Help desk
< March 2	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 3

WetCanvas

I recently became a member of www.wetcanvas.com, but because of an article about the artist website which I read here at Wikipedia about two weeks ago, I was leery of allowing them to have use of my artwork. According to Wikipedia, this has become an area of contention with several artists who do not wish to give use of their artwork to WetCanvas without compensation. As I was armed with the article here at Wikipedia, upon registration at wetcanvas, I opted not to allow them use of my artwork. If it had not been for that article, I would not have known about wetcanvas (and deviantart) taking artist's works and printing them and selling them, with no profit going to the artist. I told my sister about the article, but now I cannot find it. Was the article removed from Wikipedia? I found a link to the article on another website, but was redirected to different website entirely which gave little to no information about wetcanvas. The one thing I really respect about Wikipedia is the unbiased information that it gives about websites, which in turn helps to protect the rights of users from unscrupulous opportunists.

Thank you for your help.

C. Massey-Barber

Looks like it might have been deleted, no way to know for sure, since only admins can read deleted revisions, only they would know where that page redirected to --VectorPotential^Talk 00:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page redirected to WetCanvas forum, which was speedy deleted for not asserting the notability of the forum. The article claimed the forum was the largest internet forum of visual art material on the internet, which sounds like an assertion of notability to me. I've restored the article and the redirect. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Mirror, The

Hi, I recently created a page with the title above, but now wonder if I should have used the exact book title ("The Perfect Mirror"). Do we put "The" and "A" at the start of a page title or not? Thanks. Johnfos 01:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do put "The" and "A" at the beginning of page titles, if they would be capitalised normally. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) for more information. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender template

Hi. I was just wondering whether we have a template that goes along the lines of "This article does not represent the views of both the male and female gender. Please improve this article..." I think that this would be a good idea, since some articles (such as those related to fashion or cosmetics) are directed towards a specific gender.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just use {{POV|talk page section name|date = <month> <year>}} and put the reasoning on the talk page. Sorry for erasing your edit by mistake earlier. Xiner (talk, email) 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. IMHO, we do need such a template. Shall I start making this template (WP:BOLD), or do I need to ask on a certain venue for a consensus? Or it this page the place to get consensus?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can make it. If I may, though, I'd at least change the wording. "The views of both genders" is itself susceptible to POV, e.g., what society? class? I'd prefer "do not sufficiently discuss both genders" or something like that. Xiner (talk, email) 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I felt that I need further consensus, so I posted a message here. You can see the template that I made on User:Ed/Sandbox2 (future reference: [1]).--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

byetteism

We are serious believers in our religion and find is seriously offensive that you cannot refrain from deleting it. We have been trying ALL day to post it, but you keep deleting it. We find it offensive that you call it "Vandalism" and would BE VERY appreciative if you WOULD refrain from deleting it or calling it Vandalism. Thank you.

Bman22 04:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)bman22Bman22 04:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what this particular religion is about, but if you would like to protest the deletions, you may go to Wikipedia's deletion review process. Bear in mind, however, that your article must follow Wikipedia's policies on content.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I first noticed these articles when clearing out the WP:CSD backlog. The original article failed to assert notability nor provide and verifiable references, so it seemed an easy decision to delete. I have suggested to User talk:Taylor317 how to work on the article, if in fact it can pass verifiability tests. Andrwsc 04:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fish food: Mud

Dear Sir,

I am serching for the fish that eats mud. In an artificial pond made 6 feet deep,20feet wide & 20 feet length. During rainy season, mud goes in the artificial pond. That mud should be cleaned/ eat by the fish.

1) which is the fish? 2) whether the fish is a fresh water fish?

Regards, patil2004

You're need Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. John Reaves (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blatant advertising

I cant seem to figure out how to report blatant advertisers. I am layed up for a few months after an on the job accident and will be able to look for Wiki offenders. Can you put in laymans terms how to request a page delete? Janquille, New Jersey

You can try {{db-spam}} if it's blatant. What's the article? John Reaves (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well...first of all, you will need to thoroughly read Wikipedia's deletion policy, along with a general understanding of all other policies. There are three different methods for deletion:

Speedy deletion - for articles that can be deleted on the spot; deleted within a few hours
Proposed deletion - for uncontroversial articles that can be deleted but not immediately; takes 5 days...I think
Articles for deletion - for controversial articles that can be deleted but not immediately; requires the consensus of the community and debate generally lasts for 5 days

--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is of a band that has basically made a myspace page out of wik. Still Pending is the name of this particular band and there is more too. My question is do I have to put the {{ before I write the tl|db-spam? and a }} afterward too? Also, do I just go to the edit tab and put it right at the top? Thanks Wikieditor07

The tl just allows it to show up, here, as it would look in the editing box. It's just {{db-spam}} (if you look at this from the edit box, ignore the nowikis; they prevent the software from parsing wiki code). See Wikipedia:Spam for more on spam, Help:Templates for more on templates, and on and on. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of business

I want to know if it'S possible to add the name of my business. we are in business fort 12 years, and it's will be nice to add the name of the business in your record —Preceding unsigned comment added by EG0X (talk • contribs) 01:57, 3 March 2007

Wikipedia has many articles about notable corporations (e.g., Microsoft, Intel, Exxon Mobil, WalMart, Google, etc.). If you can write an article of similar quality about your business, go ahead. However, before you make your first article, see WP:COI. The prevailing view is that few people have the necessary detachment and objectivity to write neutrally about their own businesses or organizations. However, I would wager handsomely that most of the major corporation articles on Wikipedia have significant contributions from employees or stockholders of said corporations. (Obviously, any business that is even halfway competent will understand the exposure benefits of having an article on Wikipedia, and will send its people to help the process along. Wikipedia doesn't even require users to log in before editing most articles; if Wikipedia can't even stop the vandals, it certainly isn't going to stop the Microsofties, Googleheads, etc. from making constructive edits.) Be aware that if you have never written for Wikipedia before, the odds are high that your first attempt will merely feed the deletionists, because writing articles of encyclopedic quality is a skill that most Wikipedia newcomers don't arrive already knowing. (For example, you did not sign your message. That suggests you haven't yet learned enough wikicraft to avoid the common article deletion pitfalls. The ease of editing on a wiki is deceptive; Wikipedia is actually a vast minefield of complexity waiting to trip up newcomers.) Your best bet is to spend several months making constructive edits to a variety of already-existing articles, while reading the vast collection of Wikipedia help pages, guidelines, and policies. Once you have a solid idea of how things work around here, you'll be in a much better position to create new articles that actually stick. --Teratornis 15:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EGOX, I'm glad you posted the question here. I'd like to echo Teratornis' view that it's probably not a good idea to write the article yourself, at least not right away, as this would bring up problems with our notability and conflict of interest guidelines. If you want to, you could write the article on your userpage or a subpage of it such as User:EG0X/company. You're more free to do what you want with your own userpages (see WP:UP for the guideline). If you choose this route, I can take a look at the page when you're ready and let you know whether I think it would work as a Wikipedia article in terms of notability and neutrality. If it's well-sourced and complies with the neutrality policy, we can move it to the main article space (i.e. out of your user subpage). Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 16:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a wiki that appears to be a collection of business listings, although possibly with the restriction that the businesses need to have a Web presence already. Also see: AboutUs.org. --Teratornis 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Does anyone know if it's possible to have brackets in the title? For example, if the title were "Hello [World]", the link comes out "Hello [World"]. ShadowHalo 06:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the brackets with ] and [. i.e. [2] -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ShadowHalo 09:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to research possibly (old) deleted articles

I have a bad feeling about a section of an article, Systems design, that it is cut-n-pasted text from an article that was AfD'd. My suspicions here, the insertion by an IP user here. What do you do when you just can't remember if this was its own controversy or like so many others? (The easy answer, Google, came up empty - but if it was long enough ago Google would lose track too) Shenme 08:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on Shenme's talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reference in Google

The article I created in English does not appear in the Google search results. The article on the same topic in other wikipedia languages does appear, and the link from other English Wikipedia articles leading to mine do appear as well.

How do I get my article to appear as a search result in a simple Google search? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VerdanaTech (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 March 2007

If you mean École du Louvre, you created it only 2 days ago. Perhaps Google hasn't indexed it yet? Which article did you mean? Shenme 09:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, yes, you've created the page, added redirects for non-accented characters, and fixed links on many pages in just the last 48 or so hours. I think Google will take a bit longer than that to recognize that the new page exists. In fact, it will be interesting to see how long, given that your page is referenced from so many places. Can you keep checking and make a note here? I'm curious. Shenme 09:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your prompt answer. I will keep checking indeed.

If you want to give Google search a push, you can submit your page for indexing. I have no idea whether that will actually cause Google to index your page sooner than if you do nothing. --Teratornis 14:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality/audience/volume vs WP:ATT

Hello,
I have noted a lot of users often being "a bit too bold". Those users doesn't seem to care for WP:ATT. They read something they think is wrong (possibly not even checking the references) and go scratch all over.
I have recently seen two interesting cases: in the first, an user didn't have any doubt in turning a referenced article in an unreferenced one (it currently looks more like a stub). He claimed the new article was more useful and readable. Unluckly, it could have been proofed (by using the removed references) to be false. Oddly enough, some users commented as "I like..." the whole thing.
The second case is references are being used without exactly pointing out where this info is taken. Specifically, the indicated reference is over 5000 pages. Obviously, no one will ever have the will to check it out. I am however very skilled in using them and already proofed the thing to be false. So, the problem is "false referencing".
I am going after this by providing more references (I hope they won't bash WP:ATT so bad) but I'm unsure this is enough.
So, for the questions:

What is the raccomanded way to deal with high users volume with this behaviour?
What is the estabilished way to deal with different audiences?
What if a popular source contradicts a less popular but more authorative source?
How to remember users WP does have a specific set of guidelines? I don't want to tell them "be less bold" but that's the idea.

MaxDZ8 talk 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing properly cited material from an article makes it less useful. Anyone who says otherwise clearly doesn't know the rules. What article are we talking about. What to do when popular belief and authoritive sources differ are different depending on what it is, but the authoritive source info should always be mentioned. Point the user to WP:ATT. If they don't want to follow what is a non-negotiable policy, perhaps they should be less bold. What is the article we're talking about? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article I am speaking about it's very technical (shader). The specific "removed reference page" was this (there's a quick overlook on this edit run on talk:shader). The "false referencing" issue is visible in the last version of shader as well - you can see the references are currently "unreferenced" by the text: in fact, they shall be deleted. This opens the "reference checking" problem...
Being a term used for marketing there's a lot of hype around this stuff and I understand the "feel" by some users but again, this is stretching it.
MaxDZ8 talk 07:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something I forgot to write: the problem isn't on the edit itself (which has been reverted) but on the fact similar problems arise at least once per month (in fact, the article is now a mess, compare it to the versions 1 year ago!)
MaxDZ8 talk 07:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

ok. no copyright, no original thoughts, no intellectual property, no look & feel.

I just happened upon a Wikipedia page referencing some 'fixed disk partitioning software', and there were some, some pasted-on notes saying the Wikipedia entry was in immenante(sp) danger of deletion, due to (I think), the fact that there existing no colaberating references for this product.

ok. so i hit the link to the software producer, and vuwalla(!), it looks luzhit!

So there you have it. Parago Partition Manager is. Reference Recorded.

The Wikipedia notices pasted on the page for that software item indicated that folks should become active in Wikipedia... by checking sources, verifing information, acrediting sources, etc. Well, doing that stuff is easy. What is really hard is trying to find the proper forum within Wikipedia to post a simple message. Which is why I'm using THIS area to post a simple reference.

strive

What page are you referring to? Parago Partition Manager doesn't have a page. Dismas|^(talk) 14:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing, from 76.18.128.125 (talk · contribs)'s contributions, that whatever page they're referring to may have been deleted, since it shows their only edit being to this page --VectorPotential^Talk 14:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden new politics of saving energy

I would like to know if somebody has informations or documents showing the new politics of Sweden about saving Energy ?

According what I know of it : Sweden has a plan to reach 2015 using no more fossile energy and using instead : Gas from specialy built factories using domestics trash + oil factury fabricating oil and alcool coming from wood and corn. etc... the politic is already in action.

Does anyone knows about : techniques involved ? dates and planning ? numbers of plant ?

Thanks you for informations <redacted email>

Please use the reference desk. Xiner (talk, email) 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Oil phase-out in Sweden. Sweden has now earned my vote as the world's smartest nation. --Teratornis 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it safe to create an article about this movie? I don't want to duplicate an article!

I want to write an article about a movie (All ABout You) that is not listed on Wikipedia. But it is listed on one of the lead actor's (Terron Brooks) wikipedia page, with a link attached. When I click on the link, it takes me to a disambiguation page, but my particular movie is not listed there.

Is it safe to create an article about this movie? I don't want to duplicate an article!

Handtalker 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and create the article yourself--양복⁴² 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Creating pages are useful pages to start with. Pea ceNT 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film for guidelines, advice, mentoring, help, categories, project tags, etc. specific to movie articles. If you are interested in editing movie articles, you should join the WikiProject. --Teratornis 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about All About You? Be careful about capitalization when you're looking for a title. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied content and different language in Article's discussion page

Can I add Copied content (Directly taken from website) and different language in Article's discussion page --NAHID 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd probably violate copyrights. Can you just type in the URL? Xiner (talk, email) 19:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Can I add different laguage in Article's discussion page?--NAHID 19:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll have to clarify your question. Xiner (talk, email) 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in the English Wikipedia need to be written in English. If you're not very good at English, discussion page comments can be in another language, but English is preferred. You could consider contributing to another language Wikipedia (see main page). If you're talking about Interwiki links, you can add them to articles, not talk pages. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from scratch

I would like to start a new article and have reviewed *Help: Starting a new page* but am unable to deduce from that how to proceed. The title would be a person's name and then there are about 1400 words of text, created using Word 97, that I would like to paste in for the body of the article. Are there any basic simple instructions that will tell me how to do this? My hope would be to get this going first in the simplest way possible and then save any advanced things, such as creating links, until later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bond220 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's good that you've gone through Help:Starting a new page. What particular questions do you have about things not making sense? In the meanwhile, you can also take a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial, which gives a good overview about how editing works on Wikipedia. -- Natalya 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have not edited much yet, so it was definitely wise for you to ask here first. Since you are probably new to Wikipedia, I suggest you start by typing or pasting your article content on your user page or a user sub-page, and ask here for some help with editing it there if you need help. Otherwise, if you create your article in the main article space, without any review first by experienced editors, your first attempt might end up as lunch for the deletionists. Most people find it unpleasant to put a lot of work into editing a first article, only to have it deleted. If you start your page first as a user page, and get some feedback from experienced Wikipedians, we can help you get the article in good enough shape so when you create it as a "real" article, it will be more likely to "stick." Wikipedia seems very easy to edit, but Wikipedia ruthlessly deletes a tremendous number of new articles, and disproportionately many by people who are new and haven't learned the incredibly elaborate rules. The most conservative approach is to spend a few months learning to edit by improving some existing articles (which are in little danger of being deleted), and only begin creating new articles when you have gained some experience. --Teratornis 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's not to say that you can't create the articles on your computer at the same time, and upload them when they are ready. I've done this myself, but it's only really useful for articles that don't exist yet or that are unlikely to be edited for a while. --Seans Potato Business 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contribute more.

I was going to ask an administrator how to help me out. But an administrator found me first! I dont know how you did it but thanks anyway. Im trying to make the article about the roma people fair and balanced and not like in its current status, filled with weasel words, racism and bigotry. You see when i edit something, somebody else changes it back asap. What can i do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs).

You may want to look into WP:ADOPT. Do you have a specific problem? You may want to read WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:V. Xiner (talk, email) 21:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, MadeinFinland: many of your removals of content in Roma people were of unsourced statements. However, if you remove content, it could mean anything. You could be against the fact that a statement is true, you could be removing biased content, you could be removing incorrect content, or you could be vandalizing. When you edit, it would be great if you provided an edit summary in the box labeled "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)". That way, people will know why you are removing something. It's quite possible that people think that you're trying to push your own point of view, or that you are vandalizing. The only way for them to know is to provide an edit summary, and better yet, discuss it on the talk page first. Gracenotes ^T § 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]