Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 March 13

Help desk
< March 12	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 13

Advice on how to make a template with yes/no parameter

I am desperate to figure out how to properly create a template that does this:

• If parameter ugh is not included, then nothing happens.
• If ugh=yes, then certain text is included.

Thank you. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions. Specifically, {{#ifeq:{{{ugh|}}}|yes|whatever text}}. Or, if you want to allow any non-empty value of ugh to trigger the text: {{#if:{{{ugh|}}}|whatever text}}. — TKD::{talk} 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect link, as opposed to a dead link: How to edit?

I found an incorrect external link in the article for Cotton College (Guwahati, India). I've read about how to respond to dead links, and I found a previous help desk entry that relates to the topic of incorrect links. But I'm still not sure I edited the external links section of the article correctly, to respond to the incorrect link. Can you provide feedback, so I'll know how to help next time I encounter such a situation? ( Also, is there any convenient way I can monitor this help request, besides just reviewing the page from time to time, to see whether/when the request has been replied to? ) Thanks! Ohiostandard (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would still call that a dead link, so I reformatted it as such. If a live link is found, it can be fixed. – ukexpat (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[ Historical Note by user Ohiostandard: At this point, after Ukexpat's edit, user PrimeHunter also edited the problematic external link on the Cotton College page. He left helpful comments about his edit on the talk page for the article, and on its history page, where the wikitext he used is explicitly shown, but he left no comment here on this help thread to announce his edit. ( A minor oversight, perhaps, if even that. ) The effect of his edit was to cause the "dead link" tag associated with the link to point to the summary for the Cotton College page in the Internet Archive, rather than to Wikipedia's dead links clearinghouse page, as it had after Ukexpat's edit. If you'd like to review the process, to learn about editing broken links, you should note that for some reason the history page date&time stamps on our respective edits do not correlate well with those of the entries here on this help desk thread. My own edit occurred at 13:45 12 March 2009, according to the history page; Ukexpat's and PrimeHunter's are the next two in sequence. - Ohiostandard (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ]

I didn't know the standard method of dealing with such cases used the internet archive/wayback machine. Very effective, very elegant; thank you. - Ohiostandard (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that the predominant concern that is addressed at Wikipedia:Dead external links—the intent of that page—is actually addressed to dead external links in references, rather than in external links sections. That distinction and underlying rationale is not drawn on the page, which provides little on its drafting intent and is very terse. The only mention of the one verses the other is implicit: "Dead links of online newspaper articles can be converted to references to off-line sources", thus speaking to references. No external links section mention is made. I don't think we need to take any extraordinary steps to save dead external links that are not being used as references. This is expressed in the far more scrutinized and consensus built page Wikipedia:External links, which provides at Wikipedia:External links#Longevity of links, that external links in external link sections should either be replaced or removed rather than marked as dead and left. The section actually addresses that this is different from links in references and refers to yet a third page, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repairing dead links. By virtue of what that page is, we know there they're talking about references.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case [1] it was the official website of the subject. Wikipedia:External links says "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." The article had no references or other external links. Much of the content could probably be verified at the official website in the Internet Archive, and the site may reappear if the college is still active and just forgot to renew the domain registration. In these circumstances I think it was reasonable to keep the site listed with a link to the Internet Archive.PrimeHunter (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The thrust of my post is not to criticize what was done with the link but clarify that that the dead link page is not really the applicable standard (and needs clarification).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked for help; this is a fecund, enlightening discussion. Fuhgettaboutit's points seem to me to be very relevant to the general case, i.e. to the case wherein dead links appear in an article's "External Links" section. I'd be quite inclined to agree in most cases with the principle that broken "links in external link sections should either be replaced or removed rather than marked as dead and left." It's my opinion that the specific instance under discussion does merit an exception to that rule, however, for the reasons PrimeHunter elucidates. Ultimately and ideally, I would of course be delighted to see the issue clarified by a more exact and comprehensive treatment than the pages Fuhgettaboutit cites now provide. ( It took me far too long - a couple of hours reviewing the relevant instructional pages, besides experimenting with the corresponding wikimarkup in my sandbox - to come to even a rudimentary understanding of the issues and process involved in dealing with broken links. ) Two suggestions occur to me in all this: (1) I think it would be helpful to have all the information about dealing with broken links consolidated into a single article, with other articles that need to address the matter then doing so only by reference to that consolidated source rather than proliferating their own instructions and, (2) I think it'd be beneficial if that consolidated article dealt with broken links by section, i.e. if it had discrete instructions for each section of an article page in which broken links may occur, or at least for each group of standard sections wherin broken links should be addressed in an identical way. I appreciate the help and comments from each of you, and that no one bit the newcomer. On the contrary, I'm feeling kind of ... um, gently nuzzled. Btw, PrimeHunter, the independent news articles I found via Google India make it clear that Cotton College is in active operation, but I still couldn't discover any current official web site for them. - Ohiostandard (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Help desk is one of least-bitey areas of Wikipedia, in part because the volunteers who answer questions are quick to bite each other when one of us loses our composure with a newbie. But these are more like love bites. All seriousness aside, there's just a lot more mutual scrutiny here than might be the case in some article-editing contexts on Wikipedia, where it may be harder for some editors to perceive the behavioral norm. Also, on the Help desk, people answer questions about situations where they usually don't have a personal stake in the outcome, since it's not our work getting changed. It's easier to remain objective when we don't care. About your other points:

• Yes, Wikipedia's friendly manuals are complicated, and often their organization (I use the term advisedly) tends to reflect historical contingency rather than intelligent design. All the manuals are the work of editors much like you and me, who were addressing problems they faced in the past, which may not be exactly the permutation confronting the next user. You should not regret any hours you spent studying the manuals. If you intend to make Wikipedia a habit, almost everything you learn on the way to learning something else will tend to come in handy in the future. Especially if you make the wise choice to start answering questions on the Help desk - one sure way to really get a handle on what goes on here. Perhaps the surest way to fail on Wikipedia is to try to spend the least possible time reading manuals.
• We already have consolidated our manuals, in a sense, with the Editor's index to Wikipedia. The primary author of the index explicitly cites the redundancy and multiplicity of documents as a reason for creating the index. Pick any topic of significance that relates to the internal operation of Wikipedia, and we have lots of different pages about it.
• If you think you have problems now, try reorganizing our manuals and see what happens. In many cases, the various pages that treat flavors of a topic have their partisans who might not take kindly to someone else's grand vision. It's easier to start new pages than to reorganize existing pages - and that probably has something to do with our document multiplicity. If a particular document page has been around for a while, and proven useful, it will be the target of a large number of links from user pages, talk pages, and project pages. In that sense it becomes like a financial institution that is "too big to fail". Removing the page becomes like ripping out a kidney.
• We don't refer to Wikipedia's internal documents as "articles", but rather as "pages". (I was about one year into editing on Wikipedia before I learned that distinction.)

You may want to read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. --Teratornis (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we care, just not in the way that makes steam come out of our ears :) Gonzonoir (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, to all, for the very helpful information here. - Ohiostandard (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

creating an informational box on article

I see that many articles about organizations have an informational box at the top right, usually with a logo and a list of information such as type of business, year founded, headquarters location, key personnel, industry, products, etc... I am new to Wikipedia and although I have created an article, I would like to add an informational box (with logo at the top). How to do this? I suspect there is a template lurking somewhere around here... (24.253.219.1 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

If my article is new and has been called "spammy" and "reads like an advertisement" by other Wikipedia folk (I have made numerous revisions, deletions, improvements) is it a good idea to still add a photo or two, or wait until the copy and reference concerns are worked out? I think a photo or two would be an improvement but others may think photos make the article appear more promotional. Really, isn't any photo inherently promotional? Nonetheless, I see many on other Wikipedia articles (examples: Otto Bock, Whole Foods) (24.253.219.1 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the information box, I think you're looking for {{Infobox company}}. See also Category:Business infobox templates. I don't think the addition of an infobox with a logo will work any change to actions taken with regard to advertising or perceived advertising. You seem to be already aware of the need for sources. Note that they should not just be reliable sources but independent of the company—third parties writing about it. Try very hard to write from a neutral point of view (which is very difficult when you are an insider); avoid peacock language, and be aware of our notability standards for companies. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for an overview on the subject. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Table code

Is there a way to make this table function correctly while still having the merged rows in the first column (year) for a couple of the lines? Grsz¹¹ 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If by "function" you mean "sort" I suggest reading Help talk:Sorting, for example Help talk:Sorting#Sorting when column items encompass multiple rows? has an example that seems to be somewhat similar. --Teratornis (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

warn editor about AfD

Is there a tag to warn an editor about an AfD? (I can't find it.) Bubba73 (talk), 04:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion -

For creators who are totally new users: {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~
For creators: {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~
For contributors or established users: {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~
For an article you did not nominate: {{subst:AFDNote|Article title}} ~~~~

HTH. Nanonic (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It is after my bedtime :-). Bubba73 (talk), 04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

After you get some sleep, I suggest determining why you couldn't find what you needed. Wikipedia is huge and complex, so knowing how to find stuff is pretty important. For starters, the term "tag" does not make the best search keyword, because the term is general and includes unrelated things such as HTML tags. The precise name for the class of things you were looking for is Wikipedia:Template messages. If you use these often (and who doesn't?), you might want to put the {{Wikipedia template messages}} template on your User page for handy reference. --Teratornis (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing spaces to underscores

Is there any nice template or function that changes spaces to underscores in a string, leaving the rest of the string unchanged? Stifle (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Any particular reason you'd like to do that? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your browser window provides the url, which contains the page name with underscores, and for any particular section, just go to it through the subject page's table of contents and you will get the full string. For example, I just copied the url for this post from my address bar, and simply chose not to copy the opening "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"; I thus automatically was provided with the underscored string: "Wikipedia:Help_desk#Changing_spaces_to_underscores". There's no need to actually visit the link to do this. You can simply right click on the table of contents link-->properties-->copy the url excerpt. Hope that helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways to change spaces to underscores, depending on what context you have in mind. Are you writing a template? The need to change spaces in template arguments to underscores so they work as part of a URL comes up with External link templates. Happily, we have a magic word to handle this specific case, called {{urlencode:}}. For example, in {{Google custom}} this snippet converts the first argument to work as a URL parameter: &q={{urlencode:{{{2|}}}}}. If that's not the context you have in mind, then tell us the context as we are not mind readers. --Teratornis (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was for a template. I'll have a look at that one; thanks all. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The urlencode changes spaces to + (as well as changing :, /, and other symbols), which isn't what I had in mind. Is there anything that changes spaces to underscores and doesn't touch any other characters? Stifle (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Information on Flash Professional why is it used and who are the people that use the software?

I need to do a presentation on the Software Flash Professional cud u please give me some information like why is it used and by whom.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.71.113 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia. For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: click here. I hope this helps. You may also want to see our article on Adobe Flash. TNXMan 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Font

What's the default font used by Wikipedia? --120.138.100.183 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is none; your browser will display whatever the default sans-serif font is for your settings. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --120.138.100.183 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Update Company listing

Hello, My name is Spencer Linn. I am the Marketing Manager for Upp Technology, Inc. In looking at your company listings I noticed that my companies information is not up to date. Can you please make the following changes?

Integrated Warehousing Solutions, LLC has been renamed/rebranded as Upp Technology, Inc.

Our new website is www.upp.com. There you can find the latest up-to-date information on our company.

<company contact details removed>

Best Regards,

Spencer Linn <blanked> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.22.165.101 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to Integrated Warehousing Solutions, I have just tagged it for speedy deletion. It is about as spammy as you can get and will have to be fundamentally rewritten to stand a chance of remaining on Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place for company listings, it is an encyclopedia for article about notable subjects. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I add a jpg file I just uploaded to my Wikipedia article?

I've just uploaded a jpg image of Dovey Johnson Roundtree and would like to add it to her page. How do I go about doing that? Megavoice (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You go to her page here, then click edit in the section you want to put it in, then put in the image command. The image command can be brought up by clicking the little picture icon next to the trumpet above the edit box. Or you can cut and paste this: [[File:Example.jpg]], where "Example.jpg" is the name of the file you uploaded (may not be jpg). You are probably going to want to format the image, so put it something like this: [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|300px|your caption here]]. 300px is the size you tell the picture to be, you may want it to be bigger or smaller. TastyCakes (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The page does appear to be a bit crowded on the right hand side, so you might want to add |left in the image command to keep it on the left. Which picture is it you want to add? TastyCakes (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

nevermind, someone has already put the image in for you. TastyCakes (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Donation Banner

Hi,

Where can I find the Wikicode for the Donation Banner that was earlier putup in the site. Is there any Javascript page associated with the Banner ? 121.247.81.36 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Chicken Supreme

Hi, i just looked up Chicken Supreme only to find that it's a redirect to chicken kiev?? Please note that Chicken Supreme is nothing like chicken kiev, and is a dish worthy of an article in it's own right in my opinion. See here to see what chicken supreme is. --79.75.184.195 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So why not create an account, be bold and write the article? – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But note that Wikipedia is not a recipe book. – ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look on a large recipe site like Allrecipe.com or Cooks.com, you will find many recipes, each with a very different idea what chicken supreme is. (One recipe even forgot to mention using any chicken) It is a rather generic kind of name. Rmhermen (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

question regarding when certain topics are highlighted with different colors

what does it mean when certain topics regarding the subject matter you are inquiring about is highlighted with different colors. For example when one topic is highlighted in purple and the other is highlighted in pink. What does the pink highlight mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.35.203 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I do know that, many times, the default settings on web browsers cause visited links to display as purple and unvisited links as blue. Also, on Wikipedia, some links are blue (if they link to an existing article) and some are red (if they link to a non-existent article). TNXMan 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting images on my wiki page

I figured out how to upload an image but now I don't know how to make it appear on my page that I am editing in Sandbox. How do I make it appear? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsteve (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to add the image to the page, you'll need to type [[File:NAME OF IMAGE.jpg]]. Make sure you include the entire filename, including the extension. You can also place the image at different spots on the page and/or make it a thumbnail by using image syntax. See WP:Image syntax for more details. TNXMan 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you editing your sandbox under a different account? User:Nsteve only has one edit and that is your message above. – ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Large volume media additions to WikiSource and/or Commons

First off, I'm making the assumption that this is the correct location for discussions on Wikisouce and Commons, which might not be correct.

Question: is there Wiki software available to allow Wikipedia users to view image files (of books/magazines/journals) on the left side of the user's display, with the matching digital article on the right side of the screen? That seems to me to be the ideal: viewing the original document/book/journal/newsclipping complete with illustrations and photos on the left side, while having the digital article (with all its advantages) displayed on the right side of the user's screen.

I've noticed in Wikisource only a few issues of National Geographic Magazine had been uploaded, and of those many were only indexed while only a few had been proofed and were readable as digital articles. To me that seems to ignore the huge stores of desirable articles available from quality magazines/journals that are no longer under copyright protections, prob. a hundred issues of National Geographic alone prior to 1923 as well as tens of thousands of journals. It also seems that an easy way to provide significant benefit to Wikipedia editors and the general public would be to make those public domain magazines and journals available as quickly as possible (via uploaded scanned .Jpeg image files), followed with very simple article indexing with subject tags. Digital conversions, proofing and meta-data could follow afterwards on a time-available basis. If Wiki viewing software (as noted earlier) were used and the scanned article's digital text were not yet available, a message stating so would be added to the blank view on the right side of the screen, opposite to the page image on the left side. Other messages on the right side could indicate the absence or completeness of proofing and meta tags.

For your consideration if this has not yet been discussed -thanks.... HarryZilber (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually your assumption is not correct. Commons help desk is here and Wikisource help is here. – ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource:Wikisource:Requests for assistance may be a more comparable page at Wikisource. —teb728 t c 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing Information

who is in charge of deciding what can be removed from an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.13.47 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No one person is in charge of deciding what can or cannot be in an article. Wikipedia works by consensus, which means everyone that is interested decides which content should or should not be in an article. TNXMan 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The basis for that removal often arises from certain policies that have strong consensus, such as that information in articles, and especially controversial material and quotes, must be verified by citation to reliable sources (and see the subsection of that page, WP:BURDEN, which is especially relevant for your question); must not be original research; and must be written from a neutral point of view. Also note that any unsourced contentious material (positive or negative) about a living person is properly removed immediately.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In a sense, ultimately Jimbo decides. You should read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. --Teratornis (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Argumentum ad Jimbonium?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Or Jimbo ex machina... – ukexpat (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions about corrections of material, editing, Conflict of Interest

I work for a company that has an entry on Wikipedia. My company did not create it. There are a lot of factual errors and inaccuracies about the company as well as a lot of loaded language and unsourced or unverified statements.

I respect Wikipedia's rules and I support its standards. I also value fairness and accuracy.

So I am looking for guidance about what to do regarding content that is just plain incorrect and, additionally, inflammatory accusations/allegations that are unverified or not footnoted. I'll list my questions so if anybody can provide advice, they can do so in reference to the numbers.

1) If I add information about the company I work for, from 3rd party sources, like credible newspaper articles (i.e. AP or Reuters), am I violating the Conflict of Interest guidelines for Wikipedia because I am an employee of the company?

2) If I flag unverified information added by others, am I in violation the Conflict of Interest guidelines for Wikipedia, as an employee of the company?

3) If my addition of verified information or flagging of unverified information is a Conflict of Interest, what do I do? Just post my concerns or content on the talk page and wait for someone to intervene?

4) What happens if no one intervenes?

5) If no one intervenes, does the Conflict of Interest still stand so long as the information involved is incorrect or unsubstantiated?

6) In general, conflict of interest notwithstanding, how much time should pass before material is deleted on the basis that it has been flagged and no third party has intervened?

7) Are company reports, like an Annual Report, audited by external auditors and filed with the SEC (therefore carrying significant penalties for filing false information) acceptable Wikipedia as sources?

8) Am I right or wrong in this interpretation: the Conflict of Interest guidelines preclude a company authorizing changes to its entry or an employee of that company from making changes to the entry about the company, but anybody else is free to edit the entry. If the company find fault supported by Wikipedia policy with regard to content, its only recourse, short of violating the Conflict of Interest guidelines, is to post objections, corrections, alternative sources, etc. in the Discussion/Talk section of the entry and then wait/hope an interested party at some point will act on the information.

I know in the past there have been controversies about companies paying people to write 'nice' things about them or adding material that is more about marketing than about verifiable encyclopedia content. Personally, I have no desire to do that. I do have a real desire, within the guidelines of Wikipedia, to correct the incorrect and eliminate the unsubstantiated and the biased. I just don't quite know how to do it right. I would never want to get into one of those situations where accusations of 'corporate fixing' are leveled at my company. I am confused by the Conflict of Interest statement, as I interpret it, ruling out 'editing your own entry.' Who is more likely to care about inaccurate content? Why, if it can be verified through 3rd party sources, is it considered inappropriate for action to be taken?

I accept Wikipedia doesn't want to be hosed by corporate types with bad judgment and support it. Wikipedia is meant to be an online resource of verifiable material, not a press release. On the flip side, I do not think it is in the spirit of Wikipedia's objectives, nor is it fair to the employees, their families, stockholders, and anyone to form in whole or in part an opinion, to allow inaccurate information to remain in a Wikipedia entry.

Any guidance or advice you can give me would be much appreciated. I could have just set about editing my company's entry but I really do respect that Wikipedia is trying to build a credible and so invested a fair amount of time reading the rules over the last few nights on my own time at home. But, I am left with some questions remaining and an entry that is very flawed.

Thanks very much. Sorry for going so long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CluelessCautiousCapitalist (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do is add a message to the talk page declaring your conflict of interest, listing the changes that you think should be made to the article and providing as many reliable sources for them as you can. – ukexpat (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If we really got serious about enforcing conflict of interest, we wouldn't have many articles about politics, religion, pop culture, etc., because most people who have a burning interest in a topic tend to have some sort of stake in it, and most people who lack an interest in things probably aren't writing articles about them. For example, do we have a strict rule that says anybody who believes in a religion (or actively opposes it) should refrain from writing about it? Of course not. Most people who know about a particular religion are its adherents or its debunkers, since a given religion is largely useless to everyone else (thought much about Zeus lately?). In my opinion, if someone comes to the Help desk and admits to a conflict of interest, he or she doesn't have a conflict of interest, at least not in the sense of someone who hasn't heard that we have a WP:COI guideline, or purposely violates it. Besides, merely working for a company doesn't determine what a person might write about it, because there are such things as whistleblowers and disgruntled employees. If someone works in public relations or is a company owner or senior manager, then we could expect astroturfing and peacock language, but if it's a technically-inclined junior employee who plays buzzword bingo in meetings and reads Dilbert, maybe he or she hasn't sold out entirely yet. If you can still find some irony in your workplace, then I'd say you have a shot at being objective. On the other hand if you're over 50 and are more interested in business than in pursuing the appropriate sex, then maybe not. Note that this is just my opinion; we have 47,337,723 registered users, and many of them will reflexively oppose any editing of a company article by anyone associated with the company. That doesn't mean they would automatically "win" in a dispute with you, but you would be spotting them to a considerable head start going in. Which means you would need to have even more Wikipedia experience and knowledge of our stupefyingly complex rules than they do.

In general you should read all the stern warnings in WP:BFAQ, and if you're really serious, read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Study our featured articles about other businesses - those reflect our highest editorial standard. Ideally, you should demonstrate some interest in Wikipedia, rather than just in one particular topic, by first improving some articles where you don't have a potential conflict of interest. Even better, you could answer several hundred questions on the Help desk (I'm not kidding, that's how I learned about Wikipeda). Doing such altruistic things will help you gain experience and understanding in areas with a low potential for disputes before you attempt a tricky type of editing that would challenge even the best of us. (It would be a bad idea for you to plunge straight into editing the article about your company while you're still learning the basics here.) Then, as ukexpat advises, you could either make suggestions on the talk page for the company article, or (if your suggestions are extensive) you could edit a copy of the article in your userspace (for example, in User:CluelessCautiousCapitalist/Sandbox). Generally the biggest deficiency on Wikipedia is the lack of reliable sources, so you can make a real contribution by supplying some. A reliable source does not become less reliable merely by being suggested by someone who might have a conflict of interest. You should, of course, explain your conflict of interest on your user page if you intend to influence the article about your company. Thanks for reading our instructions and trying to play by the rules. Wikipedia would be a whole lot better if every user did that. Here's hoping you quickly outgrow the first word in your username. And thanks for writing a long question, it balances my long reply nicely.

If this sounds too difficult, it may be possible to buy some help with improving the article about your company to good or featured status. See Wikipedia:Bounty board and Wikipedia:Reward board. There's no conflict of interest with you or your company paying to have someone else improve the article about your company, because our article review process is rigorous and largely immune to outside influence. If even a hint emerged that someone was trying to subvert an article review, the scrutiny would multiply. --Teratornis (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article for RFID

Hi i tried posting this article on Wikipedia and it got deleted for "blatant addvertising." I don't know what to do to make it acceptable to be posted. I feel that it is not advertising but I don't know what i can add or subtract to make it acceptable. Please help. Carolyn Mejia e-mail: <blanked>Cocom1226 (talk)

Here it is:

RFID Journal Live! Is an annual conference focused on radio frequency identification (link to RFID Wiki article page) and its many applications in the business world. The event provides information on the latest solutions and advances in radio frequency identification, allowing attendees to share ideas with other attendees from over 30 countries and plan strategies for the future. End users discuss what they’ve learned, vendors exhibit their latest products, and start-up organizations unveil their newest innovations. One event is held in the United States, one event in Canada and yet another in Europe. Upcoming Event The Seventh Annual Conference and Exhibition will be held from April 27th to April 29th, 2009, at the Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort (link to Swan Resort Wiki page) in Orlando, Florida. The conference will focus on panel discussions, including topics such as RFID Basics, The Benefits of RFID, Microsoft Biz Talk RFID in the Real World, Positioning Your Company for Success in Tough Economic Times, How to Track Files with RFID, How RFID Delivers Shipping Accuracy and Cost Savings, and much more. Listing of Past Events RFID Journal LIVE! Europe 2008 – Held November 4-6, 2008 in the Clarion Congress Hotel, Prague, Germany. RFID Journal LIVE! 2008 – Held April 16-18, 2008 in the Venetian, Las Vegas, Nevada RFID Journal LIVE! Canada 2007 – Held November 26-28, 2007 in the Toronto Congress Centre, Toronto, Canada RFID Journal LIVE! Europe 2007 – Held November 6-8, 2007 in the Mövenpick Hotel Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands RFID Journal LIVE! 2007 – Held April 30 - May 2, 2007 in Disney’s Coronado Springs Resort, Orlando, Florida RFID Journal LIVE! 2006 – Held May 1-3, 2006 at MGM Grand, Las Vegas, Nevada RFID Journal LIVE! Europe 2006 – Held October 25-27, 2006 at Hotels van Oranje, Amsterdam, The Netherlands RFID Journal LIVE! 2005 – Held April 10-12, 2005 in the Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers, Chicago, Illinois RFID Journal LIVE! Europe 2005 – Held October 11-12, 2005 at Hotel Okura, Amsterdam, The Netherlands RFID Journal LIVE! Canada 2006 – Held November 8-9, 2006 in the Toronto Congress Centre, Toronto, Canada History The RFID Journal Live! Conference and Exhibition is hosted by RFID Journal (link to RFID Wiki page). A privately held corporation, RFID Journal, LLC was launched on March 1, 2002 by founder and editor, Mark Roberti, and is headquartered in Melville, N.Y. With a national and international membership base, RFID Journal provides services to a wide variety of industries. RFID Journal, Inc. is a member of American Business Media (link to AMB Wiki page), the association for business media companies and is listed in Dun & Bradstreet’s (link to D&B page) database of privately held corporations. External Link <blanked> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocom1226 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the deletion log RFID Journal Live was deleted because it did not assert the notability of the subject. See WP:N for Wikipedia’s notability guideline. Has the subject received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject? If so, what did those sources say, citing the sources. If not, Wikipedia has articles only about notable subjects. —teb728 t c 23:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the fact that this years conference will not be held until next month, I would guess that it has not (yet) received the substantial coverage that would qualify it for an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia—not a publicity medium. —teb728 t c 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See RFID Journal for an example of a page that is written somewhat more like an encyclopedic article rather than a press release. Even this article has a major problem in that it does not demonstrate notability and thus is in danger of being deleted. But at least it asserts notability. —teb728 t c 08:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)