Help desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

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.

March 18

University promotion

I have asserted a point of view on this talk page that a Wikipedia article is not an appropriate substitute for a university's official website as the place for detailed description of departments, curricula, lists and contact details of personnel, etc. I would appreciate either contradiction or confirmation that my pov is reasonable in terms of Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia is not a directory as a general guide, and Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines for the specifics. These article sections are entirely unreferenced, so you could choose to remove them quoting Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have pruned some of the excessive/unsourced detail. – ukexpat (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New signature policies in effect?

Recently, some well-established Wikipedians (e.g. GB fan and Gadget850) have changed their sig. Was there a policy change WRT signatures? Is mine still ok or should I change it to my exact callsign? If there has been a general drift towards simpler sigs recently, I'd like to keep my sig as it is now (since it is shorter now, at least in rendered length) PS - I know that 'cyclotomic' is a word. Not that it matters here... - (User.0.0.0.1) 07:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Cheers.[reply]

Hey, 0001.

It looks like your username is "User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One ".

Note the extra "User" in there.

That means, your user page is User:User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One, and your user talk page is User talk:User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One.

That is going to cause problems. It is allowable but, it will be confusing.

So I suggest you head over to Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple and request a name-change, to "Zero.Zero.Zero.One", or "Zero001" or...well, anything but not beginning with "User" well. almost anything. You can't have "0001", because that is used)

And then you could sort out a cool and groovy sig, later. (See User:chzz/help/sig for ideas) Cheers, Chzz ► 09:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed my sig in ages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just dropped the colors out of mine, don't really have a reason. It wasn't because of any change in policy. GB fan (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Chzz. However, the "user" prefix is intended.

It would have been "USer" but WP policies don't allow callsigns which show an affiliation to organizations, and IMO that policy would apply to nations as well, or at least, "US" would be a borderline case, so I avoided it. The IP-like look with a number which cannot be mistaken for an actual address was intended, too.

You wrote: That is going to cause problems. Do you mean it could cause malfunction, or only a bit of confusion if someone forgets about the "user" prefix ?

I googled for a streamlined version of my callsign, "user.0001" and got 49 million hits, eeek! Seems my name is far from unique and I should change it more sooner than later.

Thanks to GB fan and Gadget850 too. - (User.0.0.0.1) 13:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like most things in Wikipedia, there are no exact rules. I think that having a username of "User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One", and hence a user page of "User:User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One", is likely to cause problems. If someone thought it confusing they might ask you to please change it. If you didn't, and if enough people thought it confusing, then you could be warned or blocked from editing. Please don't "shoot the messenger", I'm just telling you how it is.

I do not know if it would cause specific technical problems. I think it is likely - I can imagine some tools getting confused by it. I can also imagine someone seeing a page called e.g. "User:User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One/draft article" and assuming it was a mistake.

If, for example, you eventually applied to become an administrator - then I am sure your username would be a significant enough concern for your application to fail.

So my advice would be, to change it - now - before you rack up 10,000 edits and get well-known by your nickname. However, it is entirely up to you - I can only offer an opinion. Chzz ► 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Chzz, I won't shoot the messenger, nor knife him/her, nor set teh bomb up him/her, nor eat his/her liver with chianti, nor... ;-) If anyone thinks my callsign is confusing, then go to my talk page and put it there, either in the screw-up section, or make a new one. If I see a lot of confusion or a warning, or a malfunction report there, I'll change it into something 3072, I mean 0xC00L and groovy. Cheers.

On a related note, I've read that images in a sig are a huge no-go for performance reasons. Are icons from the WP GUI an exception? They wouldn't add an overhead to WP editors who have these in their browser cache. OTOH, I can see that IAR doesn't apply here - it would make my sig better, not the articles, and that's what IAR is about. - (User.0.0.0.1) 07:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of translation

Hi helpdesk Hero,

I am new here and I offer various translation services CZECH-ENGLISH and ENGLISH-CZECH, I confess I got bit lost in your system of settings, FAQ etc. and I would like to translate for Wiki.

Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyhawke007 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers are always welcome. If you see something that needs translating, please feel free to do so. If you have a specific question,please feel free to ask. If you haven't already done so, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Translators available, and perhaps add your name to the latter. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Ladyhawke, thanks. Some pages needing translation are listed here: Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English. Alternatively, you could look for articles that interest you in [Czech wikipedia] and and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disussion of a speedy delete

Hi. The article Simba-Dickie-Group was speedy deleted in December 2010. Because of the Deletion of the interwiki-link in de-WP I got attention to this deletion after 3 months. The admin Rodhullandemu is currently blocked, so I want to ask where to discuss this speedy deletion. In the German WP there is an article de:Simba-Dickie-Group, which shows its relevance. Greetings --Heiko (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for it to be restored, perhaps as a userspace draft so that you can work on it. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made a request there. Greetings --Heiko (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Benitez

Hello... I am the original editor of the article Eddie Benitez and I am Eddie Benitez. I am not sure if I have processed the deletion nomination correctly, the page is very confusing. I am requesting you do that on my behalf. Over the past week, there are 2 IDs - Angelsonmystage and Westwind77 that has been putting false information and slanderous statements in the entry. I do not wish for any future edits to take place, the article has been butchered and I do not have the time to monitor this article daily. Please let me know how we can remove this entry immediately and block my name for future entries. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiaramusic (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a number of administrators have sprung into action here. Fuhghettaboutit has protected the article for a week against edits by new or anonymous editors; and the less-encyclopedic parts of the article are being removed. If there are still problems with the article text, please see "Problems in an article about you". -- John of Reading (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy over multimedia

Hello. The following pictures which supposedly represent different events, are actually the same. Obviously only one of them is accurate. I have no means of determining which. Perhaps someone else could help. Also if I should have followed another procedure to resolve this issue, please let me know. Thank you.

File:Kalavryta_massacre.jpg
File:Distomo_massacre_1944.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.102.88 (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the pictures with links for copyright reasons - see WP:NONFREE -- John of Reading (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a question for the history experts at the Humanities Reference Desk, since it is clearly going to take a bit of research. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attract new authors using Flattr

Hello,

My name is Tom. I'm not sure wether this is the right place for such ideas. If not, please simply point me into the right direction and feel free to delete this message.

Did you every think about integrating Flattr into Wikipedia? I suspect this could attract a new "target group". Till now, all you got from writing / updating an article is honor, at best case. Please don't get me wrong, I respect everybody who's volunteering for making the world's knowledge publicly accessible, but it doesn't encourage some people at all, unfortunately.

Example of an integration of Flattr: I'm researching something and finding the long-awaited answer on almighty Wikipedia. At the moment I'd send Wikipedia a imagined "Thank you" and live on. However, if there was a Flattr button on every page, I'd happily flattr the article. Then, on a monthly-base or so, Wikipedia would calculate who's getting how much of the revenue earned on one article and split it to its authors.

For example: Mr. X wrote 75% of the article, 5 years ago, and Mrs. Y added the last 15% a few weeks ago. Because Mrs. Y contributed more recently, she'd get a little more than 15% (~25%?).

Request for comments. I'd love to hear what you're thinking about that idea.

Have a great day Tom

PS: If you don't know Flattr: https://flattr.com/

PPS: No, I'm not affiliated with Flattr in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.160.31 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly been discussed, and rejected, by the German Wikipedia - see this "Signpost" coverage. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see an immediate problem with working out the percentages of contribution to an article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have difficulty working out who is responsible for a phrases within an article (yes, there are tools, but IMO, they aren't that great) I think working out percentages would be hideously difficult.Naraht (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hi there,

I am trying to update the Wiki of Ms Amy Lame. I have succeded with the text, but am having real problems with updating the photo.

Can someone help!?!

Kindest Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scadta (talk • contribs) 15:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the image that you uploaded to Commons. – ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising search suggestion

I just tried searching for an article on "Mac jobs" (as in low paid, low-status work). I was somewhat surprised Wikipedia's search suggested "Did you mean: man boobs". Apart from some similarity in letters used, the terms are (usually) unrelated. Astronaut (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time on Yahoo! Chat when every time someone typed ass in any context, i.e., pass, lasso, asset, etc., it would be replaced by "that'd be the butt Bob". Made for interesting conversations. I know this does not answer your question but I think it's mostly rhetorical. Computers are dumb. Maybe the search algorithm could use some instruction tweaking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for this would probably be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Rehevkor ✉ 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should have been looking for McJobs ("Mc" as in McDonald's), not Mac jobs; there is a McJobs article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a redirect.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computers ARE dumb. The average computer can make more stupid mistakes per hour than 10,000 humans.

But humans who give computers jobs they can't handle (e.g. content scanning) are dumber. As in Yahoo.chat - just note that a pattern scanner would have been appropriate(WP:OR) if it hadn't replaced content but reported the line to an employee, who would in turn decide about it and either forward or delete the suspicious message. Scunthorpe problem

OTOH, that doesn't apply to the WP search function. It should, if at all, be more biased towards matching words than matching letters - note that it would have redirected to the McJobs article then - but otherwise it's about as close as it gets, with the occasional hiccup. - (User.0.0.0.1) 07:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what im doing

I was reading the page for Bill Buckner. It says under the quote for Jack Buck that the Mets had "2 on and no outs" when in reality it was 2 out and nobody on. Thanx Bill Theobald ^{[details removed]} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.20 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was two out and one one (the winning run). Some flashback. There were two out. There were two men on base. There was a wild pitch, which allowed the tying run to score, leaving one man on and the game tied. Then, Wilson's hit resulted in Buckner's error, allowing the winning run to score. I listened to the play-by-play by Scully for the last several minutes. God, he was good, Scully that is. Anyway, there's no sources for any of the quotes in the article, and I couldn't find the Jack Buck play-by-play on the web. So, what I'm going to do is to shorten the Buck quote so what it says is factually accurate. Not sure if any of this is really kosher, Wikipedia-speaking, but it seems reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If what is there is unreferenced, you are entitled to remove it. Generally this is a last resort (finding a reference is better); but if you are convinced it is wrong, by all means remove it, and say in the edit summary (or on the talk page) why you have done so.

However, please don't perpetuate the problem by adding new information that is still unreferenced. If you're sure it's true, look for a reliable source that says so, and then you can improve Wikipedia by adding the correct information with a reference.

If you are sure that you have the right information but don't know how to find a reference for it, the best thing is to explain this on the article's talk page, and see if somebody else can find a reference. --ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entry about my dad

My dad is a mathematician and has written 150 papers, as well as given his name to a theory which has a Wikipedia entry, so I think that he deserves an entry of his own. I asked him to write an entry, based on that of Hermann Bondi, which he has done, and I had planned to sumbit this as his entry. However now I've read the section on Autobiography, I'm not sure now that this is the best way to proceed. Could you please suggest what my next step should be?

Thanks - Helen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen elizabeth2002 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An important part of the reason for discouraging autobiographies is concern based on experience that biographies will be written for subjects who do not meet our notability standards and that the articles will be promotional. The notability standards for academics is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). And assertions of notability must be verified by citations to independent reliable sources. If your father is as notable as you indicate, he may be able to start an acceptable article. If you enter a draft bio at Helen elizabeth2002/Dad, we could advise you better. —teb728 t c 01:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting a Conflict of Interest is also a very good thing. It helps maintain good faith among editors. So many people pretend they are not connected to the subject at all and end up being treated worse for obvious dishonesty. The most important thing is that you can prove notability. Please check if he meets the criteria listed under WP:Notability (academics) like teb728 recommended. You can then 'prove' notability by making sure the information about him in the article is verifiable by multiple significant sources about him that are independent and reliable. You must also take extra effort to make the tone of the article completely neutral. It must be encyclopedic and not be self-aggrandizing or promotional in any way.

As the policy page on Autobiographies recommended, it's best if you create the article first as a draft/proposed text in userspace. That way other editors can check for compliance to policies before it can be published in mainspace. You can do this by creating the article in the subpage teb728 linked to: Helen elizabeth2002/Dad, or creating it through here:

Userspace draft. If you're new to this, or if you need time to prepare a good draft of your article, you can create a draft in your userspace, and move or copy the draft to Wikipedia proper ("mainspace") later on, once it's ready. (You'll find instructions for this after saving your draft.) Your submission will not be reviewed by other editors unless you request this.

Make sure to bookmark your new draft so you can return to it easily for further edits. Do note that this does not ensure your article will get accepted as well. As already mentioned it really depends on the subject's notability and the extent of its verifiability. Once you have created a draft you can request for feedback from our live help chat, at the Requests for Feeback board, or right here in Help Desk. Good luck.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 02:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]