Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 April 24

= April 24 =

Citation question
Hi, I've looked around but cant seem to find an answer. When citing a book in multiple places in the same article, but separate pages or even chapters of that book, should I be creating 2 separate refs with page numbers for where that information appears, or one ref used repeatedly with a page range? A related question, does the cite book template allow for inherited values? Meaning having defined the ref earlier with most of the info, can you reuse the ref name and amend a part of the previous ref? Nableezy (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See Footnotes and Citing sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please also be aware of Rp. It is only for use when you are citing a single book many, many times though, which if shortened footnotes were used would result in a very cluttered reference section.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind, dont think it will be necessary but thanks. Nableezy (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation of talk page
Hi, I've seach around, but have be unable to find an answer. On a page that I'm editing a citation was asked for ([] ref 4). I've citated the talk page. My reasoning is that the editors that I citated, had id themselves as to who they are in the real world. These quoted editors are respected people within the field of the page I'm editing. Are these acceptable citations? Blackash (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, after the Essjay controversy it's clear that people can and do fake their credentials here on WP. Instead of citing the user's cite the real world experts they claim to be outside of Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Citing a Wikipedia talk page is not acceptable. See Verifiability. Your example also has other problems. "the Tree shaping talk page" is a self-reference that may not be understood in data users, and the wikilink Talk:Tree_shaping will break in data users (and may break later in Wikipedia if the section is archived or edited). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that useful. I will remove the promblem part. I am pretty sure that there are not any quotes online except ours. It is only a newly emerging art, to date there is only about 21 people who shape trees. Blackash (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I insert a photo into an article?
This refers to the page on Pete Sorenson. He's asked me to upload photos and I can't get it to let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasmineScarlett (talk • contribs) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You must upload it first to Wikimedia commons here else it will show as a redlink. —Zener 03:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your account must be autoconfirmed (that is, have at least ten edits and been a registered user for four days) before you can upload files here.  tempo di valse  [☎]  04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See Upload — Ched : ?  04:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But before you upload, you must determine the copyright status of the images. If the copyright is to be released for use on Wikipedia projects, the process set out at WP:IOWN should be followed by the copyright owner. – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User lists have unprofessional names from a few years back
Any way to clean this up? If you scroll down past the ! marks most of the signups are not professional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=500

Thanks Ivtv (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of those are already blocked, but no, the logs are permanent. Oversights have the technical ability to hide those logs, but they usually only use their superpowers in extreme circumstances, such as protecting people's privacy. It's really not a big deal. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits from a person that is not logged in (Request)
Hi, this has been bothering me for a long time and wanted to find out something. Is there any way to stop people that are not logged in from editing articles. There are too much vandalism going on. Us Wikipedians, that try our hardest to make Wikipedia a place that people can get helpful information about almost anything, must sit and fight vansalism everyday.

I just wanted to ask if there is any way that the editors can create something sothat only Wikipedians with valid accounts can do edits.

Thanks (Jonathanburger (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC))


 * See Perennial proposals and Protection policy. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another interesting proposal to combat vandalism is flagged revisions. Also, the abuse filter was recently turned on as well. TN X Man  14:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Making it so anyone can edit articles without registering is a deliberate choice of the project. There are pro's and con's to it, forcing people to edit from an account might help curb vandalism to some extent, however : 1) it would likely have a large, negative impact on the number of (good) editors, 2) if people can't vandalize without an account, many would go the extra step, register, and vandalize away, the net result of which is that vandalism would be more difficult to spot. Equendil Talk 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If we get users to register their accounts it means that if they vandal a page we can spot them and report it. The user account can be blocked or deleted by the administrators.

Can any article be semi-protected sothat non users cant edit it? (Jonathanburger (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC))


 * See Requests for page protection and read the instructions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Not without a valid reason. See Protection policy. This would also be in violation of WP:OWN, since you're deliberately trying to prevent others from editing. But IP addresses can be blocked same as user accounts. And trust me, vandalism by user accounts is usually more dangerous and harmful than the IPs.  C h a m a l  talk 15:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Having vandals on Ips is better because they can be spotted more easily and the ip address itself blocked. With an account, unless the user is checkusered they can simply create another account once the autoblock on their ip is over, usually 24 hours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk • contribs)
 * Even more problematic, they can create sockfarms and vandalize from them with impugnity until someone decides to checkuser it and find them out. If they can change IPs without accounts in order to continue vandalizing, they can do so WITH accounts with the disadvantage that we can no longer easily spot closely related IP addresses to more quickly quash the problem.  Stopping IP users from editing will not have a marked effect on reducing vandalism, but it WILL have a marked effect on reducing our ability to fight it.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  01:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never understood this faith-based claim, but I do understand the need for CAPSLOCK when there is no supporting data. Until we actually try something, we have no idea what the effects will be. And how would it be harder to track vandals if they create accounts? IP edits are a mess currently because of shared addresses; a single address can get edits from vandals and constructive editors, leading to collective punishment if we block the address to stop a vandal, along with misdirected warnings on the IP talk page that merely confuse or distress the next honest user who sees them. Even though we don't really know what the effects would be of requiring editors to create accounts, we have tested the effects of whittling away at the rights of unregistered editors:
 * Unregistered editors were originally able to create new articles. Then Wikipedia restricted new article creation to registered editors. What was the effect on new article creation? Did the number of new articles of high quality decline? Did large numbers of vandals create accounts so they could create new vandal articles?
 * We have semi-protected many articles (and templates). What has been the result? Have these articles lacked for constructive edits by registered editors? Have large numbers of formerly anonymous vandals created sockfarms so they can vandalize our semi-protected articles?
 * We have already tested the effect of requiring users to create accounts before they get to do certain things. As far as I have informally been able to observe, these restrictions on unregistered editing have generally reduced the types of vandalism they specifically target, without substantially reducing the flow of constructive contributions. There has been no goundswell of protest against our creeping reduction in the rights of the unregistered. Wikipedia's growth curve has proceeded without a hitch. However, I would like to see the results of some rigorous analysis. It would be nice if we could base our arguments on facts and data rather than imagination. --Teratornis (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of important studies you may want to look at: WikiProject Vandalism studies which determined that 97% of vandalism came from IP addresses (only important until you realize that some large majority of ALL edits come from IP addresses. User:Opabinia regalis/Article statistics is more telling for our purposes.  It found that only 6.5% of edits by IP addresses were blatant vandalism; this was 4 times higher than registered users, but this still represents 93.5% good edits from IP addresses.  The question to be answered is it worth getting rid of 93.5% good edits/6.5% bad edits for the sake of forcing vandals to register?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The studies are interesting but neither one addresses the issue of what would happen if we required editors to register. Your assumption that requiring editors to register would amount to "getting rid of 93.5% good edits" seems to be a false dichotomy. You seem to have concluded that requiring editors to register would deter the constructive editors yet it would not deter the vandals. This makes little sense, since constructive editing requires great effort (to read the lengthy manuals and so on), whereas vandalism requires no effort. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suppose that people who are willing to make great effort would consider making a trivial extra effort, whereas vandals who are inherently lazy might be less inclined to bother? (I hinted above about how to test for this: by observing whether semi-protecting an article reduces the vandalism to that article. It's very easy for an editor to create an account, wait for autoconfirmation, and then vandalize a semi-protected article. And yet, miraculously, very few vandals seem inclined to exert themselves by this trivial amount.) Also, you seem to ignore the potentially vast number of would-be constructive editors who left the project because they saw unregistered editors vandalizing articles and concluded Wikipedia is a joke. I personally do not think Wikipedia is a joke, but I can understand people who would think that way if they only see the vandalism before they see our less-immediately-obvious efforts to contain it. Imagine that you are a recognized authority in some field - you are accustomed to writing serious documents in controlled settings. You are used to writing papers, and not having to worry about someone writing "Bob is gay!" all over them. Would seeing that on Wikipedia make you feel more inclined to share your expertise here?
 * A related question is, how many editors does Wikipedia need? Currently we have registered user accounts (the number of active, constructive contributors being a fraction of that number). If all the unregistered editors simply vanished one day, and we had to scrape by with just  editors, would Wikipedia be able to manage? More importantly, would we lose any unique contributions that could only be made by unregistered editors, that none of the registered editors would be able to do eventually? The number of registered active editors today is greater than the total number of active editors a few short years ago. Back then, Wikipedia was worthwhile; a Wikipedia consisting only of our registered editors today would be just as worthwhile as the overall Wikipedia was back then. --Teratornis (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requested by subject of biography
Hello, what is the policy when the subject of a biography doesn't wish to appear on Wikipedia? It just happened on the Nate Kelley article (assuming the IP is really her) in this recent edit. WP:BIO doesn't really say what should be done in that case, it just says to remove any negative comments, but there aren't any in this article. Any info would be welcome. Thanks, Laurent (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such process for deletion, nor should there be. If the subject of the article has issues with it they can contact the Foundation: Biographies of living persons. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've given her the link to contact the foundation. Laurent (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * {edit conflict)Biographies are a serious concern, especially ones that do not list any sources for the material (much like Nate Kelley). It would be a good idea to review the article to ensure there is no negative unsourced material that needs to be removed. TN X Man  16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note though that if an article is properly sourced and otherwise complies with WP:BLP, there are no grounds for its deletion, are there?. – ukexpat (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there's no reason to delete it. I was just making the point that it's important to have several sets of eyes on an unsourced BLP, as it could quickly turn into a trouble spot. TN X Man  17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the unsourced contents. Actually, I can't find much about him so I'm not even sure he passes WP:BIO. Laurent (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:William Donahey
On the Talk page of this article it says that "This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale." However, it has received a rating of B-Class as of 16 March 2009. How do I remove the above statement that it has not yet received a rating? I can not figure it out on how to do. Can someone fix this. Thanks in advance.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed by Tempodivalse. To rate articles in the future, simply add |class=B to the appropriate Wiki banner. TN X Man  19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Further reply) For example, would become   TN X Man  19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (2x e/c) In the future, simply find the "class=" parameter in the appropriate template at the top of the page, and add the appropriate class immediately after the equals sign. That should make it display properly.  tempo di valse  [☎]  19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving this. --Doug Coldwell talk 20:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I change the name of an uploaded file?
I would love to rename this file i've uploaded: File:Z%27ev_StefanWeisser_Smiling.jpg. Is that possible? Or is it better to ask for deletion and restart the procedure? Je VH (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Help:Moving a page, you'll have to upload it again. Some more details at WP:IUP at the bottom. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for advising me. Je VH (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You can also tag it with rename media (see the documentation); when file renaming is re-enabled, it will be renamed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding user pages
I understand that we may create and do as we please with our personal articles such as I have done with mine, User:Spartan008. However, my question is in regard to beyond that such creating a User:Spartan008/"something", say a personal topic. I have seen other users do such things and I feel it will do no harm but I thought it best to ask. Thanks you. Spartan008 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:UP for some examples of what people use user subpages for. Not included in that list is essays like these. Extensive information that has nothing to do with wikipedia is frowned upon and might even be deleted. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Spartan008 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

can I upload an article to Wikipedia?
I have searched a definition on Wikipedia and internet "what is online company identity?" but can not find it. So I have written an article about it. I think there may be some people search for the same subject. Can I upload this article and share with all people who search it? My article may not be quite right, but it can be a start point for others to improve it. If I can upload this article, please advise where is the right place for me to upload.

Many thanks

Mark Folger

I attach the article here:

What Is Online Company Identity?

Company identity is a set of distinctive visual impressions to express company value, individuality, focuses, quality, price, range, origin background, establishment, etc. Audio elements can be included, as well.

It is not just a logo, it has combined fine elements of detailed expressions which communicate with audience and all these elements contain messages of it.

In web design terms identity consists of logo, corporate colour, images, certain font, font size, services, products, portfolio, testimonials, articles, newsletters, emails, etc.

It is not a standstill or an one off creation.

A fact may not be widely recognised is that identity is not an one off creation. Its creation is a dynamic process which must be updated with ever fast evolving competition and should be developed under the frame of branding strategy.

A website tool called CMS - Content Management System is very helpful when you need constantly update the set of elements of your website.

What is the relation in between identity and branding?

There are many definitions of identity and branding and these definitions always seem overlap with each other.

As a matter of fact, they are two different things. Identity is more like foundation of a brand, which lays all the fundamentals and supports and enhances a brand. Without identity a brand can not be identified. Brand is like a tip on the top of a pyramid. It is a periodical result of continuous building ups.

While the former is more solid and physical the latter appears more conceptional, such as a symbol, a sound or a colour which will remind people of a brand. A tick symbol will be recognised, such as, NIKE.

The former serves the latter and follows the latter' strategies. As a brand name can not be built up over night, it needs a defined strategy, a logical and periodical build up supported by the former and other campaigns and very much rely on the success of the gradual, comprehensive development. Identity does play very important role in branding.

The benefits from study of Company Identity

The study of Company Identity is a true bonus to website designers. In website design evolution today the knowledge of Company Identity will provide the edge to web designers in every stage of web construction, from planning, drafting, initial template making to completion of the whole project. The web designs follow these procedures will have much more possibilities to bring up a website with distinctive Company Identity, rich in elements and concise and strong in statements than those who have not developed their knowledge in Company Identity and do not follow the procedure which embrace it.

Mark Folger is marketing manager of adword-success.com a U.K. based website development company.

Reads like an advert - no chance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This wouldn't be acceptable as it stands; you have no sources, nor have you shown the topic to be notable. I'll leave a message at your talk page to expand on this. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See our related articles: Web presence, Internet presence management, and Content management system. Also see WP:BFAQ and WP:PEACOCK. --Teratornis (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)