Help desk
< May 2	<< April \| May \| June >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3

322d Bombardment Squadron

I was stationed/assigned to the 322d Bombardment Squadron from early 1963 until the unit was inactivated. One thing that is not fully complete is the statement that the unit was Deployed to Kadena 16 February 1968 for Arc Light. Actually, the 91st Bombardment Wing's 322d Bombardment Squadron deployed "as a unit" a few days before 16 February, in response to the North Korean's capture of the USS Pueblo on 23 January 1968. Also, the 907th Air Refueling Squadron deployed at that same time to Kadena AFB. The operational move was named "OPERATION PORT BOW." Upon arrival the crews were briefed on targets and went immediately to Crew Rest. Some crews deployed with unit aircraft (B-52D) and some were transported via Military Air Command C-141, as was my mode of travel. After some time, about two weeks, the 322d Bombardment Squadron was put to work flying Arc Light missions from Kadena AFB. An interesting sidelight to the unit's deployment was that the day the word came for the 91st Bombardment Wing to prepare deploy, one of the SAC IG Teams came to inspect the Wing. Upon arrival they found the Battle Staff in session. When they announced their intentions, the Wing Commander told them he was on a Higher Headquarters Directed mission and that the unit could not respond to the IG Team. The IG Team Chief would not take that for an answer and was invited to use the "red phone" to contact Headquarters SAC for verification. Upon verifying that the Wing was immune to inspection due to the High Headquarters Directed mission, the IG Team departed Glasgow AFB, Montana, to return to their home base. James E Bradley, Lt Col, USAF Retired B-52D Electronic Warfare Officer 322d Bombardment Squadron 91st Bombardment Wing Westmoreland, KS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.106.143 (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James, we can't use information like this (accurate though it might be) if we can't verify it by checking published reliable sources which say the same thing. I know that may seem counter-intuitive, but it's how we are forced to work in order to maximize the quality of our content. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask respected newspapers or magazines to interview you, and if any of them do so and they decide your information is reliable and publish it, you have a reliable source you can use.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers listings

Hi

I would like to ask about newspapers in the world.

Why there is no categories (types etc.) in newspapers in Finland on your page, though there is the categories for instance in Czech newspapers?

It would be a useful addition, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.163.84 (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is edited by volunteers who choose where to edit. Noone has added tables with information to List of newspapers in Finland like in List of newspapers in the Czech Republic. You could do it if you learn to use tables. See Help:Table, or click "Edit" on a page already using a similar table to see how it does it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in Finland

Why there are no political orientation of Finland´s media on your pages? Isn´t this a FREE encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.163.84 (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the answer to your previous question. I don't understand your point about FREE. --ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

finnish media

add categories of finnish media to your pages, please.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.163.84 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you dont need to add a new section every time you post. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI v "Outing"

I noticed a SPA undertaking numerous edits at a school article, many of which were useful, but their edits also included the removal of reliably sourced, but detrimental, material. This material was partially reinstated by another editor, who assumed good faith about the removal, but it was promptly re-removed by the SPA. A simple Google search showed that the username of the SPA is the same name as the School's "Head of Communications". I have, therefore, warned the SPA about Wikipedia policies on COI, and asked them not to make further edits to the article. Although the similar name is not "proof" that the two are the same, the name is not particularly common, so, on the balance of probabilities, I have tagged the article with the COI template.

I feel this tagging should be explained on the talk page, however, WP:OUTING states:-

"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information ... . Personal information includes ... job title and work organization"

How do I explain the reason for the tagging without contravening WP:OUTING ? - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the edits should be enough to justify the COI tag. If the edits were not problematic, then there wouldn't be a problem to address would there? Spinning Spark 17:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupted archive list

The large "talk page box" at the top of Talk:Analytic_hierarchy_process lists five spurious archives (7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). This arose because when I created Archive 6 this morning, I mistakenly named it Archive 11. When I immediately renamed it as Archive 6, a redirect page from Archive 11 was apparently created. Best for all concerned would be if the Archive 11 redirect page were somehow wiped out; I'm guessing that would suppress the listing of those five archives. I don't know how to do that, what permissions might be needed, etc. Can somebody just take care of it? Lou Sander (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators can delete redirects. I have deleted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Category:Medical mnemonics

Reference help requested. Can you please guide me. The Wikipedia pages referred to are "Medical Mnemonics" and "Mnemonics for the cranial nerves". A few months ago I wrote the following two mnemonic rhymes: The Brain

Sincerely brainy family, the ceres Cerebellum, cerebral hemispheres. And each cerebral hemisphere Anatomists into four lobes shear.

Frontals front each hemisphere, Occipitals occupy the rear, Temporals neighbors to each ear, Parietals are top center near.

Occipital lobes control our eyes. Parietal sense and place supplies. Frontals decisions, ethics, history. Temporals language, ears, memory.

Cerebellum at the back and below Controls movement and how we go. The brain stem controls respiration Our consciousness and circulation.

Cranial Nerves

(One) smells first, olfactory. (Two) optic for stuff we see. (Three) oculomotor tie (Four) with trochlear round the eye. (Five trigeminal the great. (Six) abducens eyes rotate. (Seven) facial faces near. (Eight) vestibulocochlear. (Nine) glossopharyngeal. (Ten) vagus. lungs, guts, heart and all. (Eleven) accessory shoulders reach. (Twelve) hypoglossal tongue and speech.

I published both mnemonic rhymes in a blog at http://beechsciencerhymery.blogspot.com. Later, I attempted to add both rhymes to the above-cited Wikipedia pages, but both were removed.

Can you please help me to get them reinstated. I believe that both rhymes will be valuable as memory aids to students in the health sciences, but I am 86 years old and your Wikipedia red tape is confusing to me.

Thank you. J. Alan Beech Ph.D. Thanks, Beechnuttery (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted because category pages are navigation pages. They are intended to guide readers to relevant pages and are filled in automatically. They are not an appropriate place for encyclopaedic information. A more appropriate place would be one of the pages listed in the category such as List of medical mnemonics or an entirely new page. But please take note of our reliable sources guidline: your blog may not count. Spinning Spark 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to complain about your "Public holidays in Singapore" article!

My English is not very good, but I know the English is horrible in some parts. The first 2 days of Chinese New Year are public holidays and the article says first 3 days. The Chinese words use traditional characters but in Singapore, we use simplified characters. The article never mentions public holidays for elections and why the Deepavali date can change (this year, changed to 22 October). Baisakhi is not a Tamil only festival. The "date on calendar" is wrong for the Indian holidays (what calendar are they using?) and Qingming (not always 5 April). How can start of Ramadan be the whole 29-30 days of Ramadan? The government uses the terms Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji for Aidilfitri and Aidiladha, which are Malay translations of the Arabic names. Please fix these nonsense which gives bad impression of Wikipedia as a racist American website! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.101 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to propose changes to an article is the article talk page, Talk:Public holidays in Singapore. You may edit the article yourself if you provide reliable sources, but should be prepared to discuss those edits on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Can someone tell me what I did wrong here: Novavax, Inc. The discussion isn't showing up in the link on the article page. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must be brief as I must run, but you created the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles for deletion/Novavax, Inc., I have moved it for you and updated the log. Cheers, Яehevkor ✉ 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best, thanks!Malke 2010 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You created the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles for deletion/Novavax, Inc. An editor has moved it to the correct name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novavax, Inc. The link on the article points there. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, saw that. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need some content removed from Wikipedia.

WP:DNFTT --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs,

I am a rather famous celebrity and I am VERY unhappy at some facts in my article written without my permission. What should I do? --Boëkendorp (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not need permission to include facts in articles. Having said that, we do have policies regarding article content, particularly biographical material. To proceed further though, you'd have to tell us which article you are referring to, and what content it is that you are objecting to - we aren't mindreaders. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the Groucho Marx article. I did not wear 'fake eyebrows' as stated. My eyebrows are real. --Boëkendorp (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles de Lorencez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reference to the writings of Johnson dated 1887 DO NOT match what is written on Wiki. They do how ever match verbatim to a book recently published by A A McAllen entitled "Maximilliam and Carlota". Please click the reference link in the Wiki description.

After further review of Ms McAllens book. The reference to Lorencez is lifted from page 63 of her book. In reviewing the "Chapter Notes" you discover that she has repeatedly references "Letters in Authors possession".

I was unaware of this ridiculous form of reference. If you adhere to McAllens writing process you can fill historic information from 1832 and throughout history as you see fit, just as long as you have a random "Letters in Authors possession" footnote. As the GGniece of Lorencez I am becoming quite annoyed at this effort to rewrite historical facts to improve her book sales and purports to be some sort of informational source of the history of the Habsberg family.

Schultgren (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since that book has only just been published and the Wikipedia article has grown bit-bt-bit since 2006 I think it is highly unlikely the material was copied by us. It would be a nice way to get publicity for the book by stirring up a controversy on Wikipedia though. Spinning Spark 21:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]