Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 June 20

= June 20 =

Div tags vs.
Is there any reason to have three pairs of div tags at Añjali Mudrā? It seems to me that they could easily be replaced with clear, but I'm not familiar enough with the coding to do this myself. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first div clears the table of contents before the first section without clearing the first image. It is equivalent to clearleft not clear. It is necessary because of the TOCleft, inserted apparently to make the TOC overlap the lead section. IMO both the TOCleft and the div should be removed.
 * The second div defeats the none parameter on the second image. (The none parameter prevents the image from overlapping the following text, and the div enables the overlap.) It is almost equivalent to clearleft not clear. IMO both the div and none parameter should be removed.
 * The third div clears the second image before the next section. It is equivalent to clear. The second image was placed on the left apparently because it has a different width than the first. Clearing would not be necessary if the second image were placed on the right. —teb728 t c 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I boldly did what I talked about on the first two and changed the third to clear. —teb728 t c 08:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Replacing an image with TeX
Black hole has a goofy-looking image (File:Black Hole Entropy.png) showing an equation in the Papyrus typeface with the characters comically misaligned. It seems to me that it would be be better to replace this image with a simple TeX rendering of the equation:
 * $$S=\frac{\pi A k c^3}{2 h G}$$

Is there a way to use an equation like this as an image, i.e., to put it in a box floated to the right with a caption? —Bkell (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could use a simple screen capture of the equation, crop it, save it as an image file, and upload it. -- Jayron  32  03:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought about that, but there are many advantages to using a real equation in the Wikicode rather than an image: it's easier to edit, the software knows it's an equation and applies appropriate styles, the associated alt text is automatically generated, future improvements to math display would apply, etc. —Bkell (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's easy to float any arbitrary thing to the right. That means you can use the real equation. Obviously you'd want to play with spacing and borders to make it pretty.


 * For thumb-images, I think plain-text (as TeX tends to render this equation) looks poor (relatively small characters with wide line-spacing), so you might want to force the wiki software to render it as a png on-the-fly. You could even dump the HTML of the page as it stands now and steal its exact  specs for the layout. DMacks (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's a way to render the TeX larger using the code then that's superior as you say, but I threw together this image in Gimp. Bekenstein–Hawking entropy formula.png Use it or not, as you see fit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am being told the content of my article seems to have been taken from a web page.
It said you cant copy and paste text from website, i didnt do this but copied what i had already written as this is my artist i am writing about?? Please help i need this to go live :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outputlive (talk • contribs) 11:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:IOWN for more information. -- Jayron  32  11:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tagged Kopeius for speedy deletion on the grounds of lack of assertion of notability and also its promotional tone. I also don't think that an account called "Outputlive" should be writing articles about artists promoted by "OUTPUTLIVELIMITED", so a read of our rules on conflict of interest and usernames, as well as advertising, would be advisable. BencherliteTalk 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Your account name is a problem. If you want to edit Wikipedia for something other than promoting Output Live and its clients, you should create a new account representing you personally. —teb728 t c 12:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's quite a lot of links people have thrown at you, plus a not-very-friendly-looking block on your user name, so I will try to summarise the information for you:
 * Normally, anything that has been published on a website or anywhere is else is copyright, and cannot be used in Wikipedia.
 * If you published it, or own the copyright for another reason, and you choose to license it in a way consistent with Wikipedia's requirements, you can follow the procedure in WP:IOWN, and then reuse the text on Wikipedia.
 * However, the text on an official or promotional website is rarely appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia because it is usually not neutral in tone, and may in fact be promotional.
 * Furthermore, because you are the promoter of publisher of the subject of an article, you have a conflict of interest which is likely to make it difficult for you to write in a neutral way even if you wanted to. You are not barred from doing, so, but you are strongly discouraged; but you may still contribute information about the subject on the article's talk page (if there is an article).
 * Wikipedia articles must demonstrated that their subjects are notable by Wikipedia's criteria: this is not the same as important or famous: it is that other people have written about them. If an article cannot demonstrate this notability, it is likely to be deleted (and the criteria are more strongly applied for articles about living people).
 * Finally, as a separate issue, the username you have chosen appears to contravene Wikipedia's username policy, as it appears to be promotional. It has therefore been blocked (it has, you have not).
 * You are very welcome to stay and help us improve Wikipedia, but you need to take note of these points. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Information on location of military bases
I apologise at the outset if I'm using this method of communication in error. My only excuse is that whilst I've used Wikipaedia military information pages quite extensively in the recent past I've only just opened an account in hopes of contributing some information myself in return. I share a passion for both maps and military history. In particular my last project concerned mapping the Israeli Defence Forces Orders of Battle. I noted that on several of the existing IDF related major unit pages the information already given on their base location was insufficient, inaccurate, misleading or simply non-existent.(For example the Nahal Brigade HQ was said to be based near the Palestinian town of Bayt Lid in Samaria (at least that's where the link took one) instead of at Camp Mota Gur in the Sharon near to 'Beit Lid Junction' - Is there a policy on this ? If so I'd be most grateful if you'd direct me to it so that I don't tread on any toes etc.. Yours in trepidation  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Eight Thirty-two (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Use the best sources you can find. If you know a particular source (even if it is an official IDF website) is unreliable, just don't use it. See WP:RS Newspapers are often more accurate and up-to-date than government burocracies. Google Earth is also generally very accurate. Roger (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bug bear but I take it this comment means that improving accuracy on location of the bases for military units already appearing in existing pages is acceptable, so long that accurate sources should be cited? in particular let me make it clear that where I've added earth co-ordinates, I've always checked them out first on Google Earth, as I take it is your suggestion. In that case I'll proceed to makes small improvements until told otherwise ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Eight Thirty-two (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Except that the criterion for Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, so do not use an unreliable source simply because you believe it to be correct - especially if it contradicts a generally reliable source.
 * And one more point: if you want to make a change which you think might be at all controversial, I recommend you discuss it on the article's talk page first. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone has deleted my sourced information
Hi there,

This is in regards to the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lombardi_%28businessman%29

On June 17, 2011, I edited the page (my IP address is 216.223.131.121) that included only sourced material (please see history)

The information was changed by user name Bds230.

Can someone actually remove my sourced information?

How could this be handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.131.121 (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits look good to me, reliable sources. I'll warn the edit of WP:3RR (and be warned yourself, as you could still be blocked, although your edits are good), and if the user continues, they will be blocked. C T J F 8 3  12:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no I won't it has occurred over several days...I gave the user a general edit warring warning. C T J F 8 3  12:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article looks far too promotional. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Tongan Rugby Player Profile : Kisi Pulu
To whom it may concern,

I would like to raise my concern about the incorrect information on my profile, saying that I had Malaria in 1998 and only had 2 years to live.It was a complete shock to me during an interview last week when they asked me to comment on having lived past the 2 years and the fact that it is absolute nonsense causes me to take action.They told me to google my name, because this is where they found this information. Can I please have it removed.Who ever wrote this needs to do some proper research.I found it extremely awkward and humiliating due to this error and would like for it to be erased.It is untrue and I have never had malaria, nor am I diagnosed as only having 2 more years to live.

Yours Sincerely,

Kisi Pulu — Preceding unsigned comment added by K pulu (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the information, as it had absolutely no source, and all information at Wikipedia, especially that information about living persons must be directly cited to reliable sources. Thank you for the help in fixing this, and let me be the first to apologize if this incorrect information has caused you any discomfort or inconvenience.  -- Jayron  32  14:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

[Meta] Wikitable help
I'm trying to get this table according to these dimensions :

! scope="col" width="25" | Aspect ! scope="col" width="50" | Summary of Activities ! scope="col" width="100" | Learnings ! scope="col" width="250" | Implications
 * border="1" cellpadding="2"

Can someone please help? Thanks

--Srikeit 14:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the cells' contents appear to contain unbreakable strings that are wider than their column, which causes the cells to widen to accomodate. That might not be the only problem, but definitely contributes. For example, hiding the bare URL in column 2 row 1 helps. More importantly, why are you trying to force table dimensions? I tried without them and various browsers' autolayout worked fine for multiple screen-sizes whereas forced width will either waste space or cause side-scrolling. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the help. I think the URL shortening has pretty much cleared up the problem. Cheers --Srikeit 16:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Need technical assistance creating Wikipedia page
Can you refer me to someone who can help me create a Wikipedia page? I will pay them for their help as long as it isn't too expensive.

Thanks,

H. Leon Raper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.161.152 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Mr. Raper. The article creation wizard which will guide you step by step though the process of creating an article can be found at Article wizard. I would recommend that as the easiest way.
 * I would however like to note a few things though: (1) you sound as if you are planning on creating an article about something you are involved with personally, which is strongly discouraged. While there are many venues for press releases and self publishing Wikipedia is not one, we seek to write objectively here and that is very, very difficult to do if an author has a conflict of interest (2) in the same vein as note 1, when people try to create a page on Wikipedia about something they are involved with we often find the subject does not meet Wikipedia's idea of notability; a subject must be very important (3) paid editing is highly discouraged (because of conflict of interest reasons), Wikipedia is volunteer so no need to pay anyways!
 * How about this Mr. Raper, you tell us the topic you were thinking of writing an article on and if it appears to meet the Wiki notability standard I will start an article for you. jorgenev 15:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Paying an editor almost always puts the paid user at a very severe conflict of interest with Wikipedia. Something strongly discouraged. A subject should be in Wikipedia by merit of its own notability. You can not control articles, nor can you force a subject to be in Wikipedia by providing incentives for editors to include it. If it violates policies it will be removed, regardless of how much you paid an editor for it. And a far more important thing: Wikipedia is not for public relations, neither is it for advertising or promotion.


 * Paying an editor is also highly unethical, as it is an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's guidelines and insults the volunteer spirit of the Wikipedian community. As Wikipedia's records are completely open to the public, this can have consequences on the subject of the article and can result in public embarrassment for the parties involved.


 * I suggest you take up Jorgenev's offer. But take note that you can not dictate the contents of an article. It will always depend on the information other reliable sources have published about it, whether the information is good or bad. And if the subject is not notable, it just can not be included, period. To determine if your subject meets the notability criteria, please see WP:Notability --  Obsidi ♠ nSoul  15:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this redirect be kept?
I question how likely it is for to be searched for. It redirects to Palindromic number. The redirect seems to satisfy none of the reasons listed at WP:R or WP:R. So should I simply ignore it? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well redirects are cheap and it got 113 hits in May and sofar 78 hits this month. I think it is best just to leave it.  GB fan (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. BTW the essay you wikilinked to must be one of the coolest pages in WP namespace. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion
Is there a way to contest an AfD if it appears that the closing admin has ignored consensus? In a recent AfD there were three (policy supported) !votes to keep, and two (policy supported) !votes to delete. That indicated no consensus, or a keep consensus. However the closing admin deleted the article. What's point of having an AfD when the views of those involved are ignored? — Fly by Night  ( talk )  16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could take this up at Deletion review. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 3:2 doesn't look like "consensus to keep" to me. It's too small a sample to draw conclusions from(yeah, call me a statistics nerd), but I'd say it's a clear "no consensus." OTOH, yes, it look like a textbook DelRev candidate to me, no biting the admin intended. 217.254.170.225 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Watching only a single TfD?
Is it possible to watchlist only one specific discussion at WP:TFD? (I guess it is not, as each template does not have a seperate subpage like on AfD). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're going to have to just watchlist the main page, and/or check in every so often to see what new comments have been posted. You can only watchlist whole pages, not sections, and as you note TFD does not use a transclusion system like AFD does.  -- Jayron  32  17:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know you cannot watchlist sections. I think I only made this post because this situation annoys me a bit. So consider this thread as resolved. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:TFD does actually use transclusion but it transcludes whole days and not individual discussions. You can (and must) watch the day where a given discussion is. See also Perennial proposals. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this is an old thread, but is it technically possible to create your own transclusion? Please leave a talkback message for me if you respond to this. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "create your own transclusion" but it's certainly possible for any registered user to create templates or other pages and transclude them. You can read more at Transclusion and Help:Template. If it doesn't answer your question then try to be more specific. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How to track TfDs
This thread is a continuation of the above section. Actually, watching Templates for discussion will not show the changes to a specific discussion there. This makes following the progress of a specific TfD discussion a bit annoying, as it seems I have to go to the main TfD page and actually check the relevant section. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Watch the page for the day. See my reply in the above section. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I watchlisted Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 20. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Based only on the person's autobiography?
Hi. I have a question - can I write the article about a not-so-famous actor who is currently on So Random based only on his words? I mean, if he wrote me a letter with the basic facts needed about his career and stuff like that and I put this letter on my user page here? Thanks. --SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally you shouldn't do this (see WP:USERBIO). If you want to write something for mainspace, you need to provide evidence of coverage by third party sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, in general a person only merits a Wikipedia article when there already exists a large quantity of scholarship about them. If there is no existing scholarship already published (see WP:RS, stuff like books, magazine articles, etc.), and lots of it, then a person simply doesn't meet the minimum standards at Wikipedia for an article here.  See also WP:N and WP:BIO.  If the only source of reliable info is a personal letter written by the subject, they simply don't merit an article.  -- Jayron  32  19:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Google link for wikipedia's Sean Avery page
When you google Sean Avery, the wikipedia entry says Sean FAG BOY Avery. However, I do not see this in the actual wiki entry. I don't know how you can fix this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.119.148 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's on Google's end. At one point someone had vandalized the page with "fag boy", when Google archived the page for their search results. I'm pretty sure Google updates their results on a regular basis, so you could either contact Google or wait. C T J F 8 3  21:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an unfortunate cached version of the page that got saved before the vandalism was detected and removed. However, as Wikipedia is among the top ranking sites in Google Search, it will be updated quite soon enough. It can take from a few hours to a few days, more likely the former. Try checking Google Search again tomorrow. Note that this issue is from Google and beyond the means of anyone here to fix. The actual wiki entry has already been fixed.


 * Also if any administrators are around, please take a look at the user at fault: Special:Contributions/75.17.213.61. --  Obsidi ♠ nSoul  22:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINK ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PAGE
To Whom it may Concern:

I work for a company who is considered a leader in the field of Mycotoxins. We are extremely interested in providing an external link to our website which contain technical bulletins, articles, white papers, etc. on the subject and could prove to be extremely useful to someone who is perhaps searching Wikipedia for general and/or specific information on Mycotoxins.

The reason why I am inquiring as to how to accomplish this on someone else's page is because I understand that it is against your policy to link a site that we own, maintain or represent (If I misunderstood and we can in fact create our own article and provide links to our technical supporting data please advise). Should I initiate a discussion with the page owner/editor asking permission? How does this process work? I am extremely interested in your feedback because our company, Amlan International, is again considered a leader in this field and feel that we have expertise that could be offered under this search term. Thank you and have a wonderful day. Amlan Intl (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no page owners for any Wikipedia page. If the link follows WP:EL, and it's not overly promotional, etc, you could add it, or discuss it on the articles talk page. C T J F 8 3  21:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"First, nobody owns a page everything is edited by a community of volunteers. You could possibly suggest the link on a talk page.  Promotional external links are not looked at well here; however, your site doesn't seem to be in the business of selling products and it has valuable information.  If anything, I think your site would be best used as a reference to cite individual sentences on the Mycotoxin page.  Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

War of the Worlds: Goliath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Worlds:_Goliath This post seems irrelevant. This film not been released. The producers have consistently been claiming release dates in 2009,2010 and 2011 ``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakcat (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I have proposed that it be deleted. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  22:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)