Help desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

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.

July 4

AATTV

I have just written an article on the history of AATTV. I am computer illiterate and do not understand computer jargon.e.g., HTML, URL etc. On the matter of references the correspondence quoted in the article is official military correspondence as is indicated by the information in the reference. The letters are NOT personal letters but official cvorrespondence. Simply because they have been addressed to an individual does not make them personaL.. THEY ARE AUSTRALIAN ARMY...(READ COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA) correspondence. I can not, and could not, supply any thing more provable. On the matter of the book the information requested by you is...Published by The National Executive of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam Association, ISBN 0 646 104446 and may be found in the National Library of Australia.I have a copy. I hope this is of some help but to do what you have asked simply confuses me. Note here that I am an 83 year-old veteran I understand you have particular proced ures but, regrettably they are beyond me. I don't even know if this is the correct place to write this, probably not. Sorry if this is so. Kind regards. Laurie nicholson (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Laurie Nicholson.[reply]

The main question is whether the official correspondence is accessible to the public perhaps in a library or archive? The book reference formatting can easily be fixed, don't worry about that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Laurie. Thank you for providing the ISBN of the book. I have now been able to identify it has the following work: The Team in pictures : a pictorial history of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam, 1962-1972 [1] and have added that into the article for you. It is an excellent source and is clearly reliable (I have ordered it from the library and will try to locate the correct pages for you). I have also added in the AATTV website for you. It probably meets the requirements of WP:RS, but others may or may not agree. In regards to the letters, I remain concerned and do not believe they meet the requirements. As such, I believe they should be replaced with other references. In this regard, have you approached the AAHU to see if they will publish an official announcement on their website [2], or perhaps in their magazine: Despatches Magazine? If they plan to do so, that would be a reliable source in my opinion and you could simply link to that. I understand that this may be frustrating and believe me, I am not trying to make it difficult for you to contribute – I am a soldier myself and am sympathetic to your desire to record the history of your unit – however, unless reliable sources can be found, the information is liable to be removed at any time, by anyone, which is what I am trying to help you avoid. As I said on your talk page, if you have any questions please feel free to ask (the best place is probably at your talk page where I posted). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Australian Rupert. I have requested the AWM (Australian War Memorial) senior manager to include inforrmation on their official mwebsite. This is now being actioned and I am awaiting word that information which will satisfy verification isuues is to be published on a public-access website. 58.104.250.31 (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrase or explain with my words a source about a partnership?

My question is: When I enter in a wikipedia article, information about an association, should I paraphrase the information displayed on the page of the association or, on the contrary, I can explain this information with my words? I have had discussions with a user on this subject: He thinks we must paraphrase it, while I prefer to explain it with my words. So, he removed my information, to paraphrase it. - Isinbill ( discussion) 10:18 July 4, 2013 (UTC)

The only clear rule is that you shouldn't copy from an external source straight to Wikipedia. For instance, if I had a source that said "The Acme Corporation has been a major part of life in Chicago for many residents, providing work for hundreds of people and services for thousands more", the Wikipedia article on the Acme Corporation couldn't say the same thing. However, I could write "The Acme Corporation is the employer of a large number of Chicago residents." and "many of the services in Chicago are provided by the Acme Corporation." This is fine, because I've altered it to get the point of the source across using different words. As for the debate you've been having, paraphrase means, and I quote, "express the meaning of (something written or spoken) using different words". So writing something in your own words is paraphrasing! drewmunn talk 10:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He writes exactly the same as in the source, but in quotes, while I explain it in other words. Between quotes would better than how I write, if the information is the of an association?--Isinbill (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on specifics, but quoting straight from a source is almost never better than paraphrasing. Sometimes, if the source itself includes a quote, or the source is written in first person, the content can be quoted as an opinion, but information-only sources should almost always be paraphrased. Without knowing what article you're talking about, I can't say who is correct in this case, but statistics are in your favour. drewmunn talk 13:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the article from Malawian American. You could see that in this article mentioned several associations.--Isinbill (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the quoting is incorrect, and it should be rewritten. You are, therefore, correct in this instance. drewmunn talk 14:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was what I wanted to know. Then, I will try to rewrite the functions of associations with other words, but I run the risk of that user, returns to delete my contribution, to re-quote this information... (he refuses to listen me)--Isinbill (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree here. When the material is in quotes, it is clear that what you are seeing is the way that the organization describes itself. But when you paraphrase it, you are saying it with the voice of Wikipedia -- in other words, you are saying that the description is correct. Perhaps that is what you want to do, but you shouldn't do it merely because of Wikipedia policies. The two forms mean different things, and you should decide which meaning is correct. Looie496 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues with quoting such text: It is plagiarism (quoting unnecessarily is as good as copying), and the tone set is one of promotion. Whilst I agree that it should be noted that the organisation describes itself as such, quotes are not necessary. For instance, the text could read "The organisation aims to <insert reasoning here>" rather than a straight quote. That way, we remain impartial and don't build a library of quotes. drewmunn talk 18:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments to a particular page

I consider myself to be an expert on Psoriasis and I would like to add some hints / remarks on the relevant page. I regularly (monthly) contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanPrima (talk • contribs)

Then feel free! Note, however, that you must back up information with reliable sources by citing them. drewmunn talk 11:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasise drewmunn's last remark and offer a little more info: Wikipedia articles aren't the right place for hints, tips, personal observations or other original research, because this is an encyclopaedia which relies on information previously published in reliable sources. If you're not sure whether the contribution you want to make is within the rules, you can always discuss it first on the article's talk page. - Ka renjc 18:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About hindi film article

hello, We have made a Hindi feature film .. We are news group of youngsters and we want our film to be find out on wikipedia . So what is the procedure to put article about our film. Waiting for your positive reply. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.213.59.96 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 4 July 2013‎

See Wikipedia:Notability (films). Unless your film has received significant coverage in mainstream third-party published sources, it is unlikely to pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. Note also that according to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, writing about your own work is strongly discouraged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello filmmakers! If after reading the notability guidelines you find that your film does qualify, and you have located the required references written by journalists or other authors in news reports, movie reviews, magazine articles, etc., you could ask an editor who is not connected with your film to create an article about it at Wikipedia:Requested articles. There is no guarantee that one of the other editors will be interested in taking on the project. Don't even ask if the references aren't available because the film is too new or unknown. An article about a notable film can be made at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. However, this cannot be an advertisement, just a neutral, factual article about the film. That's difficult for the film's creators to do, and the majority of these types of articles are declined and then deleted by the reviewers there as too promotional, not properly sourced, or not notable. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church

YOUR ARTICLE IS INACCURATE...I have the minutes of the Tennessee Synod Annual Meetings duly recorded from the Duke University Archives Library. My great grandfather was Secretary of the Tennessee Synod during the time period mentioned in the article.

The Tennessee Synod did not drift toward the North Carolina Synod in the 1880's. It was first the Tennessee Synod which included Tennessee churches, then before the Civil WAr, Tennessee pulled out of the synod, leaving South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia Churches, primarily. The synod of Lutheran Churches extended from below Columbia, S.C. through North Carolina and into upper Shenandoah Valley, Virginia.

You have given a VERY NEGATIVE IMPRESSION IN YOUR ARTICLE IN ADDITION TO BEING ENTIRELY INCORRECT WITH YOUR FACTS. As my great grandfather was a circuit rider in these North Carolina churches, I have much information on these wonderful churches. Most of them still exist and are neither "Henkelian" nor "orthodox." THey are mainly small, rural churches--that's all. You should not disseminate inaccurate information. The encyclopedias do not do that.

LISA RUDISILL speaking on behalf of the TEnnessee Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and for REv. John Anderson Rudisill and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.210.17 (talk • contribs)

I take it you are discussing the article, Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod? If you are the place to discuss the article and suggest improvements is on the articles's talk page, Talk:Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod. GB fan 13:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, please be aware that you are SHOUTING at thousands and thousands of people, almost all of whom had never even heard of the article in question. We all want Wikipedia to be as accurate as it can be, but SHOUTING about inaccuracy is far less effective than identifying the specific issues that you want altered, and the reliable published sources which can confirm them. As GB fan says, I recommend you do that on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Editing system

Continue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems stupid so far. Even worse is i can't even wikify something. If you want to force even more editors off wikipedia this is a good move. What TWIT thought this one up or gave the go-ahead? 'm a long term user and noone was notified of this massive changeover. What's happening and how do i edit .. please tell me without me having to retrain for hours. maxrspct ping me 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two option, instead of clicking edit, click edit source. That will take you back to the classic editing interface. Also you can make it look like the old system in Preferences, under the gadget tab click the first box in the the editing section. GB fan 13:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance we could have an Editnotice for this page (or add to the Help Desk one) saying "If you have a question about Visual Editor, read the FAQs first."? drewmunn talk 13:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "wikify something" you mean creating a link, you can do that by selecting the text you want to link and clicking on the "chain" icon at the top. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Juris Doctor

This item is loaded with factual errors. For starters, Harvard did not award such a degree until the second half of the 20th century. Until then the standard degree was the LL.B., a term of English origins. The first JD was awarded at the University of Chicago in the 1890s.

The history of legal education is quite misleading. George Wythe at William and Mary retired the trophy for law teaching. Among his students were Jefferson, Marshall, Clay, and Monroe.

The most important law school pre-civil was Transylvania. Its faculty were in 1908 recognized as among the most important lawyers of the 19th century. Its students as Senators worked out the 1850 Compromise that saved the Union.

The JD became the standard degree for the purpose of promoting rookie military lawyers from 2d Lt to First Lt. because medical doctors were entering the service as captains.

Langdell did invent the three-year curriculum and the Socratic method. Many of his students quit after two years.

There are numerous other problems with the essay. I do not have the time or energy to correct them all. It should simply be deleted.

Paul D. Carrington

This would be more useful at Talk:Juris Doctor -- in fact I've copied what you wrote to that page, so that editors interested in the article can see it. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a project page for would-be developers?

Is there a project page for would-be developers, or, in my case, would-be testers? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of links: [3] and [4]. If those don't fit what you're looking for, maybe the links there will lead somewhere interesting. RudolfRed (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclotron image wrong

Hiya, I am not a wikipedia-er so it seems I cannot edit or revert images in the wikimedia, but would someone be so kind as to revert this apparently automatically rotated image of a cyclotron in there back to the original version? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cyclotron_with_glowing_beam.jpg It makes absolutely no sense to rotate the image that way in any of the articles it's used in. It's like if you turned a big long image of the Empire State Building on its side so that it fit horizontally across the top of an article better. :/ Thnx :)

I have reverted it to the original version without rotation. It can take some time before the uses of the image are automatically sorted out. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case anybody is curious, here is how things like that happen: (1) the photographer takes a picture with the camera turned sideways. The camera detects this and inserts a "rotation" tag in the image file. (2) The photographer then downloads the file to a computer and edits it using some program to rotate it. However the program does not detect the "rotation" tag and leaves it in the file, even though it is no longer valid. (3) The photographer uploads the image to Wikimedia Commons. (4) An automated Wikimedia bot detects the "rotation" tag and rotates the image according to it. The result is an image that has been rotated twice when it should only have been rotated once. This happens pretty frequently, unfortunately, and can only be fixed by hand. Looie496 (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was rotated by a bot but it was actually on request from a user [5] who has made no other edits to Commons. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)|[reply]

Boone, NC

In your page about Boone, NC, you do not mention the hospital - neither in the general info page nor the 'employers' page.

There is a hospital here that serves the entire county.

Sincerely,

MG, RN

Comment on the article's talk page. If you don't have a conflict of interest, you may edit the article and cite reliable sources, but I am inferring that you work at the hospital. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]