Help desk
< April 7	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 9 >

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.

April 8

The Jacobson Flare

Hello, Wikipedia Help Desk,

extended explanation

A couple of years ago, I became aware that there was a reference article, not contributed by myself, describing my original 'Jacobson Flare', the World's first and only universal, quantifiable, consistent, safest and unassailable aeroplane/airplane approach and landing training technique.

Some time later, I was aware of on-line comment or comments, disparaging this technique, made by a person or persons unknown to me, clearly with no knowledge of the technique, but with some sort of grudge against me, personally.

Some time after that, the article describing the Jacobson Flare was removed from Wikipedia, with no effort made to contact me for comment or further information. (I'm not that hard to find!)

I MAY wish to contribute a new article – as the researcher/developer/director, but I will NOT do so if mere personal issues or whims can result in an article relating to a ground-breaking technique (based on facts, logic and some lateral thinking) being torn down, with no recourse to its owner/developer.

The Jacobson Flare, conceived in 1965 (at the beginning of my 50+ year flying career in civil aviation) and developed from 1985 onwards is a proven landing training technique that needs no validation from armchair experts. My website, www.jacobsonflare.com has much further information, including its history, pilot testimonials and more. Briefly, the technique defines a pilot 'eye path', from final approach to touchdown, using among other things, the application of simple triangulation to FIX the flare initiation point, rather than relying on an 'educated' guess of physical height above the runway or other landing surface. It provides factual answers (found NOWHERE ELSE) to the following questions:

Where to aim? How to aim? When to commence the flare? How mucho flare? and How fast to flare? (i.e., the flare rate)

Since my retirement in 2010, from Qantas Airways Ltd Australia, as a former B737 Check and Training Captain (Type Rating and Flight Instructor), after 40 years in the airline and its domestic predecessors, Trans-Australia Airlines (TAA)/Australian Airlines Ltd), I developed and released the Jacobson Flare App for the iPad (June 2014) and, recently (March 2020), new versions for the iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch (iTunes App Store)and Android (GooglePlay). Several thousand copies of this paid app have now been purchased by pilots in 65 nations.

Since 1987, I have offered a solution to landing training; however, the world doesn't realise yet that it even has a problem. Modern, so-called 'state-of-the-art' flight training organisations still perpetuate myths and legends, dating back to the end of World War One, in 1918.

The closed-minded individuals who insisted that the original Jacobson Flare article be torn down merely followed the very old and quite dangerous dogma that besets many topics other than just the Jacobson Flare: "WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT THIS WAY".

I would very much appreciate your advice on how best to re-establish an entry for The Jacobson Flare, in Wikipedia. Both institutions deserve no less.

Captain David Jacobson FRAeS MAP

Developer/Director

The Jacobson Flare Pty Ltd

www.jacobsonflare.com

JacobsonFlare (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobsonFlare (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JacobsonFlare, the article was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare (2nd nomination). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could make your request at Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences. Make sure that you provide independent, reliable sources for the notability of the Jacobson Flare. When doing this, also point out either how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare (2nd nomination) was underinformed, or how it has become outdated since 2011. -- Hoary (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JacobsonFlare: You will need to change your username. A username cannot be the name of an organization (WP:USERNAME). You cannot create a new article directly, since you have a conflict of interest, and you are probably a paid editor: (WP:COI, WP:PAID). Instead, you must declare your COI and paid status on your (new) user page. You may then submit a proposed article. You cannot directly create one. -Arch dude (talk)

Frances Lupton

ref 8 is in red. I cannot fix it up. Please assist if you can. Thankyou 175.32.219.132 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason can you not fix it? 331dot (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps coming up red on my phone edit which I think is at fault. Please fix. 175.32.219.132 (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed the error which was caused by a typo in the year of publication. Greyjoy^talk 07:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing name of a page

Hi! Lundin Petroleum has changed its name to Lundin Energy, but I can´t seem to be able to change the name of the page. I found this guide for changing name: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:How_to_move_a_page but I don´t have the "more" menu as shown in the description to be able to do this. Can someone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennySand87 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Lundin Petroleum

@JennySand87: I see Joseph2302 has moved the page to the new title. Is someone going to take care of describing the name change and changing it to Lundin Energy where appropriate in the article and anywhere else that links to it? What about the logo? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The company has not announced a name change. I think this move of article is premature. Maproom (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomerg refer to them as Lundin Energy, which is why I moved it. As does their website. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia a virus-free environment?

This edit prompts me to ask if Wikipedia has installed any anti-virus program so that editor's computer won't get infected while checking the sources. --Reciprocater (Talk) 08:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it hasn't, as that would involve installing software on all its editors' computers, with or without their permission. Maproom (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Reciprocater (Talk) 09:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to bet money that Wikipedia's servers have antimalware software running so that this site is safe. That would mean Wikipedia is virus free in that you're not getting anything from the site. If you're getting something from checking a source, you're getting it from the source's site, not Wikipedia. We can't go and install software on other site's servers. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. So checking sources on Wikipedia to see if they're reliable seems to be risky. --Reciprocater (Talk) 05:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How likely is it that one's computer might get infected as soon as they check a contaminated source link on Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia's antimalware software secured-server prevent malicious link pretending to be a reliable source from getting posted on Wikipedia ? --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reciprocater: With regard to the first question, that depends entirely on how good a job you've done with your computer hygiene (you do have antimalware software, right?).

As for the second question, I seriously doubt Wikipedia has the capacity to check every single link every time an edit is made. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reciprocater: When you click on an external link, you are commanding the browser software on your computer to connect directly to the web server computer named in that external link. The Wikipedia servers are not informed of this action and cannot interpose themselves between your browser and that server. It is up to you to ensure that the web browser on you computer can defend itself. This is true for any external link on any web page on the Internet, not just external links on Wikipedia. -Arch dude (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reciprocater: As to actively checking external links when an editor adds one, while this might be possible, it is of limited use, because an external web server may be maliciously compromised some time after the link is added. Worse, URLs (i.e., web server names) can change hands and the new owner might not be a nice person. Finally, there are methods that allow evildoers to hijack a web connection somewhere between you and a perfectly innocent web server, so your connection does not go to the web server you are trying to reach. We can and do blacklist malicious sites when they are reported to us,but this is a manual operation. -Arch dude (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Thanks for the information. Does Chrome's Extensions such as Avast Online Security can help us detect a potentially harmful link embedded in a citation on Wikipedia before we check whether it meets WP:Reliable source? --Reciprocater (Talk) 05:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reciprocater: we can answer questions about Wikipedia here at the help desk. For questions about your computer's software, The folks over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing are more likely to be able to help. -Arch dude (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, perhaps my phrasing was not precise enough. I was focusing on how to prevent our computers from contracting viruses at the time we're checking whether sources on Wikipedia are reliable.^^ --Reciprocater (Talk) 14:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been repeatedly told now, preventing your computer from contracting viruses is between you and your antivirus software. Individually testing every external link on Wikipedia's 61,857,768 pages—which is what I believe you're suggesting here—is an exercise that would probably bankrupt Google, let alone the WMF, given that even the clean links would have to be constantly re-checked (domains are taken over all the time). We blacklist malicious sites when we spot them, but that's the most we can do and the most we will ever be able to do. ‑ Iridescent 14:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I am not suggesting such exercise. Whereas verifying reliable sources is just a daily routine for those hardworking Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. I surmise they know how to protect themselves when they're fulfilling their duty? --Reciprocater (Talk) 15:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sources

hello, on an artist wikipedia page, is it ok to use the artists own website for sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobbe s 97 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tobbe s 97. Yes, in a limited way, see WP:ABOUTSELF. You can also add it as a WP:External link. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP user seemingly evading block

Hi. Recently 86.150.157.82 (talk · contribs) was blocked for disruptive behaviour on reality show articles, including changing colours unnecessarily, making inconsistent changes to results tables, etc. Now 86.170.140.177 (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing, which, per WP:DUCK, makes me think that it's the same person evading the block. I've previously reported such a case to WP:SPI, but was told that that was inappropriate when there was no registered user account present. What's the right course of action here? Thanks. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: after I placed {{uw-vandalism4im}} on their userpage (due to the scale of the disruption), the user has since been reported to WP:AIV, where I've placed a note about my suspicions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireLad:In such cases, yust make a straightforward AIV report. Wikipedia:OBVIOUSSOCK may contain additional info. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this replace the current fair-use picture?

Here's a headshot like image of Ed Wood, which is a cropped screenshot of a scene from his (public domain) movie Glen or Glenda. Could this or should this image replace the current infobox picture of Ed Wood, which is being used under Fair Use? StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope so, it's a better picture. ——SN 54129 13:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@StrangeloveFan101: you use the term "public domain". This term has a specific legal meaning. Why do you think the film is in the public domain? -Arch dude (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: Because of the licensing info on the upload of Glen or Glenda on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glen_or_Glenda_(1953).webm#Licensing StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@StrangeloveFan101: Yes, I was just about to strike out my comment after checking that. I think you should use the picture. -Arch dude (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StrangeloveFan101, I take the view that you must change the image. One of the criteria for use of a non free image is that it is not replaceable. You've just replaced it, hence there is no valid fair use criteria. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 20:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics about Commons

Hello,

I'm looking for some statistics about Wikimedia Commons for an article in a professional periodical. I'm wondering how I can find statistics on the number of pictures by big subject (for example: nature, animals, people, monuments, art pieces...). I'm also looking for statitics by epoch or by decade. I imagine that the pictures taken by digital cameras represent a huge part of the pictures, that means that the last 15-20 years are over-represented in Wikimedia Commons. Do we have figures about that? I thnak you in advance. Have a nice afternoon. --Delsaut (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: you know muchly about stats pages, any thoughts? ——SN 54129 15:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Delsaut: The place to ask about this is probably on the help desk over at Commons c:Commons:Help desk. Since the primary mission of Commons is to support the encyclopedias, the ability to answer questions of this sort would be secondary and likely to be accidental side effects of way the software works. -Arch dude (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy enough to have a script count all items in (e.g.) Commons:Category:Buildings plus all its subcategories, but it would take so much time eliminating false-positives that it would probably not be worthwhile. For example, we have the direct category line Commons:Category:Buildings→Commons:Category:Buildings by function‎→Commons:Category:Education buildings‎→Commons:Category:Education buildings by country‎→Commons:Category:Education buildings in the United Kingdom‎→Commons:Category:Education buildings in Wales‎→Commons:Category:Universities and colleges in Wales‎→Commons:Category:Aberystwyth University‎→Commons:Category:Alumni of Aberystwyth University‎→Commons:Category:Charles, Prince of Wales‎, meaning that as far as any count is concerned Prince Charles is classified as a building; multiply that by (literally) millions of images to get an idea of how inaccurate any kind of count is going to be. As anyone who's tried to search Bing or Google Images by keyword can testify, even corporations that can afford to throw billions of dollars at the problem struggle with classifying images.

I know there's ongoing work on Commons to try to categorise all their images by date, but only a microscopic number of their images have been categorised so far. "Date of creation" isn't a particularly useful metric; if an artwork is painted in 1910, professionally scanned in 2005, made available on a free-use database like ArtUK in 2010, and copied to Commons in 2020, which of the four dates is the "creation date"? ‑ Iridescent 19:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WOHA-FM

I really don't understand why although this an article of an FM station that was purchased by Holy Family Radio from Ohio Northern University with a callsign change...why do you want to delete this??? I spent some extra time late last night gathering information for the External links section..some of it refers to the soon to be defunct on-air station WONB to become WOHA. The power output and frequency remains the same...and I am awaiting some new info from the FCC link for the callsign switch from WONB to WOHA. AS THE ARTICLE STATES...WONB HAS BEEN SOLD to the new owners, that being Holy Family Communications as of December of 2019. Station manager Jeff Compton informed me by email a month ago that the FCC has approved the transaction....so in the meantime WONB continues to broadcast on the air until Holy Family Communications takes over the station sometime this month. According to a telephone conversation I had with Mr. Compton nearly a week ago, he informed me that Holy Family Radio programming on 94.9 (the soon to be defunct WONB..which will switchover to webcasting) will comnmence on Monday April 20, of 2020 as WOHA.

With that said I implore you not to delete the article on WOHA-FM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrpojimmatthews (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no references to published independent reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. If you find such sources, the place to argue against the deletion is at WP:Articles for deletion/WOHA-FM. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, "The debut of WOHA is tentatively planned for April 20 of 2020". So it's about a radio station that doesn't exist yet; and not surprisingly in the circumstances, no-one has found evidence that it's notable. I would advise Wrpojimmatthews to wait until a few weeks after its launch, and then see what independent sources have said about it. (I see that WONB also cites no sources). Maproom (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

notifications from other wikipedias

I got one from an different language. Why is that? New3400 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New3400, some smaller wikis use bots to automatically welcome new users. I don't know the exact details, but when your account becomes known to that Wiki - i.e. it appears on central auth, a welcome message is placed on your talk. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 16:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I stop it then? New3400 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some wikis will do this when you first visit the site. It's possible to disable pings, but these are usually talk page messages, which I don't think can be disabled. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your preferences - notifications - cross-wiki notifications, and uncheck the box. I believe the bots will still leave a message on your talk page on some of the other wikis after you visit for the first time, but I don't think you'll get notifications about it unless/until you actually revisit that wiki. Not 100% sure, but worth a try. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@New3400: I wouldn't worry about it. There's something that can cause your account to appear on a bunch of other-language wikipedias all at once, you get several notifications, and it shouldn't generally happen again. Disabling the notification, however, means you won't get the ones that might actually be important, like regarding images on Commons. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compliant against local GP & Medical staff at North Tees Hospital.

As I am an 80% disabled veteran, I know that I should receive preferential treatment from my GP as well as medical services at North Tees. I don't and I've tried and failed to contact via email, the Deputy Director for Medical Services in order to make a full compliant with regards to what my problem IS! In the main the problem IS that both my feet - ankles - lower legs are very swollen, sore a have spots. Every medic that I've been to or have come to my home, places the bliam on my being a type2 Diabetic? I've had me heart checked around about 5 times and no fault found. I spent 9.5 months on water tablets and all that occurred was me having to pee every 30 minutes and my legs remained swollen and painful. So my GP sent me too the Lower Limb Specialist, who lost his rag and wrote to my GP setting out his anger and pointing out that the problem that I had was in fact the realm of the Lymphoedema Specialist Service! So I received a letter from this service to arrange a home appointment. The nurse was supposed to arrive at 1145am but did not arrive till 1205pm. The letter also stated that she would be here for 1hour and 30 mins. She left telling me that there was 'NOTHING' she could do for me and inferred that the cause was, yet again:- 'TYPE 2 DIABETEES'.???????? sincerely:- RedDog -- RedDog338 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for Wikipedia. We can't help you with anything else. RudolfRed (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This is a helpdesk for the use and editing of Wikipedia. We are unable to help with such a task, I would suggest contacting the medical center yourself. Do you have a question about Wikipedia? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying @RedDog338: so that they see the above message replies. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ho can I remove the "user sandbox template"

Resolved

Dear all, I moved an article from my sandbox to wikipedia (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Steve_Forward) but it is written: "This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the user sandbox template". I already searched on wikipedia how I can remove the "user sandbox template" and tried to follow the instructions, but the message is still on the page. How may I fix it ? Many thanks in advance.

Zebulon28 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zebulon28: You suceeded in this edit. That would be the same thing I would have teached you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Thank you Victor for your quick answer. But the problem seems still to be there. When I am searching the article on Wikipedia "search results", the message still shows next to the name.[reply]

Zebulon28 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, we have no control over search engine results. They can take a while to update. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem still remains that the name of the article (in mainspaice?) is Draft:Steve Forward; it needs to be moved to Steve Forward, which currently is a redirect to the draft. 2606:A000:1126:28D:9C52:D4:5B21:BFC (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the edit history, you will see that editor User:Theroadislong moved this from article space to draft space, because it is currently poorly sourced and thus would be in danger of deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all your kind answers! Stay safe. Zebulon28 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California stat numbers per individual county don’t add to the totals for the state

The numbers in the categories of cases and deaths listed by county do not add up to the totals listed for the state. The totals are understated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.164.81 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of the six million Wikipedia articles are you referring to? --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Please provide a link to the page(s) you are discussing, e.g. [[Article name]]. Also, it's generally best to post queries about a specific page to the page's talk page. For example, questions about Coronavirus disease 2019 are at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

contribution approval

Good Afternoon,

I submitted a contribution about a week ago and am still waiting on approval for it to be published. Is there anything I can do to speed up the process or can I get an update on when I can expect to know whether or not it will be approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillnerM21 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WillnerM21, Ah, well the issue is that you haven't actually submitted it (and by it I assume you mean User:WillnerM21/sandbox) to the review process. Currently its just a page sitting in your sandbox, until you put a review header on it. I have gone ahead and done that for you. But I will note that the page definitely doesn't meet our standards yet. It needs citations from independent sources, not the group itself. Spotify doesn't count as a source either. And it reads like an advertisement. We are an encyclopedia, not a yellowpages. Also, if you have any affiliation with the subject, you need to disclose that by reading the rules at WP:COI. If you are an employee or have been paid by them in any way, you must disclose that by following the steps at WP:PAID. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WillnerM21 Another way of looking at this is that almost the entire article is about the people in the group and nothing at all that the media has written about what the company does. If you can find some media coverage of the work, or profiles of the group, then there's hope for an article. If it's just a lot of bios listed one after the other, then you should instead look at doing individual articles about the partners instead of the group. They don't make the group notable - see WP:INHERIT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]