Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 April 19

= April 19 =

Name mis spelt
Sir/Madam

This is with reference to the article on Akkarai S Subhalakshmi. The name has been wrongly spelt as Subbalakshmi. Kindly correct the spelling. Do let me know if I have to contact anybody else with regard to this correction.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by VRANJ99 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Akkarai S. Subhalakshmi is one website spelling and Akkarai Subbalakshmi is our article spelling. We just need to remove a 'b'?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

✅ --Canoe1967 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And I moved it to Akkarai Subhalakshmi, with the 'h'. Rojomoke (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooops! I should get closer to my monitor when moving pages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

✅

Request for image review and potential editing
I have uploaded in Commons an image of Wat Chaiwatthanaram which is a historic temple located in Ayutthaya, Thailand. This image is currently being used in the main Thailand Wikipedia page as part of the history section. I have been considering submitting the photo for the featured photo review and have been reviewing the photo submission guidelines. So far, the only adjustments I have made are two cropped versions where the top and bottom of the image have been trimmed. All other aspects of the photo are as originally created. One area of the photo that may need help is the far right structure near the edge of the photo, where some lack of focus and minor distortion is apparent. The featured photo submission pages mention that there are photo experts that may be able to review the photo for potential improvement if I make a submission to the help desk. Can someone please take a look at the photo and advise if you feel any improvements can be made. Any other opinions are welcomed.

The photo is located in wikimedia at: File:WatChaiwatthanaram 2292.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by G2nfreeb (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop Is where you should post. They work miracles there. You may wish to upload the original on a different file page and then they can adjust all the others on the crop/fix page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ here. Com:Graphics lab is doing great work as usual.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

double sawari per pabandi- karachi
AOA,

19-4-2013.

AWAM KI AWAZ

MARA NAM ADNAN SIDDIQUI HAI AAP SA ARZ HAI KA KHUDA KA WASTAY

DOUBLE SAWARI PAR PABANDI FORI TAUOUR PAR HATAI JAY. AB TU KAFI

DIN HO GAY HAIN IS MOSIBAT KO IS SA SIRF AWAM PARAISHAN HAIN

LOGON KO ROZANA BUHAT AZZIYAT SA DO CHAR HONA PAR RAHA HA.

KITNA TIME BARBAD HOTA HA .LOGON KO KITNI TENSION HOTI HA

KHUDA KA WASTAY IS KHANON KO FORI

TAUOR PER KHATAM KARA JAY. PUBLIC KO DUKH AUR AZIYAT PUNHCHA

KAR KON SA SAWAB KAMAY JARAH HAI. HAR CHEEZ MA AWAM PIS RAHI

HA. IS KA ALAWA.

AYE DIN CNG BAND HARTAL WAGHAIRA, NOKRI KARNAY WALAY KHANA JANY  DAHSHAT GARD APNA KAM KAR RAHY HAIN CHUND DAHSHAT GARDON KAR KHATIR PURI AWAM KO SAZA KYUN DI JA RAHI HA. YAH SUBAH AUR SHAM OFFICE TIMING MA NARMI KAR DI JAY TAKA LOG ARAM SA APNAY GHRON MA JA SAKAY HAALAT KO KUCH PATA NAHI HOT KAB KHARB HOJANY FORI TOUR PER TRANSPORT BAND HO JATI HA IS MOQAY PER AWAM KIA KARAY  AAP LOG TOU APNI APNI CARON PER BAITH KAR CHALAY JATAIN. AUR HAMARI POLICE AUR TRANSPORT MAFIA KA MAZAY AA JATAIN HAIN. PLEASE PLEASE -? MARI IS DARKAST PER GHOUR KARANY. KUN KA SHAYED AAP KA PAS AUR JO LOG YEH PABANDI LAGATAI HAI WOH TOU APNI CARON MA GHOMTAY HAIN UNHAY ZARA BHI AHSAS NAHI KA VAN KI CHATON AUR DARWAZON PER LATAK KA KISTRAH SAFAR HOTA HA. DUA GO

RGDS. ADNAN SIDDIQUI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.6.112 (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, this is the English Wikipedia. Secondly, please don't SHOUT. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

queens english!
Hi

Please don't use the term "icon" in notes it doesn't actually mean anything.

I know the media feels it's now got to use the term for every thing but icons are something on my computer screen.

I don't know what my computer screen has got to do with dianna rigg or vice versa. There are about 5 uses of thet term there.

Thanks.

David Farmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.96.223 (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The icons on your screen actually take their name from the religious artwork - icon - which also gives its name to anything that stands as a signifier or symbol. As such, a person of significant cultural value (such as Dianna Rigg) is termed an "icon of feminism" due to her well-documented symbolic importance to the feminist movement. It's a legitimate use of the term. See also the OUP definition, #2: "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of veneration". Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Many many many words in English have more than one meaning. "Icon" now has at least three. --ColinFine (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

== Peace through prosperity. If the Palestinian and Israel prosper they will both be too busy spending than going to war. The problem is that the solution is so simple it insults the intellect of those who hear it. The simple idea is free unlimited energy. ==

Is that when dealing with governments or businesses if a subordinate has a good idea his superiors will try to get the credit for it. This idea is so simple that no one will touch it for fear for being seen as an imbecile. It is called the Petra project. It is a hydroelectric energy project derived from the flow of salt water. Please do not get offended by it's simplicity. It is an aquaduct allowing the waters of the Mediteranean to flow from sea level down to the dead sea. The resulting energy will power salt water capable turbines which in turn power electric generators. No emissions, free energy. The environmental impact is positive. The economical impact is unmeasurable. Both Palestinians and Israel will be net exporters of energy to busy cutting the price of energy and making dirty energy non competitive. To good be true? Does it offend you? Contact me and I will show you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.86.34.128 (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 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. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for presenting new ideas or promoting any cause, no matter how worthy. --ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

GTA IV
In the article Controversies_surrounding_Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Little_Lacy_Surprise_Pageant there is no mention of pedophilia is actually a relatively much discussed topic and the game besides the fictional website as there are many references to it in the game. Try to read http://gta.wikia.com/Jill_Von_Crastenburg for some exemples. --89.249.2.53 (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless the issue of paedophilia in relation to GTA has been written about in reliable sources (eg newspaper articles about the issue), then any discussion on it would be original research, and not permitted in the Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What about a official rockstar website, will that be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.249.2.53 (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * do not know if you've played it, but the game has a feature allowing you to go online in the game and its fictional websites. One, the online newspapers in the game is an online tabloid that mentions this. Is it still original research then?--89.249.2.53 (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A work of fiction is not a reliable source. Maproom (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * just board a serious newspaper that writes news about fictional universes in computer games. why put a task for me if you know it is impossible?! this is frivolous. --Gajolen (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In future you may have more look with a Google search. The first result is this and it's clearly usable. Good luck ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Service Battalion
Service battalion

The statement regarding the Service Battalion flag is incorrect, currently it reads: "The red represents the Medical Corps, yellow Logistics, and blue the Engineers"

The Service battalions flags represent the Royal Corp fo engineers (Blue) The Royal Ordance Corp (yellow) and the Royal Service Corp (red) The Flag is similar to the Flag of the Royal Canadian Electrical Mechanical Engineers (RCEME) from which it was adopted being only a slight change in that the yellow was made narrower. The RCEME flag has all colours of equal deminsion. Since the Canadian Forces of 1968 the RCEME also includes the Royal Canadian Air Force Colour of Light "baby" blue on the bottom.


 * If you have a reliable source which you can make reference to, then be bold and correct it yourself. --Ushau97 (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Grave Dancing
I am looking for our policy on "Grave dancing" (example: someone gets site banned and the person who they were disputing with gets in a few last parthian shots). It's clearly disruptive and rude, but do we have a specific policy I can cite? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking, WP:HA applies to that if I understand your question correctly --Ushau97 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alas, I don't think I would get far citing WP:HA. As the term "grave dancing" is usually used, it refers specifically to comments that would be allowed except for the fact that the blocked/banned user cannot respond, with a strong implication that the issue is resolved and should be dropped. I was sure that we had a policy that says exactly that, but I cannot find it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have been thinking of the essay WP:NOTGRAVEDANCING. As far as I recall, it was proposed for elevation in some form to the civility policy, but ultimately rejected. Keri (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A fundamental problem with Wikipedia culture, at times, is the need to have a policy acronym always at hand to explain why something shouldn't be done. Try a brief explanation along the lines of, "That's not really necessary. They're gone now; taking shots at someone who can't answer back isn't classy, and just makes you look bad.  It may also encourage further misconduct that is harmful or disruptive to the project."  Someone who thinks grave dancing is a good idea in the first place isn't likely to respond constructively to slapping a templated {uw-gravedancing} warning on their talk page anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Blue links to redirects to the same article.
The article Amblyseius, like many articles on genera, is mostly just a list of species. In this case, each species is linked, but all the ones I have looked at link to redirects, which come back to the genus article. This seems wrong to me: they might be redlinks, but if they're going to be blue links, they should be of some use. On the other hand I can see why somebody wanted to link them all, and why somebody thought it might be useful to have the species redirecting to the genus. Do we have a policy on this? --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:REPEATLINK seems to address this. "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article)" One solution could be to remove the wikilinks to the redirect pages, as they were probably an overenthusiastic oversight.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I deleted all the wikilinks that looped back to that page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that improves the article immeasurably. It seemed a lot of work, so I was reluctant to do it without checking for a policy. --ColinFine (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)