Help desk
< March 11	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 13 >

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 12

Horrie the Wog Dog

The wikipedia information you have for Horrie is not accurate. He was my father James Bell Moody's dog and it has never been proven categoricaly that what Jim told a reporter friend was the truth. His own obiturary stated he was a great "story teller" and their are members of his immediate family who were alive in 1945 and some alive now, who do not believe that another dog was substituted for Horrie. The author who first publicly printed this story made no attempt at contacting other members of Jim's family for verification. Horrie was also not shot. Correspondence between the various government agencies involved in his destruction are available from the National Archives that categorically refute this emotionally charged statement. As Jims daughter I request you to please correct this article to reflect that it is alleged he was substituted it is not fact. Alsoplease correct the fact that the dog was euthanised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.107.13 (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources stating these facts? It is not enough to know the information. We have no way of knowing you are who you say you are.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article createdby me: Hellenoturkism

I have finished creating the article under the title Hellenoturkism which is not my first article. I have already some experience. But, my text is now stuck in the page titled: Wikipedia talk: articles for creation/Hellenoturkism. What do I have to do to have it published?--Appenzeller (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted to the Articles for Creation review process. The review process is however severely backlogged so it may take some time before a review is done. I have cleaned up a few small problems - such as the duplicated draft submission box. Roger (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appenzeller, you have enough edits under your belt that you don't need to use Articles for creation, you could have created the article directly. RNealK (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RNealK I followed your advice and as you can see I created the article "Hellenoturkism" directly. --Appenzeller (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium name change

Hello all. I have been trying to get the name for Bernie Robbins Stadium to get changed. The stadium officially changed its name in 2009, and again last year. I should point out the corporate deal between the business, Bernie Robbins, and the stadium, has long passed. There was an event hosted on the grounds of this baseball field last year. For some reason, and I'm a little confused as to why, I have been unable to convince enough people to believe the name of this place has changed, even though there are news articles circulating across the internet saying that the new name is Surf Stadium. I'm not sure how to handle this situation, or to find a way to get the name changed. If anyone has advise or could help out in any way, please let me know, but don't make it too complicated. Thank you. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor has pointed out at the move discussions on Talk:Bernie Robbins Stadium, the argument against the move is that we don't always use official names for article titles when something is more commonly known by another name (which means more people will be looking for the subject by the common name and not the official name). In other words, we don't rename an article simply because the subject's official name changed. The details are at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME, please read them. Chamal ^T•C 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radiokid1010 - you've provided one of the main reasons for not changing the stadium name in our articles when you say "The stadium officially changed its name in 2009, and again last year." Better we stick to non-sponsored names when we can, simply because they DON'T change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm really confused right now. I mean, how did New Meadowlands Stadium become MetLife Stadium? --Radiokid1010 (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since policy should reflect practice, the standard at Wikipedia for the bulk of stadium article names is to use the official name of the stadium especially if current reliable, independent sources also use it. Just find current or very recent reliable sources that talk about the stadium, if those source use the official name, you have a good case to make. Consider that nearly all Wikipedia articles on stadia use the most current name, even if many people still in casual conversation use the old name. See O.co Coliseum (b.k.a. Oakland Coliseum), Qualcomm Stadium (b.k.a. Jack Murphy Stadium), etc. There are many stadiums which have frequently changed names, even in just the last few years (see the convoluted history behind Sun Life Stadium which has had 5 different names over the life of Wikipedia, not counting the two it had before Wikipedia came around); and the Wikipedia article name has changed to reflect the official name changes each time, because reliable sources generally did the same; i.e. when it changed from Dolphin Stadium to Sun Life Stadium, the reliable sources started calling it that as well. The issue is not what fans think of the stadium's name, it's what the preponderance of recent reliable sources do. If those sources are consistently use the newest name, Wikipedia articles should as well. --Jayron32 06:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with that approach. Because stadium names are used in a historical sense too ("Team X began its life at Y stadium") it's inaccurate to use the latest name in describing their history. And again, stadium names are all over the place. We will never be able to update them all when a name changes. The ONLY way to achieve consistency is to NOT change every time a new sponsor comes along. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not articles point to an old name, the name of the article should be updated. That's what redirects are for until they are corrected. This occurs with Universities all the time. Should we leave the article for Salisbury State University at that location when the school's name has changed to Salisbury University? (and there are other schools where the name change is more severe)Naraht (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth do universities change their names "all the time"? That strikes as pretty stupid, but maybe in some different culture it makes sense.

I'm an alumnus of Alpha Phi Omega and out of the 600 chartered schools, I see 3-5 schools change names a year or more.Naraht (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reasonable way to do it, and the way it is done for other things that change names, is for the subject article to move to the new name and to create a redirect from the old name to it. The article should also have the historical names in it. Other articles that refer to the subject regarding events that have already occurred (like ball games and concerts) should not be edited, and should remain linked to the old names so they continue to match their cited sources. We consistently do this for places, things, people, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouabi; Or the Virtues of Nature: An Indian Tale in Four Cantos

Dear editors: I've been reading an interesting article called Ouabi; Or the Virtues of Nature: An Indian Tale in Four Cantos about a fictional work. The last section of the article is called "Analysis", and it seems to me that it isn't right for Wikipedia as it is (no essays of original research). The section does have some sources, though. Would I be correct in suggesting to the article author that any ideas which were original should be left out, and that those which were put forth by a recognized expert could be left in, but it should be stated explicitly in the text who said what? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would say yes. But this article was done as a student project and it's not clear to me if they are held to the same rules as other articles. See the header on the talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense if the student is going to be graded. However, once that's done, the article becomes part of the encyclopedia and the student moves on. Is there any process in place to tell ordinary editors when not to interfere? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:School and university projects, you'll find a list of current (and past) projects. If the article is part of a current project please discuss your concerns on the project's talk page. If the project has already ended feel free to edit the article in accordance with the "normal" rules and standards. Roger (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are student-created articles for class assignments allowed to contain OR, synthesis etc until they are graded then we chop all stuff out? Doesn't sound like the best way to introduce students to writing encyclopedic articles as opposed to term papers? Is this discussed somewhere?--ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not allowed to break the rules, but deletion should not be considered without first alerting the project of the problem. WP:School and university projects has more info and people who can help. BTW the particular project that created the article we're discussing is over, so go ahead and edit as normal. Roger (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It makes sense not to heavily edit a school project that isn't finished, because the instructor of the course needs to grade the student's work, and if inappropriate material is included, the instructor should know that. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in article (main) space should meet article criteria. If student projects are deemed to be a worthwhile thing for WP, fine, but they should be outside mainspace until they can be edited/reviewed to comply with normal WP standards. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readability for visually challenged folks

i am visually challenged, but use Wikipedia a lot. Even using n iPad horizontally, I find the font too small to read without expanding the font size. This forces a lot of scrolling back and forth along the lines of text. It would be much more readable if the articles were formatted in columns, limiting the width so that a moderately expanded font would not require left-right scrolling on each line of test.

Again, love the content and concept! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.87.253 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is an iOS Wikipedia App, which you may find easier to use than accessing Wikipedia through your iPad browser. There is also a mobile version of Wikipedia, which you can find here. Please see here for more information and links to the mobile apps. Chamal ^T•C 04:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mobile rendition is "read only", If the iOs app doesn't allow editing it would probably also be useless to the OP. Roger (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The folks at WP:WikiProject Accessibility would probably be able to help you. Roger (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 68.150.87.253 at the top left of articles there is a tab called Print/export - if you click on "Print version" a new page will load that does not have all the internal links and a few other things but when you use "ctrl +" you will not need to side scroll and by default the text is bigger.Moxy (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Carrinton

Has no public relations degree or education fron university of Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.205.191 (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed one sentence from the article, and have explained my reasoning on the talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Company Write Up

Dear Sir/Mdm

I am interested in posting an article about my company onto Wikipedia. May I know what the steps to do that and any restrictions that I need to take note of? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.75.202.66 (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pages you will need to read - very carefully - are WP:CORP, which details the inclusion requirements for companies (if your organisation doesn't meet them, you won't be able to create an article about it) and WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI, which explain conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. Basically, you are strongly discouraged from writing about your company here; the most appropriate thing to do if you'd like to see an article about it would be to request one so that a neutral editor can do the actual construction work. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

putting pics in article

hello may you help me.I have a picture but i dont now how to put it in an article. ( Justinralphman888 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinralphman888 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add [[your image here.file extension]] to the article. So for example, [[File:Launchballer.png]].--Laun chba ller 09:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's more appropriate to use thumbnails rather than full-size images, so unless you're adding the image to an infobox, I'd recommend using [[File:Launchballer.png|thumb|alt=text description of image|caption]], replacing the italic text appropriately - this is the preferred format for images in articles. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why this table does not let sorting based on its columns?

Resolved

List_of_distributed_computing_projects#Active_projects. I also noticed Chrome and firefox show the little sorting graphics (but they do nothing). --fs 08:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. The Evolution@Home row only had 7 (instead of 8) elements. I added the 8th element and the sorting worked again. Comparing the HTML output from the two versions, I saw no difference (other than the 8th item being added), so this may be a bug in the way the sort is implemented. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External link at the top of all pages while logged in

Resolved

Is it possible to put an external link at the top of all pages when I am logged in? In User:Toshio Yamaguchi/common.js I already have some custom wikilinks added there. Is it possible to put something like [http://www.external-link.com/ An external link] there as well and how can this be done? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already use mw.util.addPortletLink. You can add another. For example this for a link before "Log out" (placement determined by #pt-logout):

mw.util.addPortletLink('p-personal', 'http://www.external-link.com/', 'An external link', 'pt-external', 'This link is external', null, '#pt-logout');

"This link is external" is the mouseover text. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what is the exact markup to put the link before contributions? #pt-contributions doesn't seem to work. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the html source of a rendered page. It says id="pt-mycontris" at the contributions link, so it's #pt-mycontris. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That works and the link is now between watchlist and contributions for me. Thanks PrimeHunter. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Question About Editing

I have a curious question. I want to be an active user on Wikipedia, but I don't necessarily want to edit, or even participate in general articles. Mainly, I am interested in participating boards such as AN/I and other boards that require neutral editors. I've been lurking in AN/I and SPI for almost a year now, as well as reviewed most of the Wikipedia's policies, so I have a general idea of what is asked of anyone that posts in judgement boards and talk pages. Is it acceptable for me to do this? Shiny Bauble (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically there's no provision against this. However, the main - indeed, the only - goal of Wikipedia's community is to build an encyclopedia; if you're not here for that purpose, you're kind of missing the whole point. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, though. I am here (Crap. That needs to be a template) to build up Wikipedia. I want to participate in AN/I as a neutral eye, so that I could maybe aid in the approval or disapproval of a user/article/etc. without actually becoming involved. Shiny Bauble (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's important. For years I've been seeing mods doing nothing but moderation and editing their talk page. --fs 11:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really true. It is practically impossible to become an admin if you have little or no editing experience. Even admins who do not currently do much/any article editing had to have a track record of good editing before they were given the admin hat. Roger (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda what I'm saying. I want to actively improve Wikipedia by aiding in the, 'decision making', as it were, in certain pages. There has to be a word for someone like that. Shiny Bauble (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRN might be a place where you can help. But before you start volunteering at the DRN, you should first familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines especially the 5Ps. I have posted a template at your talk page which contains links to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ushau97. I'll review the template immediately. Shiny Bauble 11:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phone numbers

This page Troms Police District has phone numbers included. I know that in general this is not proper, but is it okay in the case of emergency numbers? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but I think it is okay. Emergency telephone number also includes a lot of emergency numbers. Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers are national and unlikely to change regularly. Local numbers are different, and should not be included per the answer below. An encyclopedia isn't a suitable place for dynamic info such as that – it's better to have no number than the wrong one. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory ("Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are not encyclopedic.") I would say these numbers should not be included, and definitely not in the current style ("the easiest way to contact..."). I'll remove the paragraph. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Webservice

This is Lakshman. I need to use wikipedia information for my proj. For eg: i want a famous personality personal details like fullname,birthplace,dob,etc. I need to import it to my application. How can i do it?? will u provide the webservice?

See WP:REUSE for using Wikipedia content outside Wikipedia. I think in there you will also find a link to download a copy of the encyclopedia. RudolfRed (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Reusing Wikipedia content Roger (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And mw:API. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am listed on Wikpedia Germany, but not in the UK

How can I get my Wikpedia entry ( currently only on German pages) onto the UK Wikpedia site, or is it not possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.66.88 (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). For anybody to be listed in Wikipedia, there must be a proof that this person is notable. For what notable in this context means exactly, please see WP:BASIC. In short, there need to be multiple reliable, independent secondary sources (click on each of the blue links in order to get to a page explaining what those terms mean) which have written about you. The German Wikipedias requirements might be different from those of the English Wikipedia. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: there is no U.K. Wikipedia. This is the English language Wikipedia, filled with English, American, Nigerian, Indian, Canadian, Cornish, Australian, Irish, Manx, Welsh, and Scottish editors and everybody else who uses that language. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot New Zealand, how else do you think Sheep became a featured article? :)Naraht (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar political & social movement section

Sir as far as i know, what have you published in Bhumihar political & social movement section, regarding Pandit Raj kumar sukul, SAY..(Bhumihar Brahmins in Champaran had revolted against indigo cultivation in 1914 (at Pipra) and 1916 (Turkaulia) and Pandit Raj Kumar Shukla took Mahatma Gandhi to Champaran and the Champaran Satyagraha began.) That is not true instead of Bhumihar, Not onlt Bhatt Brahmans but also the poor farmers of champaran revolt againest indigo cultivation in 1916 and Pandit Raj kumar Shukel (Bhatt Brahman by cast)took gandhi to champaran and the champaran satyagraha began, 16:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Jprana (talk)

Do you have reliable sources stating these facts? It is not enough to know the information. We have no way of knowing you are who you say you are. Also, there is no one "sir". There are many volunteers, some of them women. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dana H. Born and USAFA

Hello, I work at the Air Force Academy and have seen, multiple times, information taken down from the controversy section of th epages listed below. I have inserted it in again only to see that it had been taken down. Though the controversy did arise, it was found that it was unsubstantiated, and that is really all I need to be added. The pages are: Dana H. Born and : USAFA

The following is what the controversy section should state at all times:

In an interview with Colorado Springs Independent reporter Pam Zubeck on December 16, 2010, Born stated that "All the instructors we have, have graduate degrees in the areas they're teaching or a related field." [1] In concluding a year-long investigation of United States Air Force Academy faculty credentials, the Air Force Inspector General stated in a letter dated, February 10, 2012, that "Brig. Gen. Born was negligent in making an absolute statement to a local newspaper regarding the military faculty's specific academic credentials as they related to teaching disciplines without first confirming the accuracy of the supporting data." Or in other words, her statement was factual but that she had not researched each individual instructors credentials before responding to the question. On February 17, 2012, the Pentagon released a statement: "Commanders are given broad latitude to administer punishment appropriate with the offense. United States Air Force Academy [Superintendent] Lt Gen Gould has reviewed the [Air Force Inspector General] report and will be the officer who decides what, if any, command action will be taken."[2] In a letter from the SAF/IGS to Mullin, dated Feb 10, 2012, it stated, "..our investigative work found no evidence supporting any allegation or claim that the USAFA faculty is not "qualified" to teach at USAFA....The HLC accreditation report found USAFA's faculty to be fully qualified to teach an undergraduate curriculum that results in the awarding of Bachelor's Degrees. We found no evidence to dispute that conclusion.." In a letter from the SAF/IG to Mullin, dated Feb. 10, 2012, it stated, "... our investigative work found no evidence supporting any allegation or claim that the USAFA faculty is not 'qualified' to teach at USAFA. ... The HLC accredication report found USAFA's faculty to be fully qualified to tach undergraduate curriculum that results in the awarding of Bachelor's Degrees. We found no evidence to dispute that conclusion."

Born was deposed on December 9, 2011, as a respondent in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case of alleged disability discrimination filed by former United States Air Force Academy economics professor David Mullin, who was also a client of the U.S. Civil Rights organization, Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). During the deposition, Born was asked if she ordered a subordinate, Colonel Thomas Drohan, to conduct counter-insurgency analysis against MRFF and its clients. Under oath she denied that she did. Mullin's lead attorney, Robert Eye, wrote, on both February 1 and 29, letters to Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley requesting with acknowledgement a formal investigation into the matter. On March 15, 2012, Eye received a response from Air Force Deputy General Counsel W. Kipling At Lee Jr.. He said it would not be appropriate to comment about the status of any investigation, but “I can advise you that the allegations . . . are being given appropriate consideration.” On 8 Jun 2012, Eye received a letter from SAF/GCM, Mr At Lee stating, "The Office of the Inspector General...has completed their inquiry in the matters addressed in your February 1, 2012 letter to the Secretary of the Air Force. ....the evidence indicated that she (Born) did not direct a counterinsurgency "Campaign" against the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. They also determined that her response, with regard to the counterinsurgency line of questioning during her December 9, 2011 deposition, was factually correct." In essence, Brig Gen Born was cleared of this allegation. [3]

Thank you Usafapa (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC) USAFA/PA[reply]

The place for discussion regarding the content of an article is on its talk page, so Talk:Dana H. Born and Talk:United States Air Force Academy. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should raise this issue on the talk page. Look at WP:DR and don't keep putting back deleted material until there is consensus. Also, since you work at the academy, read WP:COI. RudolfRed (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That account, which was apparently a United States Air Force Academy "public affairs officer" (PR flack/spindoctor) has been blocked as a spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

exactley what is this port hole of communication.

I have 3 teenagers and think they are using this forum to communicate with others. Serious6 was one of the names on my computer. Can you explain how it works?

Thank you, Allison Brighton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.51.160 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any contributions to this project by an account named Serious6 would be found at Special:Contributions/Serious6. Our records show no such edits, though there is an account by that name. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CherryOS article extension by unrelated, untrue and offensive information

Hello everybody,

Surprisingly, my name (Vladimir Bickov) is appeared in this article: CherryOS

You can see it at the end under the title "Later trade-secret lawsuit involving Arben Kryeziu".

I find this info very untrue and offensive because:

- The lawsuit "Aqua Connect vs Coderebel" is still in progress and actually AQC has very weak and doubtful position in this lawsuit.

- I've never had any connection to "Cherry OS" and I have no idea what is this.

Since I'm an active and thankful customer of wikipedia for many years, I hope you guys will not allow to use this great resource for dirty marketing games.

Thank You, Vladimir Bickov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.209.134 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the stuff that is unrelated to the subject of the article as IMHO it does not belong there.--ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, Vladimir Bickov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.209.134 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New biography page for someone whose name is already in use

Not sure if the subject line made this issue clear. I would like to create a biography page for myself since I have been doing climate and environmental work for some years, and having a reference page in Wikipedia would help in my work. However, there is an ESPN sportscaster of the same name, Stuart Scott.

So my question is, how do I get you to disambiguate his bio from the bio I would like to create.

Sincere thanks, Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartGaia (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way we disambiguate two people with the same name is to use a parenthetical addition to the name. That said, you should not create a page about yourself. From your description of the article you want to create, it does not seem appropriate. Wikipedia is not here to help you get ahead in your work. We only document subjects that meet our notability guideline. GB fan 20:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If and when you became notable (see WP:UPANDCOMING, the person who is not yourself creating a new article would name it something like Stuart Scott (environmentalist). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian artists list

What proof other than bio's are needed to make sure my entry is not deleted?? newspaper items/book referenceS??Maade123454 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Greg[reply]

See WP:RS and WP:N. You need to be notable. RudolfRed (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bio. etc is listed with the "world library"....Australian National Library..State libraries in Australia..who's who in Australian visual artist, Artists and Galleries of Australia,.....many art prizes, newspaper articles etc., and on www.artbrokerage.com. Does this not qualify me for an entry ??Maade123454 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Greg[reply]

Further to my recent discussion, to whom do I provide information and/or contact details so as to have my bio. qualified to qualify for notability??Maade123454 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Greg[reply]

I merged your three sections. Please continue an existing discussion be clicking the "edit" link to the right of the section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anybody to to whom you provide such information: it needs to go in an article. So in order for you to appear in the List of Australian artists there should be an article about you, which establishes your notability by citing suitable references. However, the catch 22 is that as you have a WP:conflict of interest, you shouldn't write such an article. If you have the appropriate references, I suggest you request an article at WP:RA. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]