears to be that produced by the UTC clock gadget, which you presumably have enabled in your preferences. Algebraist 21:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]