AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) →Clarification needed: Assigning religion categories to BLPs according to WP:EGRS: Bus stop, take your ethno-bureaucratic Wikilawyering agenda elsew |
Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) →Comment: The context of the question inplies the user doesn't know what a talk page is |
||
Line 733: | Line 733: | ||
[[User:Lsalgo|Lsalgo]] ([[User talk:Lsalgo|talk]]) 04:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
[[User:Lsalgo|Lsalgo]] ([[User talk:Lsalgo|talk]]) 04:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:If you disagree with something, and it is not a matter of verifiable fact, then please discuss it on the article talk page first. The article is not the place for discussion or general comments. [[User:Tiggerjay|Tiggerjay]] ([[User talk:Tiggerjay|talk]]) 05:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
:If you disagree with something, and it is not a matter of verifiable fact, then please discuss it on the article talk page first. The article is not the place for discussion or general comments. [[User:Tiggerjay|Tiggerjay]] ([[User talk:Tiggerjay|talk]]) 05:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::To expand on that, every article has a corresponding [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] that is available through the tab at the top of the page marked "Discussion". By the way, this site is called ''Wikipedia'', [[WP:DAW|not ''wiki'']]. A wiki is any website using [[wiki]] software; there are thousands of them.{{z30}}<!-- Template:Notwiki -->--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 12:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Entry on R.C school being maliciously altered . Possible sectarian motive. == |
== Entry on R.C school being maliciously altered . Possible sectarian motive. == |
Revision as of 12:29, 25 May 2011
- For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
- Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
- Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
- For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
- New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners.
May 22
history
Dear Sir/Madam,
My parents were involved with a country store which started in the 1890s and closed in 1972.
I am trying to compile a history of the store and was wondering if you could supply copies of photos of old product from that era and some of their histories.
Marcella Berry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.30.246 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. GB fan (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Citing The New York Times Magazine
If I want to cite The New York Times Magazine, a Sunday supplement to The New York Times, which template should I use: {{cite news}} or {{cite journal}}? —Cheng ✍ 03:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think either template would be acceptable. It's up to you, I'd probably use {{cite news}}, because it comes in the New York Times. It's really up to you, doesn't matter either way. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I second Steven's choice. Template:Cite journal is typically intended for scientific journals rather than newspaper content. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
My new userbox
I'm unsure whether to place my new userbox, {{User:Rcsprinter123/UBX/Radio2/Steve Wright}}, here or here. Any help? RcsprinterGimme a message 09:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you mean User:Rcsprinter123/UBX/Radio2/Steve Wright. Although your two alternatives link to the same place, I don't see why your userbox wouldn't fit there. Goodvac (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes thank you. I've put it in the BBC section. RcsprinterGimme a message 09:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Math symbols don't show up
I am using Firefox 4 on windows 7 and I've noticed that some math symbols don't show up. There's no box, it's just completely blank. I've noticed this problem with set inclusion symbols and the wedge product, though there are probably others that don't show up either.
Anyway, I tried both fixes mentioned here, but neither worked. (Unchecking the allow overriding fonts box and changing the font to Ariel Unicode MS) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Special_characters#Viewing Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give some examples of symbols/articles you're having issues with? Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 13:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well I kind of already did, but if you want a specific example of an article, Exterior Algebra is one. It appears to me like there is just a blank space between the u and v. Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
"The exterior product of two vectors u and v, denoted by u ∧ v, lies in a space called the exterior square, a different geometrical space (vector space) than the original space of vectors. The magnitude[1] of u ∧ v can be interpreted as the area of the parallelogram with sides u and v, which can also be computed using the cross product of the two vectors."
- The people at WT:WPM might be able to help. Meanwhile, check this list of Unicode symbols and see what percent of those symbols are showing up for you as intended. An empty square box in the left hand column shows a failure. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oddly, all but three of the symbols (circled bullet, double plus and triple plus) show up for me on that page. All of the math symbols show up, even though they don't on Wikipedia. Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Sorry it took so long to respond, but whenever I tried before, it refused to save my edit.
New user upload image to existing or new page
Permission to upload an image is only granted after ten edits and I do not wish to edit any articles. I would like to upload an image that I've been working upon for the Empires section. All the information in my image has been extracted from Wikipedia pages and therefore there are no copyright issues. Can I upload an image without having to edit ten times. My image is of a modern empires chart 'Chart of Empires'. Thank you Cliffjohn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffjohn (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on this extraction from Wikipedia pages? You say "therefore there are no copyright issues" but many of the images on Wikipedia are copyrighted and being used in specific places under a claim of fair use. If the "extraction" is from any of these images then copyright is very much at play. Many other images seen here are not in the public domain but remain copyrighted under a free license, which requires any reuse to comply with that license. This once again means that just because it's seen on Wikipedia does not mean careful evaluation of copyright is unneeded. Regarding the autoconfirmation issue, if my concerns over copyright are unfounded and the image is free, then it shouldn't be uploaded here at all but to the Wikimedia Commons instead, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). A secondary benefit of this is that there is no editing autoconfirmation threshold at the Commons. Finally, making ten edits is easy: Just search for a common misspelling and fix it in ten article. This list will make that easy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
no verifiable sources
If a Wikipedia article about a living person has no verifiable sources linked to as well as no citations does it quality for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirhounix (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, provided it was created after March 18, 2010. See this page for details, and this one for general discussion of all forms of deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Charles Hollis Jones
I've been trying to deorphan Charles Hollis Jones by linking to the article from Hot Wax (album), List of furniture designers, and List of American artists 1900 and after. While I can clearly see the links to Charles Hollis Jones on those three articles and those links are working properly, the list of incoming links does not show either of those articles. Any idea what the problem might be? Neelix (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I thought this might be a job queue issue so I purged all the pages involved and performed null edits to each. Whatever the reason for the lag, it appears to be fixed now. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Awesome. Thanks! Neelix (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Awesome. Thanks! Neelix (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
My Whole Page has been deleted for no real reason and i want it back!
After spending hours typing out my page, I saved it, viewed it, was happy with it, until i checked it a few hour later and some nice person has done a speedy deletion of my page! (thanks!) i found this error on talk section: 15:40, 22 May 2011 Discospinster (talk | contribs) deleted "Get Connected Magazines" (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) What a load of rubbish! It was significant because im going to be the first person to create a medium sized business with no capital or finance. The subject being me! ANDREW ANDERSON! So please can you put my page back up, or at least email me a copy of exactly what i put, along with the exact error's wikipedia doesnt like outlined in it!
Wikipedia is supposed to be an online enclyclopedia for everything! not just what wikipedia likes or doesnt like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GCMagazines (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you like, you can contact the admin who deleted the article. See WP:UND ("If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly."). It doesn't sound like you have any hope of having it undeleted, but you may be able to get the content sent to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Where did you get the idea that "Wikipedia is supposed to be an online enclyclopedia for everything!"? Perhaps you are confusing Wikipedia with Facebook. -- kainaw™ 18:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like you were trying to create an advertisement about your own company. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, but an encyclopedia. I think you were simply confused about what kind of web site Wikipedia is. After you have begun your business, and it has become well known, other people will write about you and your company in a neutral way, without your having to lift a finger. The best thing for you to do is not worry about Wikipedia, and focus on building your business. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please read WP:ORGFAQ and WP:COI. I believe an admin can restore the content of the deleted page as a user sub page for you; but from what you have said about it, there is no point in your spending any more time trying to make it into a Wikipedia article at the moment.) --ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like you were trying to create an advertisement about your own company. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, but an encyclopedia. I think you were simply confused about what kind of web site Wikipedia is. After you have begun your business, and it has become well known, other people will write about you and your company in a neutral way, without your having to lift a finger. The best thing for you to do is not worry about Wikipedia, and focus on building your business. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe you have some confusion regarding "..supposed to be an online enclyclopedia for everything", because Wikipedia is not. It is for notable subjects which is beyond what you believe is notable, but by following those guidelines. I highly suggest you review Your First Article for some great guidelines. Among them, you will read that if you have a conflict on interest in the subject (which you do) then the preference would be for you to suggest the article be created instead of making it yourself. It is unfortunate that you created the page yourself and spend considerable amount of time to create it, which an administrator can possibly return to you, moving forward, please start with the referenced article above first instead of trying to make the article appropriate on your own and simply re-adding it. If you believe your company may meet the notability guidelines, please feel free to reach out to me. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- As a courtesy, I have put the contents of the article in my sandbox here. It will almost certainly be overwritten within a couple of days, but can be retrieved from the edit history thereafter.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- As a courtesy, I'm providing a link directly to the correct revision, because I seriously doubt that ANDREW ANDERSON is going to know how to navigate the edit history of your sandbox. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- As a courtesy, I have put the contents of the article in my sandbox here. It will almost certainly be overwritten within a couple of days, but can be retrieved from the edit history thereafter.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding user names
Where would I go to issue a complaint regarding a editor's user name? Sarujo (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- See wp:Badname Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 19:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
How to remove a page from a Catagory
Greetings - Criticism of Science has been placed under Anti-Scinece category.
How do I remove it or go about getting someone to remove it.
BTW, the page is well sourced with many well know Intellectuals as references.TDurden527 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden527
- If you click edit, near the bottom of the page you will see the categories, something like [[Category:Living people]] for a living people category. You just need to remove the link to the category that does not belong. It might be good to bring up the category on the article's talk page and explain why you think the category should be removed prior to doing it. GB fan (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that there is already a discussion about merging this article into the anti-science article which you appear to have voice your input on, and it even appears that the consensus is that they are two different issues. As such, you're welcome to boldly remove the category.Tiggerjay (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Mobile App?
Is there a mobile app for editing Wikipedia? I have tried browsing on my Blackberry but have found it very frustrating. And I don't think I'd even try editing. AndyJones (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Article for Deletion / Disambiguation / Other? The New Earth
I was looking for some information on the book A New Earth and ran into the page The New Earth. It appears that The New Earth is a page highly unbalanced towards Christianity, and sounds like something more appropriate as an article in a Christian magazine than a Wikipedia entry. I don't think Wikipedia is the proper resource for a scholarly Christian explanation of a Biblical phrase.
I don't know Wikipedia rules so well, but I think a proper initial handling of The New Earth would include a notice of unbalanced viewpoints and a disambiguation to include A New Earth. Furthermore, the page The New Earth should probably be suggested for deletion. At most, I would think The New Earth could have a simple definition reference and some indications of various uses of it.
Perhaps not *directly* germane to the issue with the page The New Earth, I do believe that the book page A New Earth would have more basis for inclusion in Wikipedia due to it's massive popularity, articles written about it, pop culture involvement, etc. while The New Earth is simply a phrase from the Bible which is being expanded upon from a Christian perspective. Also note that I don't believe there's a significant distinction of the phrases due to the difference leading words "A" and "The". The page The New Earth mentions "A New Earth" several times in the main body and the references.
I hope this is the correct place to post this issue. Apologies for any errors in the way I am handling this. Thanks - Louis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.106.214 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your concerns, a good place to voice these concerns with people who would be best equipped to address some of these issues would be posting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity or on Talk:The New Earth. I will take a quick look to see what I can determine, but an expert view is probably needed. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Article Quality Ratings
I wanted to know how and when an unassesed article becomes assessed, and if it is possible to take part in that. illogicalpie(eat me) 23:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here is additional information regarding that process Wikipedia:Assessment Tiggerjay (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
May 23
How to change the title of an article?
The article titled Faded horizon should be titled Faded Horizon
How do I fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have AfD'ed the article. Why do you want to move an article that you have nominated for deletion? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems the article was incorrectly AfD'ed in an attempt to rename the article. Could an Admin please have a look at that? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've moved the article to Faded Horizon, as per the original request. The AfD does look like a mistaken attempt to get the title corrected. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Boerebetrokke Groep
Good Morning. We are Boerebetrokke Groep, a Conservative social pressure group based in Bloemfontein, South Africa. As the internet becomes more widespread in South Africa, more and more young persons are visiting the Wikipedia website.
We are unhappy at how some of the articles on Wikipedia are biased towards the Boers and Afrikaners. There is too much of a biased towards our people. We wish to lodge an official complaint and we want to change some of these articles, particulary on Apartheid, which makes the Afrikaners look really really bad.
Thank You. --BoerbetrokkeGroep (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you find a problem with an article, you need to raise the issue on the article's talk page, in this case at Talk:Apartheid. Be aware that changes are not made merely because you assert that they need to be made, you need to provide reliable sources which document the changes you wish to see be made. Also, your account will likely soon be blocked, because Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by an organization. Every individual person needs their own individual account that represents them as an individual. No editing at Wikipedia may be done on behalf of an organization. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, especially topic #11. --Jayron32 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- 1. I am a person, who is a member of an organisation.
- 2. I do not need sources or proof, my arguments are common sense.
- 3. I am not a member of an organisation.
- Thank you. --BoerbetrokkeGroep (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't your points one and three inherently contradictory? doomgaze (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- 2. Yes you do need sources, it doesn't make any difference how common sense your arguments are. All information must be verifiable to reliable sources. GB fan (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. --BoerbetrokkeGroep (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations User:Doomgaze, you have just been banned from our organisation. --BoerbetrokkeGroep (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You too, User:GB fan. What a coinsidence.. You are from Great Britain. Boer-hater and starter of 2 wars. Anglo-Boer Wars. Get your queen to apoligise. --BoerbetrokkeGroep (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
If you are serious about making some changes to Wikipedia then you seem to be going about it the wrong way, some civility would help you out no end. If you have some specific concerns and have reliable sources to support your viewpoint then I suggest the article talk page would be a good place to start. PS please reconsider my ban, I would very much like to join your organisation. doomgaze (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I will also note that the articles do not make all Boers and Afrikaners look bad; just those who practiced and advocated racial hatred and discrimination. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Cresap article
Who is the author? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.60.79 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to this the most frequent contributor is User:Conaughy. doomgaze (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are edited by many - often hundreds - of people; nobody owns an article, as anyone can edit it.
- If you go to Thomas Cresap and click 'History', you'll see this page - which shows every change to it, who made the edit, and when - right back to the first version (6 May 2007). Chzz ► 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, for information on citing Wikipedia articles in other works. For example, if you want to give credit to Wikipedia for information you use as a reference in something you are writing. --Jayron32 01:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
question regarding the appropriate use of blocks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Wikipeida. I asked this over on my talk page with a {{helpme}}, but I didn't get a real answer, so I thought I'd try here.
I've been here on Wikipedia for about 10 years now, and I've never really had an account I kept more than two weeks or so. If you could collect my entire edit trail, though, you'd find that it consists of about 50% productive editing, 25% trolling, and 25% wikilawyering. Assume that I won't change my behavior for love or money. Should I be permablocked by an admin?
24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please let us know your user-names, or at least your present ones, and any others you might be able to remember. It's not possible to really assess the question without that info. Chzz ► 02:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't remember. I've been IP-only for several years now. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Assume that I won't change my behavior for love or money." Sounds like trolling. Ignore. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Or honesty. You're very quick to dismiss me. You should WP:AGF instead. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- If all you ever do, from today forward, is edit productively, there's no way for anyone to connect you to your past misdeeds, unless you start behaving in a predictable manner (editing the same way as you have before, returning to the same patterns of behavior, etc.) If you never do anything wrong, and never behave in a manner which anyone can connect to a past account, how can anything be done? If you do anything that allows someone to positively connect you, by your behavior, to blocked accounts, expect to be blocked. --Jayron32 04:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's not really my question. I'm not engaging in sockpuppetry, and there are no outstanding blocks on any account/IP I've previously used. I have no intention of changing my behavior. Per Wikipedia's policies, should I be permablocked? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- If all you ever do, from today forward, is edit productively, there's no way for anyone to connect you to your past misdeeds, unless you start behaving in a predictable manner (editing the same way as you have before, returning to the same patterns of behavior, etc.) If you never do anything wrong, and never behave in a manner which anyone can connect to a past account, how can anything be done? If you do anything that allows someone to positively connect you, by your behavior, to blocked accounts, expect to be blocked. --Jayron32 04:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Or honesty. You're very quick to dismiss me. You should WP:AGF instead. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Italicizing web site titles
I'm finding a great deal of conflicting policy assertions, and not much consistency across Wikipedia. Basically, these are my three questions:
- Under what circumstances should an article about a web site italicize the name of that web site?
- Should an article about a web site consistently italicize or not-italicize the name of a web site within that article?
- Should references to a web site external to the web site's article match the italicization of the title of the article about the web site?
24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- See MOS:ITALICS. That seems to answer your questions. Dismas|(talk) 05:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. Read MOS:ITALICS and try again. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites/Sample. I don't know how much that can be regarded as a guideline though. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that there is a great deal of inconsistency. I quote, "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (such as Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries (like Wikipedia or Urban Dictionary) should also be italicized." However, for a reason that has always mystified me, we don't actually italicise Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia article. Even featured articles seem to be inconsistant with general–website–italics–related formatting. I personally put italics on sites replicating italicised material (The Telegraph online etc). Do whatever looks right. doomgaze (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Clarification needed: Assigning religion categories to BLPs according to WP:EGRS
Dear Help Desk,
Wikipedia editors would like a bit of clarification as to when an biographic article should be assigned to a religion category. WP:EGRS states the following:
Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic.
However, at the same time, List of French Jews states the following:
The following is a list of some prominent Jews and people of Jewish origins,[2] among others, (not all of them practice, or practiced, the Jewish religion) who were born in, or are very strongly associated with, France.
Which of these two statements should be taken into consideration? If the EGRS statement is more important, then shouldn't List of French Jews be greatly trimmed to only clergy French Jews? How about Category:French_Jews, should that category be greatly trimmed to only self-identified believes?
Thank you in advance for any clarification. Xionbox₪ 06:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- The descriptors "Jew" and "Jewish" presents a special situation because it is well known that being Jewish is not necessarily a religious distinction at all but an ethnic and cultural identity more akin in some ways to saying "I'm Italian" than "I'm a Buddhist" (though I'm oversimplifying). See, for example, Judaism#Distinction between Jews as a people and Judaism and Who is a Jew?. Many Jews are atheists and yet still self-identify (and are identified by others) as being Jewish, regardless of their lack of religion. In your question you see a conflict, but I think you base that on an assumption that a category named French Jews is inherently a religious category, when I don't think it is. On a side note, I would delete this article, and others similarly situated, as a poorly defined, unbounded list, far to indiscriminate as to who should and who should not be included, with thousand of potential entries possible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- As per today, the category "French Jews" comprises religious Jews, Christians of Jewish ancestry, as well as self-proclaimed atheists, and so do the categories "German Jews," etc. It is interesting to note, for instance, that Marcel Proust, a Roman Catholic of Jewish ancestry, is identified as belonging to the category "French Jews," and so is Jean-Marie Lustiger, a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church! For consistency, similar categories/lists, including German Jews, British Jews, Jewish musicians, Jewish writers, etc. will have to be deleted as well. This is a huge task; at least 100 categories/lists are concerned. Nidrosia (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let's be clear about terminology. The category for French Jews is Category:French Jews. The article we are talking about is List of French Jews (and what I talked about deletion of). German Jews is a redirect to History of the Jews in Germany; British Jews is an article about Jews in Britain and is not a list.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fuhghettaboutit, please note that I am refering to categories and lists. I am not referring to the articles you mentioned. Issues relating to the category "French Jews" apply with equal force to the category German Jews, the category British Jews, the category Jewish musicians, the category Jewish writers, etc. (My links are not "redirects.") Nidrosia (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You fixed your links to point to categories after they had pointed to articles! Then and even after the fix you seem to misunderstand that I was talking about deletion of the categories when I was very specifically talking about deletion of the list article. The points I raised for its deletion are utterly inapplicable to categories.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry. Hopefully, this time I'll get it right. You are arguing that the List of French Jews, an article, should be deleted. You are not arguing that the category, "French Jews," should be deleted. Does the same logic apply to the List of German Jews, the List of American Jews, the List of British Jews, the List of North European Jews, etc.? Nevertheless, in view of the discussion found here, several categories and several of the various "lists of Jews" are probably good candidates for deletion. Nidrosia (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You fixed your links to point to categories after they had pointed to articles! Then and even after the fix you seem to misunderstand that I was talking about deletion of the categories when I was very specifically talking about deletion of the list article. The points I raised for its deletion are utterly inapplicable to categories.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fuhghettaboutit, please note that I am refering to categories and lists. I am not referring to the articles you mentioned. Issues relating to the category "French Jews" apply with equal force to the category German Jews, the category British Jews, the category Jewish musicians, the category Jewish writers, etc. (My links are not "redirects.") Nidrosia (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let's be clear about terminology. The category for French Jews is Category:French Jews. The article we are talking about is List of French Jews (and what I talked about deletion of). German Jews is a redirect to History of the Jews in Germany; British Jews is an article about Jews in Britain and is not a list.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- As per today, the category "French Jews" comprises religious Jews, Christians of Jewish ancestry, as well as self-proclaimed atheists, and so do the categories "German Jews," etc. It is interesting to note, for instance, that Marcel Proust, a Roman Catholic of Jewish ancestry, is identified as belonging to the category "French Jews," and so is Jean-Marie Lustiger, a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church! For consistency, similar categories/lists, including German Jews, British Jews, Jewish musicians, Jewish writers, etc. will have to be deleted as well. This is a huge task; at least 100 categories/lists are concerned. Nidrosia (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lets also be clear; categorization by ethnicity, race, gender, and sexuality should only be done if BOTH of the following criteria are met: 1) It is a self-idetified characteristic of the person (the person can be positively and reliably and without any ambiguity confirmed to be self-identifying as a member of that category) AND 2) It is highly relevent to the reason the person is otherwise notable. The fact that someone has a great-great-great-great grandmother who lived in France at one point is not enough to classify someone as "of French ethnicity" even if it is true, if it is not also a self-identified AND relevent to the person's reason for having a Wikipedia article in the first place. Exactly the same if you replace "French ethnicity" with lesbian, jewish, catholic, black, asian, or likes-ketchup-on-his-hotdogs. --Jayron32 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jayron32—you say, "The fact that someone has a great-great-great-great grandmother…"
- No one is ever arguing that "The fact that someone has a great-great-great-great grandmother…" that therefore someone is Jewish.
- I just need to point that out. That is a form of exaggeration that blows the whole issue out of proportion. At most, an editor may be arguing that since someone's mother (sometimes the argument is made that this applies to someone's father as well) is Jewish, that therefore the child is also Jewish.
- In my opinion Jewish identity should be determined primarily by what reliable sources say. But at least the above argument—that the child of Jews is a Jew—has support in Judaism's definition of itself—called halacha.
- Judaism's definition of itself never considers that someone whose "great-great-great-great grandmother" was Jewish has Jewish identity conferred on them across the generations. That is out of the question, and no editor seriously ever tries to present such an argument.
- Jayron32: Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (WP:BLPCAT). Ethnicity is not mentioned. However: If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category [i.e., a special subcategory], then the category should not be created. The implication is that, because the article on the "History of the Jews in France is a "substantial and encyclopedic head article," the category French Jews is indeed allowed. On the other hand, the category Jewish writers should probably be deleted, because the subject is too vast to cover in a "substantial and encyclopedic head article," see "Special subcategories." Nidrosia (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- From WP:EGRS: "Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic." --Jayron32 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jayron32. This helps.
I agree this is a valid argument. As for my other examples (Marcel Proust, Jean-Marie Lustiger, Bernard-Henri Lévy, etc.), I do realize that each case must be discussed separately. (For instance, it is not self-evident that the Jewishness of Lévy, an acquaintance of Strauss-Kahn's, is relevant to Wikipedia. The question will be posted on the relevant page.) Nidrosia (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jayron32. This helps.
- From WP:EGRS: "Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic." --Jayron32 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jayron32: Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (WP:BLPCAT). Ethnicity is not mentioned. However: If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category [i.e., a special subcategory], then the category should not be created. The implication is that, because the article on the "History of the Jews in France is a "substantial and encyclopedic head article," the category French Jews is indeed allowed. On the other hand, the category Jewish writers should probably be deleted, because the subject is too vast to cover in a "substantial and encyclopedic head article," see "Special subcategories." Nidrosia (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bus stop, you say: "Judaism's definition of itself never considers that someone whose "great-great-great-great grandmother" was Jewish has Jewish identity conferred on them across the generations. That is out of the question, and no editor seriously ever tries to present such an argument."
- The unfortunate truth is that the reality in wikipedia is far worse than that. For instance, there are examples where editors (with strong administrative support) are including information about ethnicity when it has no relevance whatsoever to the personality notability and the editors simply indicate "well, I guess I have heard that on television or I read it in a newspaper that I can no longer find" or that "my grandma when she saw the face of this singer told me she certainly must have ethnicity X". They have no other evidence and still go ahead and include it in the biography. I need to point out that having reliable information about "great-great-great-great grandmother" with respect to ethnicity is a few levels above in the good direction when comparing with what could be found out there.
- Given the recent interest on this topic I drafted a proposal for amending the policy on Biography for living persons that can be found here:
Basically, I would like stronger wording to be included in WP:BLP to forbid inclusion of information about ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation (and now I realize this list needs to be expanded to include "likes-ketchup-on-his-hotdogs" or any other categorization) if such information has no significant relevance to the notability of the person who's biography we are talking about. kARom (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let's cut straight to the chase here. Wikipedia has got to decide once and for all whether it is (a) an online encyclopaedia, (b) a tabloid newspaper, or (c) a database for whatever 'reliable sources' tell us about anything and everything. If it is (b) then we don't need to do anything other than copy the juicy bits about whatever takes our fancy. If it is (c) then we need to organise, categorise and shove everything into neat litle boxes - using brute force if they won't fit, because the category is more important than the thing being described. If on the other hand, our objective is actually (a), and we are attempting to construct an encyclopedia, we need to stop pretending that the fact that there is a 'reliable source' for anything is of any relevence to its inclusion in articles, and stop creating articles based on vague social constructs, solely with the purpose of then fitting people into them. Nobody should be included in the category 'French Jew' unless they explicitly describe themselves as exactly that. The category 'French Jew' is a hybrid involving ethnicity and nationality, and just because someone is of French nationality, and self-identifies as Jewish by ethnicity, that doesn't mean that they identify with the hybrid - in fact they need not even recognise the existance of the hybrid as a 'group' - they after all will have many other attributes that contribute to their self-identity. Do we have categories for 'French Males', 'Jewish Taxi-drivers', or 'Male French Jewish taxi-drivers'. No of course not. They are self-evidently categories that no encyclopedia will include. "Ah yes," I expect that someone will reply, "but the category 'French Jews' is notable, it has had books written about it". Very likely true, and we can (and probably should) write an article about the concept of 'French Jewishness'. However, we should note that recognising that a concept exists isn't the same thing as recognising it's universal validity. By creating a category 'French Jews', Wikipedia is doing exactly that. Imposing a particular concept of 'identity' on individuals, for our own convenience. That is not only unencyclopaedic, it is downright offensive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump, you wrote, "Nobody should be included in the category 'French Jew' unless they explicitly describe themselves as exactly that." It would be helpful to identify at least one person who fulfills your new criteria for inclusion into the category. Could you please name one such person?
WP:EGRS demands that "[c]ategories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic." A French Nobel laureate in Chemistry who happens to be Jewish should not be placed in the category called "French Jews," as her/his Jewishness is irrelevant to why she/he is notable. A person qualifies for the category "French Jews" if and only if her/his notability is in some way or other related to her/his Jewishness. This is a very strict condition. (Hundreds of biographical articles should be re-checked.) Adding further criteria will increase the threshold even further. - Gilles Bernheim is a possible candidate, but I have not been able to find a reliable source according to which Bernheim officially recognizes the existence of "French Jews," this "hybrid group" (your expression). Nidrosia (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nidrosia, I suggest you learn the difference between 'ethnicity' and 'race'. WP:EGRS states "while a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People". Or to put it into simple language, it is a violation of WP:EGRS to create a 'racial' category for people. Note also that I said that "nobody should be placed into the category 'French Jew' unless they explicitly describe themselves as exactly that". I didn't say that everyone who meets the crireria should be placed in it. In fact, I've made clear that I don't consider the category valid. What about my viewpoint is it that you are querying? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, a "French Jew," according to Wikipedia, is a member of the Jewish population in France; cf. History of the Jews in France, where there are 21 instances of the term "French Jew(s)" in this particular sense. It does not follow that, by using the term "French Jew," we are "imposing a particular concept of 'identity' on individuals." The latter proposition requires several extra steps, and is based on your original research. Secondly, according to WP:BLPCAT, "[c]ategories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" (italics mine). Ethnicity is not mentioned here. Hence, it is irrelevant whether or not the ethnicity of a given person is a "self-identified characteristic." Thirdly, it was Jayron32 who introduced the term "race" into this particular context; see above. I should not have used the term at all. It was a great mistake. Nidrosia (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- 'A "French Jew," according to Wikipedia, is a member of the Jewish population in France'. Exactly. Wikipedia contributors have created a synthesis from 'nationality' and 'ethnicity'. Wikipedia isn't WP:RS for itself in any case. And if you bother to consult the experts (social scientists), self-identification is precisely what defines an ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, a "French Jew," according to Wikipedia, is a member of the Jewish population in France; cf. History of the Jews in France, where there are 21 instances of the term "French Jew(s)" in this particular sense. It does not follow that, by using the term "French Jew," we are "imposing a particular concept of 'identity' on individuals." The latter proposition requires several extra steps, and is based on your original research. Secondly, according to WP:BLPCAT, "[c]ategories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" (italics mine). Ethnicity is not mentioned here. Hence, it is irrelevant whether or not the ethnicity of a given person is a "self-identified characteristic." Thirdly, it was Jayron32 who introduced the term "race" into this particular context; see above. I should not have used the term at all. It was a great mistake. Nidrosia (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nidrosia, I suggest you learn the difference between 'ethnicity' and 'race'. WP:EGRS states "while a race-specific category could be implemented where race has a specific relation to the topic, the intersection of subcategories of Category:Race are never applied to subcategories of Category:People". Or to put it into simple language, it is a violation of WP:EGRS to create a 'racial' category for people. Note also that I said that "nobody should be placed into the category 'French Jew' unless they explicitly describe themselves as exactly that". I didn't say that everyone who meets the crireria should be placed in it. In fact, I've made clear that I don't consider the category valid. What about my viewpoint is it that you are querying? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump, you wrote, "Nobody should be included in the category 'French Jew' unless they explicitly describe themselves as exactly that." It would be helpful to identify at least one person who fulfills your new criteria for inclusion into the category. Could you please name one such person?
- AndyTheGrump—you are failing to recognize that in some, or most, instances, the individual in question neither objects to being called a "French Jew", nor provides any other reason (in reliable sources) for us to believe that they might not be properly categorized as a French Jew. We adhere to what sources say. If an editor can bring a source that calls into question the validity of that categorization—that would carry weight, and would tend to serve to disqualify the subject of that biography from inclusion in that category. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump: This seems highly logical. Thank you for elaborating. (The refs listed in "Ethnic group" seem useful.) However, in order to avoid similar discussions in the future, I would argue that the term 'ethnicity' should be incorporated into the following statement: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" (WP:BLPCAT). One could write: "Categories regarding religious beliefs, ethnicity, and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief, ethnicity, or orientation in question." Nidrosia (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It has been attempted on several occasions to get WP:BLPCAT revised to make self-identification a requirement for statements regarding ethnicity. However, this has been opposed strongly by contributors more intent on boosting one group or another than on adhering to Wikipedia requirements regarding OR and synthesis. In any case, the change you propose doesn't solve the particular problem here, which is the creation of a new category from the intersection of two others. It is entirely possible to agree that one fits into both categories, and yet refuse to recognise the intersection as being a part of one's self-identity. A well-documented example of this arose regarding Richard Feynman and the List of Jewish Nobel laureates. He identified as ethnically Jewish, and as a Nobel laureate (which he was), but insisted that one had no connection with the other, and that he not be included in a book about the subject. And yes, he is in our 'List'. Like I said, not only unencyclopaedic, but downright offensive. Still, if we are going to compile an 'ethnic' database, why should we care? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump—you say, in reference to Richard Feynman, that "He identified as ethnically Jewish…" No, he did not. Please show me a source supportive of that contention. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bus stop, I wrote that I wasn't going to reply to you, but I'll make an exception here. Are you suggesting that Feynman's inclusion in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates is incorrect? Or are you suggesting that the list isn't actually one of 'Jewish Nobel laureates' at all, but instead one of Nobel laureates that Wikipedia contributors consider Jewish? And if your reply includes the ridiculous assertion (which they usually do) that a 'reliable source' doesn't have to indicate what it means by 'Jewish', I can only assume that everyone will recognise your agenda here - to turn Wikipedia into a 'database of Jews' (except those you'd rather not include, if they do something embarrassing). The utterly facile argument that Wikipedia should report what 'reliable sources' say (or rather what a synthesis from reliable sources says), regardless of whether it has any significance to the subject, is precisely what the problem is here. Yes 'reliable sources state that Dominique Strauss-Kahn has self-identified as being of Jewish ethnicity/heritage, and yes, he is clearly of French nationality, but is that grounds for calling him a 'French Jew' or not? Actually, I got the impression that you were less than convinced that he was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump—you say, in reference to Richard Feynman, that "He identified as ethnically Jewish…" No, he did not. Please show me a source supportive of that contention. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are changing the subject. Do you have a source supportive of your contention that "He identified as ethnically Jewish?" You said that in reference to Richard Feynman. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump—Richard Feynman is not found saying that he is "ethnically Jewish" in the link you provided. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bus stop, if you think that you are either incredibly stupid, or being intentionally obtuse. Either way, you have nothing constructive whatsoever to add to this discuission. Take your ethno-bureaucratic Wikilawyering agenda elsewhere (I'd recommend Metapedia, they like labelling people as 'Jewish' too). AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion the body of the article is the most important part of an article. I think we have to recognize that precise fit in "categories…lists, navigation templates, and infobox statements" is an unrealistic goal.
- WP:BLPCAT explains why precise fit is not likely: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers…" And: "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and infobox statements…"
- Well-intentioned editors can disagree over placement in "categories…lists, navigation templates, and infobox statements". I'm not going to express excessive optimism about resolving such disputes.
- But a little bit of perspective I will express: those parts of an article are, at least in my opinion, far less important than the body of an article. If we can't express the type of person that reliable sources articulate a person (the subject of a biography) is in the body of the article—then we've got a serious problem. We have the full functionality of the English language at our disposal when writing sentences in the body of the article. We can use all the "disclaimers" and "modifiers" we like, when writing prose in the body of an article. In my opinion that is where we should focus our energy. The daily fracas over inclusion and exclusion in categories and Infoboxes is something we should all step back from. It's not the most important part of an article. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bus stop, the only 'reliable source' for whether someone should be described by Wikipedia as a 'French Jew' is the person him/herself. I don't give a rats arse what other sources say, 'reliable' or otherwise. 'French Jew' is a hybrid social construct that we have no business propogating about people unless they accept the construct as valid. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump—why wouldn't "French Jew" be a valid category? You say two posts up that "…I don't consider the category valid." And in your post immediately above you say that you consider "French Jew" a "hybrid social construct" and therefore somehow suspect.
- But I think reliable sources establish for our purposes entities such as "French Jew". You express skepticism that reliable sources are the means by which we might identify someone as for instance a "French Jew".
- Bus stop, given your ridiculous double standards regarding this issue I have no interested in debating with you. You are clearly more interested in pursuing your own agenda than in contributing to the encyclopaedia in a constructive manner, and you persist in spouting exactly the same points time after time, even when they are refuted. I will post no further replies to you on this topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- My "agenda" is to adhere to what reliable sources say. You say, "You are clearly more interested in pursuing your own agenda… As concerns my supposed double standard, please provide an example. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
References in disambiguation pages (again)
Per WP:PTM#References, disambiguation pages should not contain references (see also previous help desk topic WP:HD#References in disambiguation pages above). I found an entry in a disambiguation page tagged for needing a citation. The page in question is BLA, containing the following statement:
- an abbreviation and a slang word for an African-American[citation needed]
According to WP:PTM#References I assume I can simply remove the citation needed tag. Is my assumption correct? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You shouldn't remove the tag without knowing the expression or searching for a source (which shouldn't be listed if you find it). Race slang is potentially controversial. I Googled BLA "African-American" and found no signs of this on the first pages but three others about blacks: "Black Leadership Forum", "Black & Latino Achievers" and "Black Liberation Army" (also listed on the dab page). There is also "Black Lawyer Association". I have never heard of this slang and whether it exists or not, it seems unnecessary and confusing to list. I would remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the statement. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
tiny font size
Why not fix the font size problem? I can fix it every time I open Wikipedia, but then when I exit the site, the font size in my browser (Firefox) and on other sites is too big. That leads to more recourse to Tools, Options, Content, Fonts and Contents, Advanced. What a bore. Olderschool (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing this issue with Firefox 3.6.11 and Windows. Are you running with a plugin such as NoSquint, which remembers separate default font sizes for each web site? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Any one here good with templates?
I am currently doing a Good Article review and found a section that could be better done in Prose. I was wondering if some could create a variation of Template:Prose to specify "sections" as well as whole articles? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- It already has an optional unnamed argument to replace "article", for example "section". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Facepalm oops look right past it, thanx The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) You can use {{Prose|section|date=May 2011}}, where you would replace section with the section title. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
libellous and hate inducing entry - 'List of Zionist figures' Please amend
You have an entry -called List of Zionist figures that needs to be quickly looked at as it is actually being used to spread hatred. Its first line says the entry will speaks of people who have played an important part in the modern zionist movement It includes my name.
In fact, however, it reproduces a fascist antisemitic internet libel that was closed down by the Italian police in 2008 on the orders of Italian minister of Interior Giuliano Amato. What actually happened was that a number of people – jewish and not – had signed an open letter arguing that boycotting Israeli universities ,as was being planned at that time by the UK university teachers union, was not the best way to helping peace in the Middle East. This was manipulated into an accusation that a cabal of jewish professors dominated the Italian university system for their own purposes. -- Expressing an opinion of this sort (which is compatible with criticism of other elements of Israel's policies and sympathy with Palestinian concerns and suffering) provides no basis for the accusation. ( In fact the planned UK boycott was eventually cancelled on legal grounds of infringing rights)
The evidence concerned comes from an entry in wikipedia on ‘lobby ebraica ‘
Nel febbraio 2008 un blog anonimo pubblicò una lista[11] nera di 162 professori di religione ebraica con cattedra in diversi importanti atenei italiani, tra cui, principalmente, l'università La Sapienza di Roma. La lista riguardava grosso modo un ipotetico «baronaggio ebraico nelle università italiane» attraverso il quale gli studenti iscritti in esse sarebbero «vittime della manipolazione mentale di professori infeudati alle caste regnanti negli atenei, di cattedre affidate nelle mani di professori arruolati in base all'asservimento politico ai partiti, alle ideologie politiche, alle lobby di potere».
Il blog fu oscurato qualche tempo dalla polizia postale su decisione di Giuliano Amato, all'epoca dei fatti ministro dell'Interno. Le reazioni del mondo politico sia governante che dell'opposizione furono all'unanimità in sostegno degli insegnanti ebraici segnalati nella lista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.58.64 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Link: List of Zionist figures. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- No hateful content is contained within the article. Please check again. Mephtalk 15:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the complaint, but I feel that list is too open ended and subjective to be useful. Contributions to the development of Zionism could be discussed in an article (perhaps it already is) but the group "People who played important roles in the definition, development and growth of the modern Zionist movement" could have hundreds of members, some controversial. Not sure whether I feel strongly enough to take it to AfD, what do others think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I recall removing a giant pile of crap from that article yesterday; could it be this that the OP is referring to? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the complaint, but I feel that list is too open ended and subjective to be useful. Contributions to the development of Zionism could be discussed in an article (perhaps it already is) but the group "People who played important roles in the definition, development and growth of the modern Zionist movement" could have hundreds of members, some controversial. Not sure whether I feel strongly enough to take it to AfD, what do others think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- No hateful content is contained within the article. Please check again. Mephtalk 15:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
FisherQueen, based off the time stamps, probably. Nice catch and correct. Dear 87.9.58.64, thanks for bringing this to our attention. FisherQueen has already taken care of it. If you notice anything missed, you can leave any of us a message directly on our Talk Pages, and we will look into it. Also, sorry for the confusion up above, but, by the time we got around to checking it, FisherQueen had already fixed it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 04:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Vanishing revisions
It's been a while since I've been active on the project, so things may have changed but could someone explain what happened here.
About ten minutes ago the page Blackpool F.C. was vandalised - there were two IP edits in succession, the outcome being the text "Blackpool are relegated lol" added to the page - petulant, sure, but nothing particularly vicious or that would require oversighting or whatnot. After logging in with the intention of performing a rollback, I reloaded the edit history, and these changes were gone - not undone, or rolled back - gone without a trace. This wasn't usual when I was last involved here, so could anyone enlighten me? Cheers, AJCham 16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bah, never mind - those edits were actually from yesterday - I guess I may have been looking at a cahed version of the edit history the first time, which would be why they appeared at the top - I had read this page yesterday. AJCham 16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
School hymn copyright
Would it be considered a copyright violation if I posted a midi/ogg version of a university hymn that was composed in 1961? Philippine copyright says applied art (such as music) are copyrighted until 25 years of its creation. copyright law I am rather unsure if whether to add it because I think things like this are under perpetual copyright. I am no copyright lawyer obviously. Moray An Par (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- See this. Are school songs considered trademarks? Moray An Par (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer, but I think I know the next questions to ask - when and where was the performance recorded, and who owns the copyright in that recording of the hymn? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to this, it was composed in 1961. It's copyright should have expired in 1986. What I was thinking to include is a midi. Not really a performance by anyone so the only attribution should be to its author. It's a machine encoding of the notes. But I read the first link and that made me think if its considered as a trademark. Moray An Par (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Correction: the hymn was composed in California according to this. Ok now I have five questions. How long does it take for a song to be n the public domain under California law? Is it legally possible for an institution to claim ownership of something not within their country? Is it a trademark? If yes, and trademark protects the song, does it extend worldwide? If not and it is considered public domain in the US, is it free enough for Wikipedia? Moray An Par (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't get a good reply here, I suggest you try WP:MCQ where the experts live. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Correction: the hymn was composed in California according to this. Ok now I have five questions. How long does it take for a song to be n the public domain under California law? Is it legally possible for an institution to claim ownership of something not within their country? Is it a trademark? If yes, and trademark protects the song, does it extend worldwide? If not and it is considered public domain in the US, is it free enough for Wikipedia? Moray An Par (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to this, it was composed in 1961. It's copyright should have expired in 1986. What I was thinking to include is a midi. Not really a performance by anyone so the only attribution should be to its author. It's a machine encoding of the notes. But I read the first link and that made me think if its considered as a trademark. Moray An Par (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know the answer, but I think I know the next questions to ask - when and where was the performance recorded, and who owns the copyright in that recording of the hymn? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- A song's text falls under copyright and I would expect that to last the lifetime of the author +70 years in the US. - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Talk Page Edit Disappears
Hello, I've been having a problem posting on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Miscavige. I posted the edit at the end of the "Tom Cruise section" and found that my edit disappeared on Firefox. I tried viewing my edit from another computer and it was gone. I re-posted it once again at the bottom of the talk page, and I still have the same problem. I could see my edits just fine on the Chrome browser, however, even after I cleared my cache.
I've also checked http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miscavige&action=history and my edits are recorded. When I go to the main talk page however, I cannot see them. I've tried purging the cache of the page too, and the problem still remains.
Please advise. Thank you.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- All your recent messages (here & on Talk:David_Miscavige) are visible (with IE9 and with Firefox). As I can see them, and you can see them with Chrome, the problem obviously isn't with Wikipedia or with Firefox in general, but presumably with your own Firefox setup. If you've cleared the cache and that doesn't work, I don't know what to suggest. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c) I've deleted the second copy of your post here. This may be related to WP:VPT#Performance problems and functionality quirks, but there's no solution listed there. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks User:John of Reading and User:David Biddulph. I feel like I'm going crazy here. I've tried checking this post from my personal computer (Apple) and work computers (PC) in IE, Chrome and Firefox, and still do not see this post reflected. I've asked friends to check their computers and they do not see the posts reflected either (though they are not logged in to Wikipedia). I saw it reflected once via Chrome but now it seems like I can't get back to that point. Is there someone else we might be able to loop in on this? Help! NestleNW911 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
May 24
Fake Wikipedia Content Posting on Website
This website attributes the information to Wikipedia However, a check with with all possible titles showed up no such page on Wikipedia. Moreover, the fake page potentially does not conform to Wikipedia policies for pages on this topic. What can we do about it?--Lionratz (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Interestingly, it credits the editors who wrote the Garden of Heaven article, which seems to be about an unrelated film. doomgaze (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps they copied from http://asianmediawiki.com/You_Dance_With_The_Summer (blacklisted so not linked) and thought it was a part of Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest emailing them to let them know about their error. If they don't respond, you can ask the Wikimedia Foundation or some OTRS person to take further action. - 194.60.106.17 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How do we upload an image to the Anamorphosis page, in the "Anamorphosis in Popular Culture" section?
This is our own photograph, taken of our own anamorphic art. Lots of upload instructions are out there, but none seems appropriate our page view. Please help with clear, concise directions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrna Hoffman (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You must first be an Autoconfirmed user in order to upload. For most users, your account must be four days old and have made at least 10 edits. Please see WP:AUTOCONFIRM for more information. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Myrna Hoffman, just expanding on the tip Tiggerjay added. In addition to being autoconfirmed (check his link above), you would use the upload tool on the left side of the Wikipedia page. With that in mind, you should also be aware of a few following things. (1) Ensure that any action on that page cannot be deemed a conflict of interests or blatant or promotional advertising of your work. (2) Ensure you are willing to release the image in the public domain, or under a license suited for uploading it to Wikipedia (or it will be deleted). This[2] is the relevant section of rules and guidelines you need to understand. (3) check Wikipedia Help on how to include images on an article (or check how it's done on other articles).
- Remember, you can always use the Wikipedia Sandbox to do test edits to ensure you get it right before you change an actual article. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Wrong link
Hi there,
I regularly watch and maintain the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liang_Style_Baguazhang
One of the names on that page "Wang Tong" (top section) links to another wikipedia page that is totally unrelated to it.
I couldn't figure out how to fix the error. Maybe you can give me some hints on how to do it.
Thanks and regards,
Gerard Banhidi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardbagua66 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem like there is an article about the correct Wang Tong. The best fix might simply be to de-link the name, by removing the [[ and ]] from around it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Can be fixed using Wang Tong rather than Wang Tong I've made that change for you - but you may wish to find and/or create the correct target page EdwardLane (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration Troubles Template has possible bad links?
Hello, I've never been to the help desk before - It was suggested I talk to you folks here- hope this is where I'm meant to be posting my query :)
Anyway the question is 'should the template be changed?' and if so 'where should I be asking?'.
Here's the issue :)
I was on a talk page trying to find more editting guidelines for how to edit things relating to the troubles - in case there were NPOV guildlines and saw the template {{Troubles restriction}} which contains this text
The content of the Troubles restriction template (I didn't like to paste it without nowiki tags)
Consensus The article Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2007 Arbitration case, and amended by community consensus in October 2008 and November 2009. The current restrictions are:
* All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. * All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. o Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty * Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
End content of the Troubles restriction template
So I followed the link active arbitration remedies above. The page I arrived at is not very user friendly - but said to leave comments on the talk page. I did so asking if any of it could be archived.
I gather now that it was already an "archive" page - but I don't think the template spelled that out very well. Anyway I was asked to revert my edit, (which I have done).
The talk page was just off the in the news section - so 4 well meaning clicks from the main page to a very obscure arbitration archive which didn't give any useful info to the new(ish) wikipedian like myself.
I think the template needs better wording.
Thanks EdwardLane (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi EdwardLane. Try the article's talk page. I made the same mistake not too long ago by reading too quickly. The template is pointing you to the Arb page if you wish to research it, and to the talk page (of the article that has the template/note) to leave a comment. Key word in the msg is " discuss it here on this talk page first." Hope that helps. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Robert, I understand that I can ask questions about the article on the talk page for the article :)
- But if I want to understand the 'active arbitration procedure' that (as it turns out was clearly not 'actively' discussing how to arbitrate NPOV issues related to the troubles) then surely I click the link and end up on the arb page (which says don't edit this unless you want to get embroiled in the arbitration - comment on that talk page)
- What I think I'm suggesting is some different template for arbitrations that are closed - compared to arbs that are active. So the close arb template says 'the issues in this article are covered under the consensus that was reached in an arb procedure - you can only do this that and the other with this article, if you really want to go back and look at the lengthy discussion that resulted in these rules look here, if you see someone breaking it or if you think those rules are out of date or otherwise rubbish - talk to the arb people here)
- Oh and if you do end on that closed arb page - then the text at the top of that should not suggest you edit that arb talk page (that should I think just be for active arbitrations)
- something like that anyway - but I was wondering where I ought to suggest that :)
EdwardLane (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have edited the notice, switching two sentences round. Does that make it clearer? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi John,
- I understand I can suggest changes to the Template here,and I will now that I understand better what the various aspects of my question were (but thanks for the bold sentence switch which does improve one of the issues slightly).
- But where do I go to suggest a new template toggle? So instead of writing {{Troubles restriction}} Someone can write {{Troubles restriction|arbitration=active}} or {{Troubles restriction|arbitration=complete}} and the text displayed has different content based on that toggle? Or am I meant to boldly create such a thing? I don't know how.
- And where do I go to suggest an edit be made to the arbitration page to change the text and remove the line "Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full" and replace it with "Comments were made on the Talk page, and were read, in full during the arbitration process which is now closed" - and also address the line "Once the case is closed, editors ..." which should probably say "Now that the case is closed, editors ..." (it doesn't look like this is the correct place - but perhaps I'm wrong)?
EdwardLane (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Flickr video to Wikipedia or Commons
I sometimes use a tool to bring images from Flickr to Commons but am having a hard time figuring out how to bring over a video. I have checked out an essay and a couple help pages but am just not getting it. I know a another user who tried but it looks like it didn't work out either. So if anyone is already knowledgeable in this less used area some pointers would be awesome. We are going for this which is properly licensed and not a capture from television. I grabbed Firefogg but still am being dense.Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- My semi-random searches threw up this Ref Desk archive and this page at Commons. Any use? I've never used any of these tools. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I can try and upload to a better place for you, maybe you tube? make a comment on the video on flickr if it is not working. Ted Kerwin
- Thanks for the links John. I am not able to download the file from Flickr so I tried a program to "grab" it. Ran into some errors.
- And THANK YOU Ted. If you feel inclined, you can email me the video. My email (also listed in the toolbox ) is thecptnono@gmail.com. Another editor wants to use the video to illustrate a penalty kick. Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hard rock band
how do i create a page for a hard rock band so it looks like the ones already on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychosys (talk • contribs) 08:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sychosys (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- For advice on formatting, see Help:Wiki markup. But for an article to exist at all, you need to show that the band is important - see WP:BAND - and you do this by including references to reliable sources such as coverage in mainstream media, to show that other people have decided to write about it. Your choice of user name suggests that you are linked to the band in some way, so you should also look at WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERT. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Emmanuella Grace
Hi guys. I got the message that my article was to be deleted if I did not provide any reliable sources to suport it. I have since found two reliable sources to suport my material. How do I make sure that the page does not get deleted? And how do I remove the tag on my wiki page that say this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuella_Grace
Thank you for your help.
Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriksolum (talk • contribs) 09:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I left a standard message on your talk page just now explaining that the article was deleted as a copyright violation. I had started a copyedit to see if I could help the article, find some better sources and so on, but then I discovered that you had copied and pasted the text verbatim from her website. You are free to recreate the article with your own writing, but you need to include reliable third party sources—sources that are entirely unconnected to Ms. Grace. The sources you had listed was her own website and a website in the blogosphere that does not appear to have any claim to reliability and which contained an interview and a large quote from her website, i.e., all primary source material, so the sources were not what we are looking for. There are no results in Google Books or News archive, so it may be that she is not currently sufficiently written about to warrant an article at all. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) for some of our musician-specific notability standards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Assistance from someone who isn't at their workplace?
Could someone, who isn't at their workplace with people possibly looking over their shoulder, please check out the Arianny Celeste article? The infobox is broken and one of the more recent infobox images is of a naked woman. I'd rather not be surprised by that image again while at work. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 09:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
wikipedia photos.
can I use photos from Wikipedia in my book? if so, who should I acknowldege and cite as source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.84.225 (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whether you can do this depends on which photos you have in mind; see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. You will need to click through to the file page of each photo to see the terms on which it was uploaded. Feel free to post again here with the names of the relevant photos, and someone will be able to give you specific advice. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone help. can I use the photos of the Church Fathers in my book (history of Christianity for college use.) which is about to publish? if so, who should I acknowldge or cite as sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.84.225 (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The two pictures in the Church Fathers article are both in the public domain because their copyright has expired. Are those the pictures you mean? For advice on re-using public domain pictures please see here. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Disabling and enabling cookies
Some time ago, I tried to log in to Wikipedia after using Google Chrome (the web browser which is my default browser) and got the message - You need to enable cookies and you have them disabled. I then managed to log in to Wikipedia when I used Safari. However, I would still like to know how one can log enable cookies on Google Chrome. Many thanks in advance for any feedback. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please see here. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for that - that will be useful for further referene. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Andrew Lansley's page
I represent Low Associates mentioned in the Andrew Lansley page. We have been subject to articles in the Telegraph which are at best inaccurate and misleading (contravening the PCC code). When I attempt to change the page giving the true information and citing the relevant part of the company website someone changes it back. This is potentially libellous and commercially damaging77.200.133.69 (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- When you edit give reasons for the changes. Denisarona (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article has now been protected because of your edit warring on the page. If you want to make changes, please request them together with a citation to a reliable source on the discussion page Talk:Andrew Lansley. —teb728 t c 12:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note also that we do not tolerate the chilling effect of legal threats here. I have not blocked you; but please read the warning template which I have placed on your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- As you claim to "represent Low Associates" you also have a Conflict of Interest, so should not be editing the section of Lansley's page referring to Low Associates, at all. If you want changes made to that article, please request them, citing a reliable source on the discussion page, as explained above. Arjayay (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Question re: Special:NewPages
Do articles created in user subpages then moved to mainspace appear in Special:NewPages, and is this also true of articles created from redirects? If not, is this not a loophole that could be exploited to bypass the new page patrollers? doomgaze (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Moves to mainspace and changes of redirects don't appear. For moves, see Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Archive 1#Help with related patrolling: Category:Unreviewed new articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
main page
How can I get my wekipedia main page in english?Lobrunello (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You may have had trouble in the last hour because of network maintenance. It should be OK now? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Help please with downloading a biography
Hello,
Professor Cuno Puempin has a page already in German on Wikipedia. Given his contributions, I believe it would be helpful to have his biography on Wikipedia also in English. I have gone ahead and translated his biography in English but am not able to paste the article on wikipedia although I have followed all directions.
Please find below the translation. Would you be able to download it for me please ? I would be grateful.
Thank you in advance.
Fariba Hashemi, PhD.Fariba Hashemi (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
hiding draft article
|
---|
Cuno Puempin (Pümpin) (* August 21st, 1939 at Basel) is a Swiss economist, entrepreneur and consultant. Puempin developed the concept of “Strategic Excellence Positions” (SEP) in the early 1980s. In the 1990s under the name “core competences” and “core capabilities”, this concept received broad acceptance and Puempin was awarded the Swiss Innovation Price for this work. Puempin has published highly recognized books and articles mainly on strategic management. He was marketing and general manager in several companies, as well as member of the board of directors and a private investor. Content: 1. Early life 2. Career 3. Activities a. Professional b. Scientific 4. Publications 5. See also 6. External links Background Cuno Puempin was born as second son of Fritz Puempin (*1901 at Gelterkinden; died July 5th 1972 at Gelterkinden) and Rose Gerster. He is citizen of Gelterkinden. Career Puempin went to primary and high-school in the Canton of Basel, Switzerland. In 1955 he started a three years commercial apprenticeship. Later on he started his studies in economics and management at the Universities of Basel and St. Gallen. In 1966 he received his Masters degree as a commercial teacher and in 1968 he obtained his PhD. The title of his doctoral thesis was “Long Range Marketing Planning”. Activities a) Professional Between 1965 and 1967 Puempin was employed in the Corporate Development Department of J.R. Geigy AG (today a part of Novartis). In 1967 he joined the computer company Sperry Univac (today part of Unisys) where he became Vice President Marketing in 1970. In 1970 / 1971 Puempin wrote his professorial thesis (Habilitationsschrift) entitled “Information and Marketing”. In 1972 he became “Privatdozent” (formal lecturer) at the University of St. Gallen and in 1973 he was appointed “Extraordinarius” (Professor and member of the Senate). At the same time Puempin became CEO of the Center of Management at St. Gallen, a foundation related to the University. In 1977 Puempin founded his own company that specialized on strategy consulting. In the following years most Swiss companies with international operations became his clients. Puempin was also appointed to many board of directors, such as Ernst & Young Switzerland, Ems Chemie Holding AG, Liechtenstein Global Trust (LGT) AG, Metro International AG and member of the international advisory board of the Blackstone Group, New York. As member of the Prince of Liechtenstein Foundation and executive board member of LGT Puempin was closely involved in the international expansion of this Group. Moreover Puempin was board member of several institutes at the University of St. Gallen, including the Chairman of the Institute of Management. Since the 1970s Puempin is a well-known lecturer at international congresses and seminars such as the World Economic Forum, the ISC in St. Gallen, and Management Center Europe. He also held regular lectures in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and many other countries. In 1985, along with two other investors, Puempin acquired a training company with over 1’000 employees, active in almost all European countries. After restructured the company, Puempin and his partners sold the company in 1988. In the late 1980s Puempin closely worked with Professor Michael Porter of Harvard and supported him in his research on the “International Competitiveness of Nations”. In this assignment, Puempin was responsible for the research of European clusters. In 1990 Puempin was appointed a consultant of the Swiss Bundesrat, the Executive of the Swiss Confederation. Puempin also supported other countries such as Andorra by developing their country’s strategy. In the late 1990s Puempin was strongly involved in the building of Metro’s corporate venture company “Invision”. After a Management Buyout he became Vice Chairman and form 2002 till 2010 Chairman of Invision Holding AG, one of Switzerland’s leading private equity companies. Since the 1990s Puempin is a private investor in various companies. b) Scientific In his career as a Professor Puempin published thirteen books and over 100 articles. His books were translated into more than 10 languages. One of his very successful publications was “The Practice of Strategic Management” (1980) that was translated in several languages and printed more than 200’000 times. But the most important work of Puempin was the book “Management strategischer Erfolgspositionen - SEP” (1982), published in English in 1987 under the title “The Essence of Corporate Strategy”. Puempin defined a Strategic Excellence Position (SEP) as a “...central competence of the corporation that enables it to achieve outstanding results.” Thus the concept of “Strategic Excellence Position” strongly corresponds to the well-known term of “Core Competence” published by Hamel and Prahalad in May - June 1990 in Harvard Business Review (HBR) or the concept of “Core Capabilities” published by Stalk et al also in HBR in March - April 1992. Thus Puempin became a forerunner of the concept of core competences that plays a central role in today’s strategic management. The work of Puempin enjoyed international recognition. In the 1980s Ernst & Young decided to use the concept of “Strategic Excellence Positions” as a basis for their strategy consulting activities. For the development of this concept, Puempin was honored with the Swiss Innovation Prize in 1983. Another important book that found broad interest was “Corporate Dynamism - How World Class Companies Became World Class”, of which the German version was published in 1990 and was elected the best economic book by Euromarketing. In this work Puempin further developed his strategy concept by promoting the issue of scalability as a means to develop strengths and profitability. In the 1990s Puempin shifted his interests from corporate strategy to investment strategy. The result of this work was the book “Strategisches Investment Management” published in 2008 (together with Maurice Pedergnana, to be available in English in 2011). Contrary to traditional publications on asset management that apply capital market theory, Puempin’s approach strictly builds on strategy teachings. This leads to completely new findings that are often in strong contradiction to traditional investment management as promoted by financial institutions. Publications: ● Langfristige Marketingplanung, Konzeption und Formalisierung (doctoral thesis “Dissertation” 1968, 2nd ed. 1970, 136 p.). ● Information und Marketing, Informations-Systeme als Führungsgrundlage (professorial thesis (“Habilitationsschrift”, 1973, 234 p.). ● Strategische Führung in der Unternehmungspraxis (1980, 80 p., French 1981, English 1982). ● Management strategischer Erfolgspositionen (1982, 217 p., Spanish 1982 - with S. Garcia Echevarria, title: Estrategia Empresarial - como implementar la estrategia en la empresa; English 1987: title: The Essence of Corporate Strategy; Portugese 1987, Japanese 1987, Finnish 1989, Korean 1989, Indish Edition Mumbay 1995). ● Unternehmenskultur - Basis strategischer Profilierung erfolgreicher Unternehmen (1985, 56 p. with J.-M. Kobi und H.A. Wuethrich, French 1985; Spanish: Cultura Empresarial, 1988, 139 p. with S. Garcia Echevarria). ● Das Dynamik Prinzip (1989, paperback 1991, English 1989, Spanish 1990 - with S. Garcia Echevarria, French 1991, Italian 1993, Indian edition Mumbay 1995, English new edition: How World Class Companies Became World Class, 1991.) ● Unternehmungs-Dynamik - Wie führen wir Unternehmungen in neue Dimensionen? (64 p. 1991, with C. Imboden, French 1991). ● Management der Unternehmensentwicklung - phasengerechte Führung und der Umgang mit Krisen (1991, 276 p., with J. Prange). ● Strategische Erfolgspositionen - Methodik der dynamischen strategischen Unternehmensführung (1992, 202 p.). ● Strategische Erfolgspositionen - Kernkompetenzen aufbauen und umsetzen (2005, 136 p., with Wolfgang Amann) ● Der Private-Equity-Investor als Strategie-Coach (2005, 167 p., with Bernd Pfister, Martin Ankli, Wolfgang Amann) ● Unternehmensentwicklung - Corporate Life Cycles: Metamorphose statt Kollaps,(2005, 215 p., with Christian Wunderlin ) ● Strategisches Investment Management - Wie Investoren nachhaltige Wertsteigerungen erzielen (2008, 232 p., with Maurice Pedergnana)
|
- Why not be bold and create it yourself? Try the article wizard. I also left some useful links on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- One thing I notice is that you don't cite any references. On the English Wikipedia (maybe on others, too), a article about a living person must have at least one reference supporting a fact in the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
publishing a draft
Hello, I made the following entry originally on May 10, I thought I had submitted it for editing but have not heard back. Today I copied and pasted to submit it differently and I got a warning. How would I get the following article published?
Thanks, Nicole Friedrichs
User:Nicoleseowhat/Ranowear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoleseowhat (talk • contribs) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- After a quick review, it looks very promotional in tone to me, even if that was not your intention. In any event, please take a look at this page for help with what to do next. – ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- First off, THANK YOU for working on your article in your namespace, instead of attempting to push it to the mainspace. Getting help from the start is always a good idea. I agree with Ukexpat suggestions. While the promotional tone can be address with additional editing, you also have a distinct conflict of interest and I suggest you read up on that as well. Moving forward, I'm not sure there is enough reliable sources to assert its notability for inclusion into the mainspace. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the text was posted at Ranowear as well, where it has been tagged for deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- First off, THANK YOU for working on your article in your namespace, instead of attempting to push it to the mainspace. Getting help from the start is always a good idea. I agree with Ukexpat suggestions. While the promotional tone can be address with additional editing, you also have a distinct conflict of interest and I suggest you read up on that as well. Moving forward, I'm not sure there is enough reliable sources to assert its notability for inclusion into the mainspace. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
List of it companies in hyderabad
Sir,
This website is a gift to human. Life is impossible without it. However you have listed list of it companies in hyderabad,i am a bcom graduate working in ADP ( BPO ) so can you post something that would not only help it proffessionals but also general mass or bcom chunks. In general list of bpos, kpos and ites........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.92.5 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what bpos, kpos and ites are, but I do know that one of the many things which Wikipedia is not is a business directory. Its purpose is to be an encyclopaedia. If the individual companies are sufficiently notable to have individual articles written about them in Wikipedia, it may be that the information you are asking about would be appropriate in those separate articles. It is not appropriate for a list of companies. I guess you are talking about Software industry in Andhra Pradesh, which is a terrible article as it has hardly any text and few references. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
BLP subject is upset about unflattering photo
Hi. In covering the Big Apple Con this past weekend for the Commons, I met Dawn Marie and her manager, who were very upset about an unflattering photo taken of Marie at Wondercon while she was pregnant, being used as the main Infobox photo in her article. I removed it for them, and replaced it with one of the other photos on her Commons category page, but they are still upset about that photo being on the Commons. I've never been to WonderCon, but if it operates at all like the New York City-based comic conventions, then fans are probably required to ask permission before photographing one of the guests, which I myself always do. They did not do this, and Ms. Marie (real name: Dawn Marie Psaltis) is highly upset about that photo, and when she learned I was a Wikipedian, she asked for my help. Can it be removed? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You will have to ask at Commons Helpdesk. – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c) The Commons is a sister site with its own administrators, most of whom are not administrators on Wikipedia. I suggest you post at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleting an account - need URGENT help
Hi,
My daughter, who is 10, has opened an account on Wikipedia called 'kimaling', without my permission and has created and edited various pages and now cannot work out how to delete the account. She has received various messages, from what I think are other users and I cannot work out how the site works or how to help her close the account. From reading several pages I understand it is not possible to close the account, I just wondering if either there are some exceptions to this rule given her age and the general situation, to protect her and remove traces of her being on Wikipedia.
As a parent I am concerned about how much information she may have entered that others may view and also how much she has done on the site. I have tried to undo the editing she has done but I can't undo them and she still seems to be getting messages from other users and Wikipedia regarding her alterations. I am unsure what to do other than email to find out what can be done. I apologise for any trouble she has caused and request either that you delete the account and remove any information she has given and remove the changes or change the username so she cannot be tracked by any other users. I would be grateful for anything you can advice me to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimaling (talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- As a parent I can understand the situation you find yourself in. You are correct that users cannot simply be deleted as all changes on Wikipedia must be attributed to someone. So long as your daughter's username and edits do not contain any personally identifiable information, I suggest you simply change the password on the account and leave it idle. If her username is part of her real name, or can be tied to another identity of her's on the internet you may request the Right to Vanish. Also for your comfort and information are the following articles: Wikipedia:Child protection Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy and Wikipedia:Advice for parents. If you have any other questions or need clarification, just ask! Tiggerjay (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Relax, no harm has been done to the encyclopaedia. Your daughter was just discovering out how to contribute to an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. She even succeeded in creating an article for the singer (Caggie Dunlop) that no one else has got round to doing yet. The messages she received was just offering help and advice. She seems to have complied fully with the advice here -Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Ironically, only yourself has given any personal info in the form of this editor's age.--Aspro (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Nancy Cartwright
Hi. My agency represents Nancy Cartwright. I have tried several times to get in touch with those at Wikipedia to take down certain text from her page (via request from Nancy), as well as change her name. I have sent validation that we represent her, as well as a copy of Nancy's license to validate her name change.
This is the text she wants removed: "In 2007, Cartwright was in a relationship with contractor Stephen Brackett.[74] They planned to get married in Spring 2008.[16][75] Brackett was the President and Treasurer of Brackett Construction in Hollywood, California; the construction company was founded in 1987 and had $8.5 million in sales in 2009.[76] He was a fellow member of Scientology,[75] reaching the Operating Thetan level of OT V in Scientology, in 1989.[77] He died in May 2009.[78] According to The Monterey County Herald, Brackett leaped off of the Bixby Creek Bridge in Big Sur, California.[78] Law enforcement stated, "friends and relatives of Brackett said he was despondent because of financial troubles with his business."[78]
In January 2009, Cartwright used Bart's voice in an automated telephone message to Scientologists, inviting them to an event in Hollywood, California.[70][79] She opened the message in Bart's voice, saying "Yo, what's happenin' man, this is Bart Simpson [laugh]", then used her normal voice in most of the remaining message.[80][81] In a 2000 interview, Cartwright explained that a character's voice is copyrighted and she can use Bart's voice in public but cannot record original dialogue without approval.[82] Al Jean, executive producer of The Simpsons, said that "[the telephone calls were not] authorized by us",[79] while The Simpsons creator Matt Groening commented that the issue had been "blown up beyond what was intended".[83][84]
In September 2011, it was announce Cartwright was being sued by the executives of American Safety Casualty Insurance Company over a policy covering refurbishment work Stephen Bracket failed to finish before his death. The lawsuit sought $260,000 from Cartwright, who the company claims was guarantor for the policy but has refused to cover the expenses. The lawsuit also alleges Brackett diverted contract funds to the Church of Scientology.[85]"
I can also send her license to another person if need be in order to get the name change.
Thanks,
Jocelyn Bresnick JAG Entertainment <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagentpr (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored. Subjects of articles do not have any power of approval over articles, although we have quite elaborate policies to maximize the accuracy of biographies of living persons. If the information is not true, then begin by stating this on the talk page of the article in question, along with reliable sources to verify your statement. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Concerning some Photos on Wikipedia
Hello , Some photos are put on Wikipedia for scientific purposes , but these photos contain substances that should be 18+ , for example Vasectomy , which is a word I didn't know , or wanted to know more about in more details , and saw it in another article , I clicked it , then while reading , I see a picture of a male's sexual organ on the right , ofcourse if a child is reading this ... this will impact him negatively.
I do not demand removal of such pictures , but I am suggesting installing a system that hides a picture , Like " THIS PICTURE HAS BEEN VERIFIED AS 18+ , CLICK HERE TO VIEW IT. " , so People could read without being disturbed by photos such about issues such as Sex or medical operations like Vasectomy ; because Wikipedia is a source of education to many people and a great reference.
I hope that I have clarified , Thank you very much... PLEASE DO IT , I want to see my children learning from Wikipedia , but not with these photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.192.208 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Read WP:NOTCENSORED and Help:Options to not see an image CTJF83 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
en:WP pictures
Hi. I know here you can upload images (some free, mostly with Fair Use). I´m looking for free images of muscle cell because in Commons there are few and no good. Can someone tell me how to find them? Do you have any page or something where I can take a look? Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Did you by chance notice http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cell_biology ? Not sure exactly what kind of images you are looking for. CTJF83 21:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I search, but is not what I´m looking for. I explain: I'm trying to improve syncytium (es:Sincitio) to make it "good". I'm trying to find a picture or photo where could be visible the cell of the muscle with all their nuclei. I found this, but is not very good. In fact, it´s almost impossible to see any nucleus. Thank you. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, not sure I can provide any more help other than a fair use of one of these. Hopefully someone else can be of more assistance. CTJF83 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- File:Skeletal muscle - cross section, nerve bundle.jpg or File:PHIL 2767 Poliovirus Myotonic dystrophic changes.jpg? CTJF83 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I search, but is not what I´m looking for. I explain: I'm trying to improve syncytium (es:Sincitio) to make it "good". I'm trying to find a picture or photo where could be visible the cell of the muscle with all their nuclei. I found this, but is not very good. In fact, it´s almost impossible to see any nucleus. Thank you. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You know? Poliovirus's is gret: a syncytium in a syncytium. I love it. And the Google Search is also good. Thanks for the effor. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How Do I Reach and Experienced Wikipedia to Make Sure I'm Not Spamming the Place Up? :)
There is a phenomena that I believe deserves a page for reference as well as awareness. It's an idea I've seen around and at one time I actually formed a web site and tried to make a software for schools, www.laptop.org and corporate environments. We have since closed our doors and open sourced our code. The article I am proposing is for a Wikitube a generic term for Video Wiki or video wiki mashup. There are a lot of people who have proposed this. Some of them are pretty aggressive promoters and are on your spambot list. I'm aware of them but believe they have good intentions.
Wikitube dot com (Atlanta) Wikitube dot org (Japan) Wikitube dot tv (Washington DC) Nibipedia.org (that's me) Sophia.org which I just came across claims to be a Youtube + Wikipedia + Facebook mashup. Arguably Wikipedia itself as it adds more video could be considered on the fringe but can't really qualify as a mash up because it's the main primary service.
I would be happy to write the article but given the past behaviors of some individuals in the wikitube space (here and elsewhere) I want to be respectful of the community and not just start writing articles that will a) be perceived and marketing attempts b) be viewed as another attempt to market one versus the other. That said, I do think that this is a valid topic for Wikipedia as I've had many many people say they've wondered about it even they have differing ideas about what it might be like or how it could work.
I submit respectfully this request for assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyapeteson (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me first direct you to WP:YFA which is a great place to get started in understanding the basics of adding a page on Wikipedia and the standards which are required. Among them, is just because the term may be out there may not make it notable enough to be included here. And since you have a stated conflict of interest it may be best to submit an article for creation request instead of making it yourself. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect/outdated IP address | errors in talk page | "wikipedia is yelling at me and I don't know what I did"
To whom this may concern:
I have never edited a wikipedia page in my entire life, and I have not participated in any other way with the wikipedia community (until now). Additionally, I have never had a wikipedia login. Finally, I just recently signed up for service at my new location and thus have a brand new (I think) IP address with my ISP (I'm being vague per the instructions above). On my latest attempt to use wikipedia, however, my talk page indicated that (apparently) "I" had vandalized numerous pages, promoted spam links, and accomplished other disreputable acts. Since I am 100% certain I did not do any of the actions attributed to me (dated 2008 and earlier), I am concerned that my ability to participate in wikipedia will be hampered by the malfeasance of a previous owner of my IP address.
I am thus curious: How did this happen? How can I avoid it in the future? What should I do right now to maintain full cooperation with wikipedia?
Thank you!
Sincerely,
A Very Puzzled User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.100.61 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The warnings on the talk page are from 2008. You can ignore them. The person who used this IP address back in 2008 was responsible for those edits. GB fan (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, just ignore it. The edits and warnings are 3 years old and administrators know that IP addresses are often reassigned. If you are curious, you can see the old spam edits by clicking the "diff" links at Special:Contributions/71.66.100.61. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to avoid the issue completely then create an account and log in, but it isn't required. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(e/c)::Those actions will not hamper you from editing. I will go and delete those messages to avoid confusion. However, I would highly recommend that you register for your own account here. This is option but would avoid this problem in the future, plus there are additional benefits of logging in explained here: WP:WHY Tiggerjay (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How to merge the content of an article into a category?
Is there a template to propose on an article that the content of an article be merged into an existing category? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by merging an article into a category? Name the article and category. A category is used to organize articles and doesn't normally has its own text beyond a short description of what type of article the category is for. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The article I have in mind is List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes. It seems to me this article is just an arbitrary collection of articles related to Polytopes. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which category do you want to "merge" to? Or do you only want to delete the list and keep the articles in whatever categories they already belong to? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the most reasonable target would be Category:Polytopes. The article in its current form is in my opinion not useful as an article, as it simply groups polytope articles rather arbitrarily. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think Category:Polytopes would become messy if all these articles were dumped there. Many of them are already in subcategories. There isn't really a process for "merging" a list to a category. You can nominate the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and separately suggest a new categorization system for polytopes. The two are not mutually exclusive. You should also contact the list creator who is still editing 7 years later. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to AfD the article. I don't see how it could ever be developed into a useful list. I have already had a short conversation with another user at Talk:List of polygons, polyhedra and polytopes where he agreed that this article is useless in its current form. I think I will also contact the original creator of the article. Thanks, PrimeHunter. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I added some films to the template called Template:Autism_films. But it is unbalanced right now for some reason. Could someone fix the template? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have fixed the worst formatting error. I am working on others but get edit conflicts with you with non-trivial merges after you add content. Please stop editing the template until I have saved the next time. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I have saved. The same article should not be linked twice in a navigation box so I removed some duplicates. Feel free to move them to another group but don't duplicate them. I have also piped some links. If it still looks unbalanced to you then please describe the problem more precisely. It can depend on font size, screen resolution, window width, browser and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia "Contest"
Hi, Not sure if you know, when you type the address for Wikipedia, sometimes a message automatically pops up saying you've won a Wikipedia contest, please click on this link and give your email address and shipping address to win one of three $1,000 prizes, one of which is a gift card to Walmart. This seems suspicious, so I'm not sure if you were aware this was happening or not. 71.209.33.156 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You might want to run anti-virus/anti-spyware software. That is not from Wikipedia. GB fan (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds more like you are sometimes mistyping the Wikipedia address and experiencing typosquatting by landing on a domain unassociated with Wikipedia but pretending to be Wikipedia. Do not give them any information. You can use a browser bookmark to avoid having to type the right address each time you visit Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
May 25
Text shifting location
Hi - I edited a page that had a hierarchy to it. The section I was editing began witha picture that had a caption. This picture was off to the right side of the page in the orignal page before I started editing. All the other sections/categories were on the left side of the page. I edited the caption for the photo and then the first paragraph to the left of the photo (well, in the editing screen it occurred below the photo paragraph. I previewed my changes and everything looked fine. However, when I saved my changes, several sections of the page now appear below the photo instead of under categories to the left as they had before I made my edits. It's as if several sections of text shifted over to the right in the gray box containing the picture. These sections still have their sub-headings in bold but they should be on the left side of the screen flowing with the other content of the page, not underneath the photo on the right. The whole page is now messed up. Since I don't see any "undo" button, I'm not sure how to get this back the way it was. How can I tell the page to display sections on the left as outline items versus displaying them under a photo. This is a real problem. Please help. Rsay3 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've fixed the formatting for you; you had inadvertently removed the "]]" from the caption, so the article thought the text following the image was just a continuation of the caption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Query
Hi there,
I have registered with Wikipedia for the sole purpose of creating a page for the consulting company i work for. I am concerned about the freedom of other users to edit the page content. I am aware that there are various degrees of privacy settings such as full protection. How am I able to ensure that my page is fully protected and that only I am able to edit the content even though I am not a long term wikipedia user or administrator?
Appreciate your assistance in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avlaw2011 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- First, you shouldn't create an article about your company. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Second, Wikipedia works by collaboration of multiple editors. Even assuming your company is sufficiently notable to justify an article, you would never own it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia an ideal tool for me to use?
Hello,
I have an idea of a large database of information. Information which I do not have first hand knowledge of...thus the purpose of having others edit/add to the information. For example information regarding college scholarships. Readers of my article regarding scholarships could edit/add what they know of various scholarships in their state. Then new readers of the article would learn about those resources. I have several topics to discuss in an article which I would want wiki readers from across the country to add to it regarding resources they are aware of, for others to learn about.
IS wikipedia ideal for such a project? 174.111.120.188 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What you want is your own Wiki. A Wiki is a user-editable site – Wikipedia is one example of the many Wikis on the internet. The MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia is free for others to use. See the linked articles for more information. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Articles should be initiated on cogent topics. The title, to an extent, defines a topic for an article, including its scope. Wikipedia tends not to be a database—see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If I were you I would wait to see what other editors post here. Can you suggest one or more article titles for the article you have in mind? This would of course be nothing that you would be committing yourself to, but it might give others an idea of the sort of article you have in mind. And bear in mind, that a title is the means, at least to an extent, by which others find your article. Other means might include links from other articles. Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Starting and Running a Wiki Website may be helpful. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also if you don't have the technical skills necessary to setup your own website or wiki, you can perform a quick internet search (Google, Yahoo, etc) for mediawiki hosting, and you will be able to find several low cost or no cost wiki's which are ready to go. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Starting and Running a Wiki Website may be helpful. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thank you for the nice information listed in the link above. Please be aware that in Islam we do not picture or draw the prophets over all. So please remove the pictures that claim it is for prophet Mohamed.
Thank you.
Kind regards, Wiki user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.18.92 (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please see the notice and the FAQ section at the top of that article's talk page, Talk:Muhammad. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment
If I find a spot in a wiki article I disagree with, and want to insert a comment right there, can I do it? Case in point: article granular material has a passage about Brazil nuts:
"The un-mixing or segregation of unlike grains under vibration and flow. An example of this is the so-called Brazil nut effect where Brazil nuts rise to the top of a packet of mixed nuts when shaken.The cause of this effect is that when shaken, granular (and some other) materials move in a circular pattern. some larger materials (Brazil nuts) get stuck while going down the circle and therefore stay on the top."
I want to append it with a comment which looks clearly separate from the main text, like an insert:
"This is a typical example of people-are-bipedal-because-they-have-two-legs tautology explanation. The text should be modified to remove this explanation and/or a more information-loaded explanation has to be found (the possibility of finding such a one I doubt, though)."
Lsalgo (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you disagree with something, and it is not a matter of verifiable fact, then please discuss it on the article talk page first. The article is not the place for discussion or general comments. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- To expand on that, every article has a corresponding talk page that is available through the tab at the top of the page marked "Discussion". By the way, this site is called Wikipedia, not wiki. A wiki is any website using wiki software; there are thousands of them.Template:Z30--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Entry on R.C school being maliciously altered . Possible sectarian motive.
The entry on St Modan's H.S in Stirling has been constantly altered over the last few month and although other posters have tried to take out the incorrect statements (such as the ridiculous claim that a £3000 fee was paid for a play that was never staged) the malicious edit keeps coming back. The style and tone of the alterations are not subtle so hopefully most people will see through the motive (possibly sectarian) of the culprit. I don't know anything about how wikipedia works but I have used it lots for research and note that people usually cite sources for the information they give. I wondered why the edit which paint St Modan's in such a poor light does not have these but yet is allowed to go un checked? I am a parent at the school and know it to be a kind and caring institution and am saddened that a project such as wikapedia is being used as a tool to visit sectarian hatred on an institution that is just trying to do its best for the children in its care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.76.226 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The page for discussion of the article is Talk:St Modan's High School. The statement that you mention seems to have been added once and removed once; I see no sign of it "coming back". You may wish to look at the history of the article. In Wikipedia we have a policy to assume good faith, and I do not see any obvious evidence of what you describe as "sectarian hatred". In common with many articles, this article has from time to time been subject to vandalism, some of it apparently childish, but this is usually rapidly reverted. You are right that statements in a Wikipedia article need to be referenced to reliable sources, so if you wish to improve the article you may wish to find and include such sources for areas which are currently unreferenced and might otherwise risk removal. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
How to find a topic?
how do i find a good topic that has alot of materials on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bimbosomide (talk • contribs) 08:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean a topic to create an article about in Wikipedia? If this is the case, I don't think there is an easy answer to that. You could try to do a Google Books search for example on a topic that you find interesting or you think is missing. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Self removal of text?
Talk:Muhammad/images/example css gives an example of how a user can add code to a their css page so that specifc images on the Muhammad page of Muhammad aren't shown. What I'm looking for is how to do the equivalent for text. I want to be able to tell a user how to view the Phi Gamma Delta page without seeing the ΦΓΔ which is in the infobox. It probably won't make a difference for those Fiji brothers who want to change the article, but if possible to add a layer of "if you don't want to see it..."Naraht (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- This could be done if we tweaked the infobox coding in the article, replacing ΦΓΔ with
<div id="PhiGammaDeltaInfoBoxGreekLetters">ΦΓΔ</div>
so that this infobox element has a unique "id". Then, a user with an account could create or edit their Special:MyPage/skin.css with the line#PhiGammaDeltaInfoBoxGreekLetters { display:none }
, and the three Greek letters will then disappear. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Recreating a page
Couple of months an article was deleted due to its insignificance. By now, new references have came up. Can I recreate the page? Should I contact the admin who deleted it? How? T2dieevi (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- If the article was speedy deleted you can recreate it. My sussgetion would be to rcreate it in your userspace at a location like, User:T2dieevi/sandbox. That way you can work on it over time and it is less likely to get deleted quickly. Then when you think it is ready you can ask experienced editors to look the article over at WP:FEED. They will give you feedback on how to improve thearticle and let you know if it is ready for the mainspace. GB fan (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- You could request undeletion of that article at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or give one of the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles a shout, if undeletion of that page would turn up content that would be useful for your recreation of the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Toshio, I think you meant he should ask for userfication at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. At that process page we do two things: undelelete article to the mainspace that were deleted on uncontroversial grounds (generally G6s and prods) and userfication. This can be confusing because both technically, mechanically, involve "undeletion", but the requests are interpreted quite differently. In other words, if this article was deleted as an A7 or possibly at AfD, as it appears from the OP, a request for it to be "undeleted" will normally be rejected out of hand.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- You could request undeletion of that article at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or give one of the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles a shout, if undeletion of that page would turn up content that would be useful for your recreation of the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
IP address vandalism problem .
Hello, I've been editing Wikipedia for a few months now and I always edit under this username and log-in. However, I've just used a different browser to look up something on Wikipedia (I use FireFox for editing, and IE for work) and discovered that someone's left a message for me on my IP addresses talk page User talk:212.139.202.136. It's quite an old message (November 2010) that I haven't picked up until now as I always log into Wikipedia. Quite rightly User:Recognizance has undone vandalism made by this IP address (diff link). I live in England, and my ISP is Talk Talk, who I suppose could be sharing IP addresses out between different households. I very much doubt this vandalism was made within my home.
It would be very glamorous to be barred from Wikipedia for using a sock-puppet to push an anti-Israeli agenda, but I'm afraid I did not make these edits, and don't know enough about Israel and the Dead Sea Scrolls to vandalise related articles. Should I be worried by this use of my IP address? TehGrauniad (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your ISP might well allocate IP addresses dynamically. To avoid any confusion, it is better to log in with your user name. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I created an article called Kobaia_Sierra_Leone. Could some add some info to article or clean it up? Thanks!Neptunekh2 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)