Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 April 16

= April 16 =

The structure of Heroin (English version) is wrong
Dear sir/madam: The structure of Heroin (English version) is wrong. Here I attach you a webpage where you could copy. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/fluka/h159?lang=en&region=BE Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.28.62 (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. I guess you're talking about the structural formula in the article Heroin. You're right that structure is different from that in the link you gave, in that there are two methyl groups instead of hydroxyls. I guess that there are slightly different versions of heroin available: the article says that "Heroin itself is an inactive drug, but when inserted into the body, it converts into morphine", which very much suggests that there could be chemically slightly different versions which have the same effect. If you think the article can be improved, you are welcome to do so, or to make a suggestion on the article's talk page Talk:Heroin; but you should have more reliable sources for the changes you want to make than a sales catalogue. --ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ball model in our article appears to match the SigmaAldritch page but not the other structure in our article. Rmhermen (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was just an accident. Fixed now. ···V ani s che nu (mc/talk) 19:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Translation
can wikipedia translate other languages into english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.169.141.39 (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no facility in the Wikimedia software to translate pages. You might try Google Translate.  If you are looking to have an article on another language Wikipedia translated onto the English Wikipedia you can make a request at Translation.  Spinning  Spark  09:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles with "weasel words"
I just noticed that an innocent looking edit to FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States had placed this article in a category which appears to indicate that there is something shady about the article. Just wondering why? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That edit has not inserted any categories. This one did add a category, is that what you mean?  Which category do you think is problematic and why?  Spinning  Spark  09:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's the Who? template. The editor added it because the sentence "The cost to Canadian banks is said to be "enormous"." doesn't say who said that particular word.  Although it is referenced...  Dismas |(talk) 09:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt reply, Dismas. I would like to remove the Who? template, but am not sure how to change the wording in the Wikipedia article. This is what the source (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) says:
 *  While banks say they will still be left on the hook for the enormous compliance costs of tracking and reporting all this additional information on some of their clients, this agreement spares them the penalties the U.S. was threatening for non-compliance; a 30 per cent withholding tax on all of their U.S. transactions.
 * Thanks again, XOttawahitech (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A wording something like "according to foo, banks say..." should solve the problem.  Spinning Spark  10:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and maybe it should say Canadian banks, which is what I believe the source is discussing.  Spinning Spark  10:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User name
Hi,

i'm publishing content of generell interest relating to Curesec GmbH. Because we wanted to do this with transparency, we decided to use "curesec" as our username, so that everyone could see, where the edits are coming from. I now read that using promotional names is forbidden. So should i use a name not related to our company and do this undercover. I think this is not what Wikipedia is about?

We are offering a free checkup for the Heartbleed Vulnerability in our blog. While big companies are allowed to offer there checks, we are not. Our entry was deleted. Isn t any Heartbleed check of generell interest, no matter what company it comes from? If you allow any company to publish their test, why not all tests of all companies offering them. This is not just.

Best regards curesec — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curesec (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct in that your username should be changed. You can do this at WP:CHU.  And editing articles which you have a direct connection to is frowned upon as well because you have a conflict of interest.  See more on that at WP:COI.  We are here to build an encyclopedia and not do advertising or provide "how-to" sorts of articles.  If your company, Curesec, is notable enough for an article, one could be written about it.  But again, that should not be done by you.  You can see the notability requirements for companies at WP:CORP.  Does this help?  I'll also be leaving a welcome message on your talk page which might also be of assistance.  Dismas |(talk) 10:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You should also note that accounts on Wikipedia are for individual editors, not for an organization. Sharing an account, as you imply you are doing by the use of the "we" pronoun, is strictly forbidden under our [Wikipedia:username policy|]].  We are not encouraging you to do anythign "undercover".  In fact, users who have a conflict of interest are encouraged to declare their affilitiations on their userpage.
 * You have no deleted edits under your account so I am unclear what was deleted and where, but you may want to read our notability guideline.  Spinning Spark  10:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Curesec, You could choose a username that is for an individual but still shows your connection; for example. "Susie at Curesec" or "Curesec Jones" &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Can I just add that you're wrong when you say "big companies are allowed to offer there (sic) checks". No one should be using Wikipedia to promote their business, and if you've seen any company doing so, let us know and we'll investigate it.  Rojomoke (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple articles about one band
Dear editors: When is it appropriate to have multiple articles about a musical group? I can see how it's necessary for a band with a long history to document (the Beatles, for example), but what determines when this becomes appropriate? For example, there is VIXX, VIXX filmography, VIXX discography, and now, just created, List of awards and nominations received by VIXX. How many recordings, awards, etc., should lead to a separate article? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Summary style when there is enough sourced content about a particular aspect so that the full coverage of that aspect would create an overall WP:UNDUE weight, then spinning off that content to a stand alone daughter article is appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * in the example above that you have named, i could see an article about the band and one for their discography/videos. The sourced awards are trivial and can be included appropriately in the main article and there is no value in things like listing radio appearances or walk on appearances in TV shows. (note that K-pop has rabid fans who frequently have little understanding that Wikipedia is not a fan page or an understanding of WP:OTHERCRAP, and so convincing those editors could be an exercise that stretches the patience of a saint - "THAT band has seven articles and MY band is almost as popular so it should have at least 4!!!!!") -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * is our resident K-Pop admin-expert, maybe he would like to weigh in...--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well. All those articles have those sub-articles because that's what all those articles have. It is reminiscent of a template being followed for each and every band to build a walled garden for each and every one of them, with K-pop itself being a walled garden where normal editing guidelines don't apply. is quite correct in their assessment, and it applies to the majority of such articles. There can be no question of excessive article length in this case since, as these edits indicate, the article itself was basically just a fan site. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is accepted? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You sometimes need to pick and choose your battles.  In situations of large fanbases dedicated more to their fandom than making an encyclopedia, it generally takes several people dedicated to the task at the same time and on a more or less permanent basis to begin to make a dent. I personally think your great work addressing the AfC backlog is a better use of your time than getting involved in that mess. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One is reminded of Blazing Saddles, where only a fool will go up against Mongo. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't these K-pop people make their own wiki of they don't like the rules in this one? There are other large groups whose articles are strictly controlled (religious groups, for example); these articles aren't just unnecessary - a lot of them have very poor or no sources.  The ones I looked at weren't even tagged for this.  And everyone has decided to leave them alone?   I see no point in trying to get the new editors in Afc to follow policy if the established ones don't have to.   Hmmm, I am a fan too.  Maybe it's time I quit Afc and devoted my time to creating an article listing speeches and public appearance by Isaac Asimov.... and maybe a list article for his 14 honorary doctorates, a separate page for his many awards, an article about all the characters in his novels with character sketches; summaries of all of his editorials, a list translations into various languages, a list of successful authors who have been inspired by him... after all, I can't let some K-pop band have more articles than old Isaac. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You tell 'em!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia was able to get the WP:POKEMON problem under relatively under control; and eventually, the K-pop problem will be mitigated as well. but it will probably take a serendipitous convergence of timing of several people who all feel that their best value-add to the project is their dedicated concentration on the topic. Hopefully that day will come soon. And thanks to Drmies for his work there now to keep it from getting much worser. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Larimar has incorrect photo


In your page for the gemstone Larimar, the photo is neither that of Larimar, nor of Emerald.... The Green stone appears to be Malachite.... Larimar is a Bluestone resembling turquoise to some degree.. Regards Rolfe Foxwell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.40.137 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the official Wikipedia site or one of the many mirrors and forks? The only image currently in the article is a blue stone that looks much like many of the stones on a google image search.  There used to be another image in the article which was removed in September as an error.  Striking that, sorry, that wasn't what was removed.  Let me start again.  Do you mean the first or the second picture?  Spinning  Spark  13:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Waterloo Busker Carnival
I created this for review way back in January of this year.....but am not sure if it is actually IN for review.....or what next steps should be taken. Help! DivaWord (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not up for review. Have you tried clicking the green button that says: " Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed! "?  It looks as if in some of the edits you got things in a tangle in that area, so I've tried to tidy it up & it should be worth trying the submission button (again if that is what you'd tried to do before).  If it fails again, let us know and we can try to submit it on your behalf. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that you've done the submission now, and it is in the queue for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Roksanda Ilincic
The Wikipedia article on Roksanda Ilincic I believe has her date of birth wrong, but I don't know how to check it. I have left a note on the article's Talk page indicating this, but I don't know how often Talk pages are patrolled. People will be looking her up on Wikipedia more often now, as she has been designing clothes for the Duchess of Cambridge recently. --P123cat1 (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Without a source it can be removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

New Question
I have been composing an article in my sandbox for 3 days. I have been saving and previewing it periodically along the way. After I saved and submitted the draft for review, the article has reverted to what is probably the very first save of the article and is almost empty. Will this bug resolve itself in time once the article is reviewed? Or is my work lost forever? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JASCOAppliedSciences/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASCOAppliedSciences (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The history of the article does not show any 'non-empty' version. You probably forgot to save it. Ruslik_ Zero 18:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sebastian barker
Please could you correctly set the following? He has 2 marriages, one to Julie Ellis from whom he was divorced and with whom he had two daughters. The second marriage to Sally rouse was dissolved, with whom he had a son and a daughter. This is very important to all of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.178.153 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Who is "us" and do you have a published reliable source to these alleged marriages? The Google searches and  give no results. Sebastian Barker has a source  for Hilary Davies, and  gives many other sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)