Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 January 22

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.

January 22

Disappearing history

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm working a CCI, which involves comparing diffs to look for copyright infringement, and I've encountered a very peculiar thing in several diffs from 2005. See [1] & [2], for two. There are more. Is it just me, or does it look like these edits were added to empty articles to you? With the latter article, I've gone back step by step to track the disappearing text. It gets lost here and stays gone for several diffs. Again, is it just me? If not, what gives? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not you. Please add all such cases to bugzilla:20757 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo problem

There is an article at 2004 Harvard-Yale Prank about a stunt that was pulled at a football game. The picture used in the article is taken from a website set up by the prank's (evidently self-satisfied) organizers. The picture was obviously doctored, and without much sophistication. For example, it was clearly altered so that there wouldn't be any gaps where the stadium's aisles are. Furthermore, this article -- http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsp/index.php?id=120_YaleWeSuckPrank -- has a side-by-side comparison of different pictures.

I think the picture should be removed from the article, for the above reasons. Additionally, the uploading of the picture not from a real source but rather from the prankster's own website is inherently POV.

The thing is, I can't "prove" any of this, and wikipedia is not a forum for discovering new information or debunking hoaxes. It's supposed to just be an encyclopedia. I think deleting the picture would be the most prudent way to avoid "controversy." The article contains a link to the website featuring the doctored picture as well as the article comparing the two photos. Both of these external sources are partisan, and that's fine - the reader can make a more informed judgment when s/he sees the context. That should suffice. Wikipedia should not implicitly endorse the photo that is currently in the article.

Does all of that make sense? Gohome00 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is anywhere near sufficient evidence to claim that the photo is doctored. The image taken by the reporter was clearly taken at a different time, possibly before the sign was fully set up, or after it had started to fall apart. It was also taken from a different angle. The combination of those two factors make it very very weak evidence for doctoring of the "official" photo. Powers ^T 14:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See, this is my point - I am not trying to "prove" that the pic was doctored. I am not Errol Morris and wikipedia isn't the forum for that. However, there is a) credible suggestion from other sources that the picture is doctored and b) certainty that the only source for the picture is a source with a vested interest in making the whole thing "look good." If the pic's uploader is challenged, s/he can just claim to be a neutral third party source. By keeping this photo in place despite those factors, wikipedia is implicitly endorsing one side of a conflict that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon unless the washington post takes a sudden interest in the topic.

Also, I don't disagree with you per se, but we are both engaging in guesswork. It looks clear to me that it's doctored; it looks clear to you that the other picture might be taken at a different time, and you are guessing as to the context and timeline (as, in a way, am I.) This is why I think the picture should just go altogether, since external sources cited in the article can give readers the chance to judge for themselves if they choose. Gohome00 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

But I don't one person's claim that the photo was doctored is enough to justify removing the image. Anyone could make that claim about any photo on Wikipedia. Maybe the difference is "credibility", but that's subjective, and I don't really find the claim particularly credible in this case. Others may disagree, of course. For now, the most I would do is specify in the caption that the image was released by the pranksters and not an independent documentation of the event. Powers ^T 23:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How do I edit the very first paragraph?

Hi,

At Ernest Clark's page, it says, "Ernest Clark (12 February 1912, London – 11 November 1994) was an British actor of stage, television and film.". Well, it should be "...a British..." as it is a consonant.

How do I do this?

Also, how do I add pictures to this first paragraph? I see many entries with no pictures.

Thanks. Harry Musicollector (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi there Musicollector. To be able to edit intro to articles, simply click the edit this page tab located all the way at the top of the page. Click here for a tutorial on how to work with images. Best of luck! --Neon Sky (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures in the first paragraph are often part of an infobox. If you want to add a picture to an infobox then you have to do it with parameters to the infobox. You can click "edit this page", look for the name of the infobox at top of the edit box, and then look for a link to the infobox page at the bottom of the window. There is often documentation for image parameters on the infobox page. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ATTN, Neon Sky and PrimeHunter.

Have a great day!

Harry
http://harry.cckerala.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicollector (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do when I forgot to sign using four tildes?

Often times, I will forget to sign using four tildes, after editing the Talk Page. What should I do when this happens? Should I undo my own edit or delete my reply, and reply again (re-reply, if you will)? (almost forgot to sign again, :) )Pagen HD (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just edit your message to add your sig. If the bot has already autosigned for you, you can leave it or delete the bot's sig and sign it. – ukexpat (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify that there is an automated bot which goes through periodically to update missing signatures on talk pages. If you realize you forgot, feel free to go back and add it, as it is very, very helpful. But if you completely forget and never re-add it, there is no need to really stress, as the bot does a really good job. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Making an article live

I just moved my article from my user page to what I thought was live Wikipedia by getting rid of 'User/Sputtnik', but can't find it in 'search'. Looks like I simply renamed the article. Could someone please help here. Also am confused about 'fixing' redirects and double redirects when article is moved. Thanks. Sputtnik (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about John Biddle (yachting cinematographer), it's right there. Our search engine is underpowered, so don't rely on it. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you click 'What links here' from the toolbox on the left, it will show you all links to the current page, including those via a redirect. Ideally, you will visit each of the articles which references it via a redirect and edit them to link direct to the article. It may or may not be desirable to delete the redirect page itself: see WP:rfd. --ColinFine (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Moving" and "renaming" a Wikipedia page is two words for exactly the same. You did it right. Wikipedia's search function takes time to update. See Wikipedia:Searching#Delay in updating the search index. Until then you can only get directly to the article via the search box if you enter the complete exact title. External search engines will index the page when their web crawlers discover it, usually within a few days for Google. The disambiguation page John Biddle is updated manually and I have added a link to John Biddle (yachting cinematographer). Your move meant that User:Sputtnik/John Biddle (yachting cinematographer) redirected to John Biddle (yachting cinematographer). Userspace should normally not redirect to articles and I have disabled the redirect. If you don't plan to use the page more then you can request deletion of it with {{Db-u1}} PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

loading a page

Hello I just cant seem to find out how I can start my own page about something. I want to write about a person in our community who is high profile in the philanthropic field. How can i do that!?? Thanks Luisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisa SDC Williams (talk • contribs) 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend starting your article as a userspace draft- see Help:Userspace draft. After you're finished and feel the article is ready to be made public, ask for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback where an experienced editor will give you advice about how to improve your article so that it is ready for Wikipedia. Once you've finished the suggestions, you can move the article from your user space into article space.

Before writing an article on a living person though, make sure to read Wikipedia's policy on living people. Also, check to see if the subject is Wikipedia-notable and merits an article by making sure he or she meets one of the guidlines listed at WP:PEOPLE. Good luck! Liquidluck✽talk 06:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Officical company content

I am the Web Editor at a company and we wish to update the article referring to us. It contains out-of-date (and therefore incorrect) information posted by an employee who is no longer with the company. It also would benefit from more in-depth and useful content.

I have tried to edit the page previously but after a few weeks it reverted back to its current content.

As an official representative of the company, how can I ensure that content updates made by myself are kept live on the site?

194.200.154.253 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see any cases in the page's history of your edits being reverted by another user or IP, either way you shouldn't be editing article's with which you are affiliated with the subject thereof. See WP:COI. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody owns an article and nobody can ensure their edits stay. Official representatives have a conflict of interest which gives them less right to edit an article. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. I wonder whether the employee who made this grossly inappropriate edit from your company IP address is still with the company. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to change edit summary? If it is possible, how should I do it? WP:Dummy edit wasn't helpful enough. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 13:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, edit summaries cannot be changed. Above the edit summary field there is a link to Help:Edit summary. See Help:Edit summary#Fixing. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at them before, but Help:Edit summary#fixing says that edit summary can be corrected. Can you explain this sentence a bit thoroughly In the case of important omissions or errors in the edit summary, you can make a dummy edit just to put the correction in the edit summary.? Thanks. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 14:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is reffering to the process of explaining a recent previous correction or edit made to an article in the edit summary. Example. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence in Help:Edit summary, which should hopefully avoid future confusion. TNXMan 14:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for helping. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 15:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Linking to foreign wikis with the same article name

I just realized what these commands [[fr:Nicolas Bachelier]] [[de:Nicolas Bachelier]] do. They link to French and Deutch articles of the same title e.g. Nicolas Bachelier. Is there an efficient way to find out of if there is an article of the same title in other wikis?. This would allow me to load the tags when I create the file. Or, is it best to wait for a bot to search out the new files? GloverEpp (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The links are not necessarily supposed to link to articles with the same title, but about the same subject. This has been (and continues to be?) a real problem with disambiguation, where different wikis choose a different person/place/etc to be the primary topic for the same name. As to your question, does googling for the name with site:wikipedia.org help? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And this is why some interwiki bots don't apply the links themselves until after they have been suggested for users to approve via the InterWiki Link Checker and the amount of 'yes' votes reaches a certain threshold. Nanonic (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Finding my page

Resolved

 – Mysdaao ^talk 15:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have written an article, but when I search for a main part of that page I get nothing. Should I copy the new page as new pages at all of these locations, or is there a way to redirect the search? E.g. I want a search of Bolton Show to bring up the article on Leverhulme park. Fly by Night (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's search index is not always updated with new articles immediately. It is typically updated once a day, so if it not in the search results by now, it will be shortly. You can read Wikipedia:Searching#Delay in updating the search index for this information.

You can create a redirect from Bolton Show to Leverhulme Park so people searching for "Bolton Show" will be taken to the article on Leverhulme Park. To do this, click the red link Bolton Show, add only #REDIRECT [[Leverhulme Park]], and save the page. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just done that and look: the red link is blue. When I type Bolton Show I get Leverhulme Park. Thanks very much. Fly by Night (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Mysdaao ^talk 15:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a template like this?

The German Wikipedia has a template, that is put in the lead-section and says "Some important facts are not covered by the article. Please help by providing facts on..." Is there a template like this in case of the English Wikipedia? Thanks.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The closest template on the English Wikipedia that I know of is {{missing information}}. If that's not what you're looking for, you can search through all the template messages found on Wikipedia:Template messages. If you tell us the name of the template, or an article that uses it, on the German Wikipedia, that might help. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the template. I think it comes close to the one suggested by you. Thanks.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On the left side of Vorlage:Lückenhaft, you can see an interlanguage link to Template:Incomplete, so whomever added that link thinks {{incomplete}} is the equivalent on the English Wikipedia. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing articles

Hi, I am looking at an article of an artist whom I was manager of. There are corrections that need to be made and I wanted to find out the following:

1) Can I edit them and will they be visible to others worldwide? 2) Can I add new entries to the database and will they be visible by other users around the world? 3) Can anyone edit an article, and if so, what would stop people from putting false information in there?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.66.126 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be better to point out the errors on the article's talk page, or here - if you have reliable sources that confirm the facts you offer, they'll be added to the article. I'd be mindful of our conflict of interest policy, though, as it's someone you've been involved with in the past. As to your questions, 1) Yes, you can make edits and they will be visible worldwide. Until you are a logged in user with a certain number of edits, though, your ability to edit certain articles may be limited. 2) Once you are an autoconfirmed user, you can create articles - but, again, be mindful of our policies before jumping in. Your First Article may be a helpful page. 3) By rule, edits must provide verifiable information backed by reliable sources - if an edit doesn't do that, it will likely be removed once it's noticed. This is doubly true for articles about living persons. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to noting that any information you add needs to have a verifiable source, you should note that the same is true for what exists there already. If there are parts you find inaccurate that aren't sourced you are welcome to remove them. Chris M. (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Page error

I didnt know where to put this, but [[3]] Has an error. Look at the bottom, the red lines are off.Accdude92 (talk to me!) 17:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. For some reason the last row (episode) is put inside a separate <table> which doesn't have the 'wikitable' class, instead of being inside the <table class='wikitable'> with all the rest. No idea why: I can't see anything obviously wrong in the markup (but I haven't delved into the template). --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've fixed it. Don't ask me how, though. Algebraist 19:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I was trying to fix it by removing the bullets, but your fix worked somehow. It seems that when the last line in the ShortSummary field of {{Episode list}} contains a bullet (*), then the remaining episodes in the table don't display properly. I thought the only solution was to remove them, but you found a better way. Thank you. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

awareness ribbons

What color awareness ribbon would be used for ALS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.46.46 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick search on Google for ALS ribbon shows many ribbons raising awareness for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis that have blue and white stripes because Lou Gehrig played for the New York Yankees. --Mysdaao ^talk 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Download of all Wikipedia Templates

I am working with a wiki I have setup on my own site using the WikiMedia engine. I have the wiki running and am starting to run into issues where I would really like to follow the "big dogs" and use Wikipedia Templating for my articles, however, I can't seem to find anyway to download all of the templates in one go... or even instructions on how to download categories of templates?! I've spent a good three weeks researching via Google and here on Wikipedia / Media / all the other branches. I've found plenty of broken links, and when visiting the download.wikimedia.org site, if I go to the Dumps the links will not pull up a downloadable file?! I know how to Special:Export and Special:Import, but I can't seem to add a single entry via the form on Wikipedia. Can someone help point me in the right direction?! Thanks! Quando Omni Flunkis Moritati - ( When all else fails, play dead ) (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The technical section of the Village Pump may be the best place to ask. – ukexpat (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates make the difference between a bare-bones wiki vs. a wiki that is fun to edit on. Porting templates is a big problem when you start a new wiki. You almost certainly do not want to download all templates from the English Wikipedia. Many of them would not be appropriate for another wiki at all, since they are Wikipedia-specific. Others would not work the way you want without extensive editing by someone who understands template programming. Therefore one key to your wiki's success is to find and recruit users who are template programmers now, or who can learn quickly. Remember that wikis are collaborative - if you can't find collaborators, your project won't get far. You probably only really need a set of customized templates that corresponds to just a tiny subset of all templates on Wikipedia. I suggest you look around at wikis that are similar to what you want to create and study their templates. Many small wikis out there have smaller sets of templates that would be more tractable as starting points for developing your own templates. Also note that when you copy templates from Wikipedia or any other site with the same or a similar free content license, you must display a link back to the original source. Naturally the most convenient way to do this is to make a set of attribution templates for linking to the sites you copy from. For example see how Appropedia does it at Appropedia:Template:From Wikipedia. Other tips: when you port templates to another wiki, they may require some features on the target wiki to be the same as on the source wiki. This includes:

• The MediaWiki version. The target wiki should be running the same version of MediaWiki, or at least close.
• MediaWiki extensions. Many templates depend on various extensions. Check the Special:Version pages on the source and target wikis to see what extensions they have.
• External software. Some templates on Wikipedia may (unwisely) depend on things like HTML Tidy that may not be running on the target wiki.
• CSS style classes. Check the MediaWiki:Common.css pages on both wikis to make sure you have all the classes your templates are trying to use.
• Subpages in namespaces. Some templates (e.g. {{Documentation}}) assume the existence of subpages in some namespaces. You will get strange results on the target wiki if you haven't implemented subpages in the same namespaces as the source wiki.
• External tools. Some templates link to programs on the Toolserver that might only work for Wikimedia Foundation projects, I think. E.g., {{Coord}}.
• Other templates. Many templates on Wikipedia transclude other templates, which transclude still more templates, etc. This is why you might naively wish to export all the templates in one shot. If only that would work. Unfortunately, you will have to port templates one at a time, picking your way through all the template dependencies and getting them to work on the target wiki too. Wikipedia's templates tend to be highly abstracted, because Wikipedia is so huge. The same level of template abstraction would almost certainly be overkill on a small wiki. (If the previous two sentences do not make sense to you, then you may be in over head.)

If you find a simple way to port templates between wikis, please document your tricks so other MediaWiki sysops can benefit. As you may have guessed, I am just now porting a starter set of templates to a new wiki I am developing. --Teratornis (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention:

• Files. Many templates on Wikipedia display images, and obviously the target wiki needs the same images to display them. Even if you could export all of Wikipedia's templates, many would display red links until you exported all the necessary images too.

--Teratornis (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And see Wikipedia:WikiProject Transwiki. Maybe someday there will be template "packs" for easy exporting to other MediaWiki wikis. --Teratornis (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

w and p

what does lowercase 'p and w indicate', by multiple pressing of "*" key on mobile phones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.40.15 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our roughly three million articles, and thought that we were directly 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 a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the left hand 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. TNXMan 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Search Wikipedia with Google for: mobile phone keypad - this might give some clues. See for example Telephone keypad and Predictive text. --Teratornis (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you use a mobile phone without a sim card in it, you can enter certain strings into the phone to find out information on the phones settings etc. E.g on a Nokia phone you can enter #pw+1234567890+2 to find the Network lock status, the pw entries are also used for removing SIM locks on some phones. Nanonic (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Asian Glory

Dear Sirs, Have You any information about actual situation with m/v "asian Glory", UK flag, which was seized on 01 Jan 2010? This is the father of one of crewmembers asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.37.42 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See MV Asian Glory for our article on the subject. In the future, you should ask fact questions on the WP:RD - this help desk is for questions on how to use Wikipedia. I would recommend http://news.google.com for searching recent news articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article deleted but nothing in delete log

My article Dry Rot Treatment that I uploaded on 10 January has disappeared from Wikipedia. I have checked the deletion log but there is no record. What is going on?

EricPolymath (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been redirected. Is this the page in question? TNXMan 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this link [4]. First, another editor moved it to correct the capitalization, then someone else changed it to redirect to a section of another article which already existed. Hope this helps. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Why has this happened and what can I do about it? EricPolymath (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The change of capitalization was normal and in line with Wikipedia style. You can ask the editor who changed it into a redirect by going to his talk page at User talk:DoriSmith. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

At the time I saw it, the article looked like this. Most of it was a how-to ("Orthodox Treatment for Dry Rot", "Environmental Treatment of Dry Rot") followed by a critique of one treatment approach but not the other ("Criticisms of the Orthodox Approach"). Given that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and that the article appeared to have a WP:NPOV issue and that we already had an article on Dry rot containing a section on treatment, it seemed natural to make it a redirect. Nothing has disappeared and nothing has been deleted, so no need to worry there. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain your statement that “nothing has disappeared and nothing has been deleted”? If someone searches on Wikipedia for dry rot then my article is no longer returned, therefore I would class that as “disappeared”.

To respond to your comments about the article itself, firstly I would point out that it is essentially an extract from my final year dissertation for my building surveying degree course. If the way that I tackled this subject was lacking in academic rigour then I am sure that my tutors would have pointed this out at the time.

In your opinion what I have written is not from a neutral point of view. I would respond that in order to present a balanced-sounding comparison of the treatment methods I have deliberately left out a considerable amount of relevant material from the “Criticisms of the Orthodox Approach” section. Some of the criticisms by the published experts on the way that chemical-based timber treatments are implemented in practice are, to say the least, harsh and I felt that, if included, could make the article sound like an all-out attack on the UK remedial timber treatment industry.

It is true to say that there is no “Criticisms of the Environmental Approach” section. This is simply because I have been unable to find any published material anywhere (let alone in a peer-reviewed academic publication) that claims that the environmental approach is in anyway less effective or desirable than the orthodox.

You allege that I have produced a “how to guide”. I do not see how it is possible to compare the relative merits of two processes without describing what those processes are.

I believe that the information concerning dry rot treatment in the article to which searches are now directed is of questionable value. For example, I do not claim to be an expert on mycology but I cannot see how “epoxy treatments that kill rot by filling in the channels of the damaged wood” can possibly work. If such treatments are available why did I not find reference to them during the research for my dissertation or why did the lecturers at the university not point out such an omission when reviewing my dissertation? I would also point to the lack of references quoted for that section of the article.

Finally I would make the point that I am more than willing to discuss constructive criticism of my article with anyone. For example the question as to why there is no “Criticisms of the Environmental Approach” section is a valid point. However I do take exception to having my work deleted by someone who does not have the courtesy to give me the chance to respond to their criticisms beforehand.

EricPolymath (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's from your final year dissertation for my building surveying degree course surely it's original research - isn't that was dissertations are supposed to be? – ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No. In UK universities original research is expressly banned from dissertations. A dissertation is an academic review of current knowledge. Original research would appear in a thesis produced by someone working towards a PhD. EricPolymath (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared to accept that, when preparing your dissertation, you were instructed not to introduce original research, but this is far from a universal rule for dissertations in the UK. At the department where I work, undergraduate dissertations are expected to include original research, and for master's dissertations, it is pretty much essential. Warofdreams talk 02:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I used "deleted" the way it's used here on Wikipedia: in reference to articles that can be (and often are) deleted. When you said you thought your article had been deleted, I assumed that that was what you were referring to.

  The problems with the original article become more clear now that you say it was part of a dissertation. As such, I think it fairly clearly falls into the policy Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal—Wikipedia simply isn't the place for (re-)publishing research papers or academic work. If you follow that link, though, you'll find a number of links to places that may be appropriate.

  And finally, if you believe that there are errors in a current article, go fix them! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)