Help desk
< August 14	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 15

How to create a square of 4 images

Hi, I'm wondering how I would go about putting together 4 images into a square shape. I know how to put them all in a horizontal line, but I'd like it to be 2 on top, then 2 on the bottom. All I should need is the template. Thanks! Delaywaves • talk 00:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this, perhaps?

Hope that helps, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can make your own table like above. {{Image array}} or {{Photomontage}} are also possible, depending on the formatting you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That photo montage looks perfect! I have two questions. First, do you know if I could somehow put the caption more "inside" the box?

Example caption

I inserted the montage that I'm planning, and as you can see, the caption is sort of off to the side, as opposed to inside the box like a normal thumbnail photo. Secondly, do you know how to align the photo on the right side of the page? Delaywaves • talk 01:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example caption

I think it's mainly intended for infoboxes. If that's not how you want to use it then the source shows some undocumented parameters. Here I used | text = Example caption | position = right. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works perfectly! Thank you very much. Delaywaves • talk 15:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Sugar Company

The Imperial Sugar Company history of Spreckels Sugar Company link at the bottom of the Spreckels Sugar Company article takes me to the Ruth Lake Country Club. Looks bad to me unless I am missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmstarry (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link. RudolfRed (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convert weights to stone?

How common is it for people to report their weight in stones? Is this something that we should be adding to infoboxes for people's weight? If so, what if they are American or of some other nationality that doesn't use stones on a regular basis? I realize that we used both feet and meters or pounds and kilos but since stones are so limited in their acceptance/use. Dismas|^(talk) 03:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three countries in the world which haven't officially metricated, the USA, Libya and Burma. As you say, the US doesn't use stones. Libya and Burma are not primarily English speaking countries. I see no place for conversions to stones. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between being "officially metricated" and the old units being out of use. Many British people still describe their weight in stones, though I don't know what statistics are available on the proportion who do so. As is mentioned in the article on stones, the unit is still used in Britain to describe the weight of such sportsmen as boxers and jockeys, and it is similarly used for oarsmen at Henley Royal Regatta. Whether it should be used in an infobox probably depends on the context. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience British people measure their weight either in Kg or in stones and pounds, never just in pounds. So I would say that this is an example of WP:ENGVAR: if there is reason to give the weight of a British person (which there hardly ever will be, apart from certain sports) it should be in Kg and stones/pounds. -- ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An annoyance (to British ears) of the film Bridget Jones's Diary was the way she reported her weight in pounds only, rather than stones and pounds (as I believe she did in the original book). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book article titles

I want to create an article about a book. How do you make the article title appear in italic like The Selfish Gene?--I am One of Many (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I see the answer. If the first words of the article are in italic, the article title appears in italic.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I have a book info box, then the title is italic.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox book, yup. I answered my own question.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! The book infobox, along with other infoboxes such as film, does cause the title to be displayed in italics. drewmunn talk 07:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you don't want to use an infobox, adding the template {{italic title}} in the article will also cause the article's title to appear in italics. Deor (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many similar user names

While correcting some cut and paste moves, I came across this article: Guy Huygens. Checking the editing history, I found that it had been editing be various editors whose names began with the word Frank. It looks like someone was creating a new user name for each edit. Is this a problem, and if so, should anything be done about it? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts are perfectly acceptable if they are correctly used. Many Wikimedia employees have multiple accounts to differentiate work edits from hobby contributions. Similarly, you may choose to have one account that focusses on a specific area, and another on a different area. However, it is usually good form to note that you have another active account on each of the user accounts' home page. See WP:SOCK#LEGIT for information on this. However, if the multiple accounts are used to evade sanctions or guidelines, as seems to be the case here (after a cursory glance through), then it is simple sock-puppetry. For information on how to handle a possible case of sock-puppetting read the guidelines on the topic. There are range of tools and methods that may help you, and a range of more knowledgable sock-puppet investigators to help if you want assistance. Finally, apply the duck test: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". In this case, if they look like a sock-puppet, they probably are! drewmunn talk 07:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Anne's instinct is right, there has to be something wrong here. The article appears to have been created as an uncredited translation from fr.wp. That article has also been edited by many Franks, and was created as a more-or-less straight copy-paste from here (2009 version of that page). Unfortunately the English version of the same page does not seem to have been archived, so it's hard to see if ours was copied straight from it. Even if it hasn't, I think (but am fully open to correction) that a translation of a copyvio is still a copyvio. I suspect it should be blanked as such. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on copyright. It seems that although the French article was cut and pasted from a web site, but I don't know if it's still a copyvio after some initial paraphrasing, a little editing and then translation. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could weigh in here. Also most of the sources are dead links, leaving only a self-contributed profile and a book that he co-authored. I also noticed that the French version had been tagged for sources and one of the Franks removed the tags twice. (Sorry to have not replied sooner - no Internet at the bluegrass festival) —Anne Delong (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical article by spouse?

I think my husband is notable enough to merit a biographical article on Wikipedia. Can a spouse start a biographical article on someone? If not, can I nominate my husband for consideration? Thanks. --Madeleine852 (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking rather than just going ahead and doing it. The guideline is WP:Conflict of interest. It's probably better for you not to do it, but to put in a request at WP:Requested articles; but if you do some of the legwork by finding the multiple substantial references in independent reliable sources vthat are required to establish notability, that may make your request more attractive to a potential editor. --ColinFine (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin - I will do that.--Madeleine852 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation template markup format

Hi, I'm a fairly experienced editor but I have a question about citation templates. In the page markup I usually put separate template fields on separate lines to make the markup more readable:

<ref>{{cite book
  | last =
  | first =
  | title =
  . . .
}}</ref>

rather than <ref>{{cite book | last = | first = | title = . . . }}</ref> I've never noticed any difference in the operation of the template between these two formats. However, a while ago someone said not to do that; he said something about the page couldn't be searched properly if the fields were on separate lines. I can't remember where I read this, and I couldn't find anything in the help pages about it. So I thought I'd check with you experts. Is there anything wrong with breaking the citation template between separate lines? Thank you for your help. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible reason of the top of my head that this could cause an issue would be with the line numbers on revisions, although these rarely make sense anyway. I personally find that placing each parameter of different lines makes it a bit harder to tell where you are in the source, as finding distinct paragraphs can be harder. However, I understand the reasons behind it, and respect them also. If you do find that there is a viable reason for you not to place them across lines, maybe look into the ProveIt tool, which give you a bit of a more intuitive interface to work from with sources. drewmunn talk 08:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I have come across this style of formatting in a page I have been editing, I have been grateful. It makes it much easier to spot where the main text resumes after the </ref> tag. I shall consider using it myself. Maproom (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's how I feel; a chunk of markup with a lot of "horizontal" format citation templates is almost unreadable. But a lot of editors feel differently, and will actually come along and change the format of my citation templates to the more compact "horizontal" format. However the ProveIt bot that Drewmunn suggested above looks like it might be a big help. I'm going to give it a try. Thank you both for the courteous help! Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 15:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the multi-line approach, but I have seen them get collapsed onto a single line automatically by VisualEditor, or for the data to end up at the start of the next line, instead of up in the correct place next to the relevant parameter. The bug hasn't got a priority set, so it may be a while before it's fixed. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dis lock

please i am in austria and my senior brother wife in nigeria after removing her honda pilot model 2003 the disc locked and she dont know the pin . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marclauren (talk • contribs) 09:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is for questions relating specifically to Wikipedia. Thanks, DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 09:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As DarkToonLink says, this is a page for questions about using Wikipedia. You might find somebody who can help you at the miscellaneous reference desk , but I think you would probably have better luck consulting a Honda dealer. I was going to say the computer reference desk until I googled to find out what kind of a thing the Honda Pilot is - it was the reference to a disc that confused me --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating company logo with new version? I am stuck!

Dear Wikipedia

I represent the Australian International School in Singapore. We have recently changed the school logo but the Wikipedia page for the school is still showing the old crest, I can't for the life of me work out how to update this - it's important to us that people see the new logo (we've had a few cases recently of outside providers coming in to present to us, and they have lifted the old logo fromt the Wikipedia page assuming it is still current).

You may check our website www.ais.com.sg to verify this information.

If you could update the page with the new logo or give me simple instructions on how I might go about that I would be very grateful.

Kind regards

Claire Ettinger Communications Manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ais singapore (talk • contribs) 10:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Claire. First off, you should change you user name. Names that suggest a user represents and is working on behalf of an organisation are not allowed. Secondly, you should read WP:IMAGES and WP:UPLOAD for instructions on how to upload images. Only confirmed users can do so. Your account will be auto-confirmed after four days and ten edits, or you can ask for immediate confirmation. I can't find the link for that ATM but I'm sure someone else will shortly. As I assume the school will want to maintain copyright control of the image, it should be uploaded to en:Wikipedia itself, and not to the Wiki Commons. I hope that helps. Rojomoke (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To enlarge on what Rojomoke said, it should probably be uploaded to Wikipedia because we're guessing the School will not want to licence it, so it will need to be uploaded according to the very restrictive rules for using non-free content. Note that you (and the school) do not have control of the article itself, and indeed you are discouraged from editing it (though updating the logo will be fine). Please see WP:Conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest, Company Article

Resolved

DISCLOSURE: I am an employee of the United Hospital Fund, and I am seeking to help correct inaccuracies on the article about this company.

The United Hospital Fund (UHF) is a nonprofit health policy research organization in New York City. I am an employee of UHF, and I recently noticed that someone created an article about UHF that contains numerous inaccuracies. I have set up a user account to correct these inaccuracies and suggest more relevant content.

I want to be very careful to follow WP’s COI guidelines. Following the advice on the COI page and other helpdesk/forum discussions on company articles, here are the steps I’ve taken so far:

Read up on COI policy, WP:BFAQ, and other relevant guidelines.
Created an identity and user page indicating my employment at UHF.
On the Talk page of the article on UHF, pointed out the inaccuracies and suggested broad changes.
Left a related note on the Talk page of the user who created the page and wrote the article. (No response.)
On a subpage of my user page, drafted an updated article on UHF, following WP’s guidelines on NPOV, notability, sources, etc.
Disclosed my relation to the subject at every step.

I’d now like to ask for the attention and advice of experienced editors and the community at large. Is it appropriate to ask a neutral editor to review what I’ve put together on the subpage of my user page? Other suggestions on what I should be doing next?

Relevant pages are linked to above; the subpage where I’ve drafted additional language about UHF is here: User:Miles_at_UHF/draft_updates_on_United_Hospital_Fund.

Thanks very much for your help.

Miles at UHF (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Wow. If every person who wanted the wikipedia page about their company/organization improved did what you have done, I'd die happy and think Jimbo Wales would be promoted to God. Having said that, there a *few* *minor* comments on the proposed new article.

I see that you used the old *further reading* as a reference, I know you said the old reference 1 was not useable in the new version of the article, is the old reference 2?
You may want to look at {{cite doi}} and {{cite pubmed}} for the references out of journals, that way all that needs to be in the article is the doi or pubmed and the information is pulled by a "bot" from databases with that information in it (and it only has to exist in one place even if multiple articles use it.

However *both* issues can be dealt with after the new information has been placed there. You may also want to put a message on User talk:Kipd letting him know since he started the article back in 2010 and contributed the most to it. If no one more experienced has copied this over within a day or so or raised a *significant* objection, I'll move it as soon as I can.Naraht (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht, thank you very much for your review, encouragement, and suggestions! In answer to your minor points:

The old reference 2 isn’t flat-out wrong -- it does describe the association’s fundraising efforts of that year (1893) -- but it’s not particularly relevant. (There are dozens of similar New York Times articles from the late 19th century reporting on the association’s annual fundraising activities.)
Thanks for the suggestion about the citation bots. I’ll look into them in the next few days.

I did leave a brief note on kipd’s user talk page, I’ll add another after the changes are up. (And if other questions come up, I’ll keep an eye out for them on the United Hospital Fund talk page and my user page, rather than here at the helpdesk.)

Thanks again. Miles at UHF (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read your note on kipd's page, that seems fine, but I looked at his contributions page and it appears that he has only edited on two days in the last two years, so I wouldn't wait on his response to do anything. I've copied your draft to mainspace and started making tweeks there.Naraht (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found an incorrect information in your website....

To Whom It May Concern

Firstly, I would like to show my respect for your managing this valuable website. My name is Hyewon Yang. I am a student and a member of the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK) in Korea. VANK is a non-government, volunteer organization, composed of students ranging from elementary school to college and adults who wish to tell correct information about Korea to foreign textbooks and publishing companies.

I would like to inform you that your website includes information that seriously distort image of Korea and that could develop into diplomatic problem between Korea and Japan. We Koreans were surprised to see that your website marks Korea’s island Dokdo as Liancourt Rocks. Please refer to this link of your website: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html

The name Liancourt Rocks is originated from France’s whaling vessel Le Liancourt that discovered Dokdo in 1849. Even though Korea, with sovereign control over the island, uses an official name “Dokdo,” temporary term named by French ship is used by your institution and is spreading globally. This is a big problem as people throughout the world recognize “Liancourt Rocks” as standard name.

Now, you might wonder why Korea is so sensitive about the correct name of Dokdo.

Dokdo is one of the most loved islands in Korea and is Korea’s one of major fishing grounds. In addition, Ulleungdo near Dokdo is the global tourist site. For instance, in 2010, world famous travel magazine, announced that Korea’s Ulleungdo is one of the best recreational site chosen by world’s tourists. According to this magazine, Ulleungdo offers spectacular scenery, preserving the nature from ancient times, and has abundant source of water unlike other islands; neighboring waters, with Dokdo, is the biggest fishing ground in the East Sea. On clear days, Dokdo can be seen from Ulleungdo with naked eye. Historically, for 1500 years, Ulleungdo and Dokdo were referred to as the island of mother and son, which indicates its important close relationship.

Therefore, your institution calling this domestically and internationally crucial island “Liancourt Rocks” will confuse many foreigners and ships visiting Ulleungdo and Dokdo. In addition, your institution might be responsible for physical and mental damage done to Koreans. Above all things, negligence of the term “Liancourt Rocks” would build uncomfortable feelings from Koreans toward your institution and country, and this would become an obstacle to our countries’ friendship.

As a member of VANK, I request that your institution use “Dokdo” instead of “Liancourt Rocks” in all parts of the website that provides information of Korea. For more information on geographical designation of Dokdo in Korean tourist guidebook, visit this website: http://prkorea.com/tour/img/dokdo.gif

We know that your website is putting much effort in understanding other cultures, countries, and designations in this global, informational 21st century. Particularly, your website is contributing towards many people’s correct understanding of other countries’ geographical names and cultures.

We hope you listen to our request kindly.

VANK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.196.26.60 (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English-language Wikipedia. As such, we go by the principle that articles are given the names most commonly used in the English language for the subject. It's as simple as that. This does not mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is taking any position on disputes regarding the subject; we're just following our own rules. I'm sorry if you don't find this satisfactory. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors: standard territorial dispute Liancourt Rocks dispute. The place to request a rename is Talk:Liancourt Rocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Angelo Airport Enniskillen Co- Fermanagh

Corporate Air no longer operate at Enniskillen Airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.227.62 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that states this? If so, you can change it yourself.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neon (Jay Sean Album)

Greetings Wikipedia,

I'm trying to add another review to the Critical Response section for the Neon (Jay Sean Album) Article. However, a user by the name of Koala15 keeps removing my unbiased, cited edit. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealexkarl13 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD. RudolfRed (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IFEQ

So I'm using parser function IFEQ and I can't find out one thing. I want function to mean this:

ifeq: (something)|1 OR 2 OR 3 OR...|(another something)

So my question is: how to do those OR??

Robotukas11 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like most programming languages, the parser function language doesn't allow natural language constructs like "if a is 1 or 2 or 3". But it does support the equivalent of "if a is 1 or a is 2 or a is 3" by using #ifexpr. See Help:Conditional expressions. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you want Help:Switch parser function. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion by...

Why is it that you can search 'jews' in british entertainement, tv, etc and it gives all names and why, which parent they got their 'jew' side from.

Why does the same pages show 'jews by continenant' search box ?

Why cant i do this for CHRiSTiAN, MUSLiM, Hindu or any other religon for that matter.

i find it anti semetic and dangerous that we are still keeping records of who are jews after the WWii holocaust, NO LESSONS LEARNT

Can it be removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.75.20.116 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is due to the fact that Jewish is also an ethnic group besides being a religion. There is no "Christian" ethnic group. Dismas|^(talk) 20:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a question which has often been debated for particular Wikipedia articles, with some editors adding 'Jewish' to the article on anybody who they believe to be Jewish, and others removing it expect where this is an identity which the subject has explicitly claimed. WP:CATEGRS discusses the issue with respect to categories, but similar principles apply for the content.. --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donation question

Dear Sirs,

When I log on to Wikipedia, you ask for a donation, yet you refuse to acknowledge me as an inclusion.

I have had my songs released on 23 albums, and a new release pending in Japan, August 2013

I feel that I should be included, and would gladly donate if all things were fair.

Regards

Keith Law Singer/songwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvettfogg (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we based article content on whether we received donations from article subjects, we'd soon lose any credibility. You are under no obligation to donate - and we are under no obligation to have an article about you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you fulfil the Wikipedia notability criteria, there is no reason for you not be included as a subject. However, note that we can't keep up to date with every single notable subject, so some things are not added when they should be, or do not get the attention they deserve. This is a byproduct of having a volunteer workforce attempting to tackle such a massive task. If you feel you satisfy the notability requirements, feel free to request the creation of an article at WP:AfC. As the subject, you would be discouraged from personally creating or editing this page, but you could potentially provide some invaluable resources and references. drewmunn talk 20:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only attempts that I see where someone tried to create an article about Keith Law were in 2007 and 2010. The 2007 version was too short to explain why the subject was notable enough as a musician to be kept. The 2010 version was moved to your user page in an effort, I suspect, for you to be able to fix it to conform to our layout and style guidelines. Though there's also the fact that we discourage anyone from writing about themselves. The main reason being that most people find it difficult to write about themselves in a neutral and objective way. As for why nobody else has written about Keith Law, I can't say. But we all contribute voluntarily on subjects that are of interest to us. It may just be that one of our contributors just hasn't gotten around to writing about Keith Law just yet. We don't have anyone telling us what to write about. We find a subject that isn't covered yet and, if we have time, write about it. Dismas|^(talk) 20:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does (current) mean when you go into your contributions?

Certain articles I have edited have (current) beside them, what does this mean?--Smashton Pumpkin (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means that your edit is the current one, and that no further edits have been made to that page since you changed it. Anything you added is visible to readers. drewmunn talk 20:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making my article 'exist.'

I've created a page and this has been accepted after some editing. I was told it needed to be 'cleaned up' and I've done that, and I was told it was 'an orphan' so I've linked to it from suggested pages. These links however shoe that the 'page does not exist.'

The page I've created is 'Skerryvore (Band)'

It opens when I type this in the search page.

What am I doing wrong or what else do I need to do?

Thanks

W — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weststandman (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page that you created was "Skerryvore (band)" and NOT "Skerryvore (Band)". Capitalization counts. That's why your efforts to make a link don't work. Also, the article needs quite a bit of work. Dismas|^(talk) 20:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A correct link to the page - Skerryvore (band). -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing "Microcontroller" but getting undefined reference.. that exist and is triple checked

I tried to get the reference error "Cite error: The named reference flash was invoked but never defined" for the reference "flash" solved in the article "Microcontroller", but failed. Anyone that can figure out what's wrong? Electron9 (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Electron7. I found this: <references /> hanging out in the middle of the article for no apparent reason. I removed it, and a bunch of refs flooded in. Problem solved. Dea db eef 21:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes.. Quite unexpected. thanks for fixing it anyway :-) Electron9 (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating a page

I would like to know to verify someone's notability so that I can create their page again. I would like to create a page for Greg Ammon, listing his documentary that he produced and directed, as that is a notable piece of work he has finished. Please advise on if that is notable, and if not, why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ms348911 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Ammon (2nd nomination). If Ammon wasn't notable three days ago, he isn't now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..., as was explained at #Page was deleted above, yesterday. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline is at WP:GNG. The notability criteria for people can be found at WP:BIO. One of these sets of criteria must be fulfilled in order for a person to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. - Ka renjc 22:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major General David Common Chief USMTM has wrong information

Gentleman and Ladies,

Your Wikipedia article on Major General David Commons, Chief United States Military Training Mission has some wrong information. I just left The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the U.S. Defense Attaché to the Kingdom. The Chief USMTM does not carry the additional title United State Defense Representative. First this term has been outdated for several years and second the U.S. Defense Attaché carries the title as the Department of Defense and Secretaries representative to the country. Please check your fact. the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh would be a great place to start.

Regards,

Colonel Robert K. Carnahan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.144.179 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No article on David Commons. I assume that you are referring to United States Military Training Mission? - David Biddulph (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://usmtm.org/chief-bio.html and http://usmtm.org/chiefs.html the current chief is Thomas P. Harwood III who replaced David L. Commons in July. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Chief and removed the title U.S. Defense Representative. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colonel Carnahan, I believe your statement is a simple matter of verbage. While calling the USMTM chief the US defense rep... is wrong since the USMTM chief is not the sole US defense rep in country; the USMTM chief is the senior United States Defense Representative(as it on the USMTM website)[1]. v/r — -dainomite 05:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]