Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 September 19

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.

September 19

sonny tufts?

I've been trying to contact wikipedia for an update on the bio of Sonny Tufts, about the 'myth's' origins (without becoming a member), but as to increase the validity and interest of this page... While listening to Bogdanovich's interviews with Orson Welles, Welles lays claim to beginning the name joke on his radio program, while also admitting that Joseph Cotten has also credited himself over the years. Being that two men of Hollywood history claim the same incidental witticism, I'm inclined to believe that this is no longer a myth. Perhaps you'll agree that the subject warrants further investigation. thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.235.175 (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sonny Tufts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You don't have to register to make edits at Wikipedia, though there are some advantages if you do. If you've found some reliable sources that would improve this article, then feel free either to edit the article yourself, or to post them at Talk:Sonny Tufts where they will be seen by any editors interested in this person. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers

Aloha i'a oukou, Aloha from Honolulu. My name is Randy Ruff, and I was one of the background vocalists on the Chili Peppers first huge record called "Mother's Milk". I edited so that my name would correctly appear, and was very proud when it appeared correctly. But a couple of days later when I checked to show my ailing mother, it was no longer there. My name appears on the album and the CD of the 1989 recording, and I recieved a Gold, Platinum and double Platinum for the work. Ca

Can you please please help me figure out how to return it to the Wikipedia article to show my mother. Call or write anytime. A hui hou ia aku no, Randy Pilialoha Ruff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Ruff (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correctly listed at Mother's Milk#Personnel. Since you were not ever a member of the band, you probably shouldn't be listed at the band's article, but you have already been correctly listed at the article on the album you worked on. --Jayron32 04:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Just wondered if someone could check my DYK entry for Vang Vieng here [1] to check if I'm doing something wrong? Mattun0211 (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You missed step III at Template talk:Did you know#How to post a new nomination so nobody ever saw the nomination. However, the article was already much older than 5 days at nomination time so it didn't qualify for DYK per Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules. It's no longer relevant but regarding the nomination text, the nominated article should be bold and there should be no link to a disambiguation page. "that tubing in Vang Vieng" should have been "that tubing in Vang Vieng". PrimeHunter (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you actually edit the text as it appears on the mainpage?

Todays featured article "Stark Raving Dad" appears on the mainpage as "...Michael Jackson (pictured) guest starred..." - except he isn't pictured. "(pictured)" could do with being removed, but if I go to the article itself, "(pictured)" doesn't appear. I'm sure it's easy to do, but I can't seem to figure it out. a_man_alone (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That detail is in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 19, 2011, which is protected so we can't edit it. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So who can? It looks silly. a_man_alone (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Now raised at WP:Main Page/Errors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers - never even knew of that page, or I'd have done it. a_man_alone (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed "pictured" after seeing the report here and not at WP:Main Page/Errors but that is indeed the right place to report. If you click "View source" on a protected page then there should be instructions about how to request an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case on the main page - I originally tried "View Source" but couldn't see anything to help, and I've just tried it again - even now I know what I'm looking for, I don't see anything to point me towards WP:Main Page/Errors... a_man_alone (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm an administrator so I have an "Edit" link on the Main Page, but if I log out and click "View source" then I see instructions including "Report errors on the Main Page" which links to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's weird - and one for discussion perhaps: If I click on "View source" I get the following:

"You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

This page has been protected to prevent editing.

You can view and copy the source of this page:"

And that's it.

However, if I logout, and then view the source - ie as an IP editor, not a registered user - I get a huge template telling me that I can, as you point out, raise the issue at the mainpage help. I know what to do now, but it's not very helpful to others. a_man_alone (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does Wiki always refer to America?

Can someone please explain why Wiki always refers to America in articles? Like eg "in the United States a poll was etc etc" or "According to the United States...etc" or even "The United States Government etc etc", why does the English version of Wiki always refer to the United States in the basis of determining articles, or referencing "supposed fact" in relation to studies and polls in the US, what about all the other English speaking nations and the rest of the world? It seems like if anybody is editing these articles they are in the US? So how can anybody get the general consensus of the entire planets views rather than just what the US Government says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.157.252 (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that because most English Wikipedia contributors are from the US it is inevitable that much of the article content would be from US sources. The only way to alleviate this systemic bias is to add material from other countries and to recruit more contributors from outside the US. Roger (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are particular examples of pages which you feel represent an unbalanced view, you might consider using Template:Globalize. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that a wiki is a type of website and Wikipedia is only one of thousands of wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all articles on the English Wikipedia refer to America, but it has 6,819,030 articles and nobody has read them all. Most people read articles within a subset of topic areas they find interesting, possibly giving them an unrepresentative sample of Wikipedia as a whole. Perhaps within the subset of articles you have read, there are some articles with an excessive focus on the United States. (This would not be surprising, because in 2007 just over half of contributors to the English Wikipedia were from the United States.) If you link to some of those articles, we can inspect them to see if they need improving, and then improve them so you can study what we did. Also see WP:NOTWIKI. --Teratornis (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue with article for Bain & Company

The article for Bain & Company includes a section called "The Bain India Incident" that is not relevant to the subject of the article. The section has been deleted by members of the community and re-added repeatedly. The section alleges a Bain & Company connection to India's anti-corruption movement.

A large sub-section entitled "Relationship with the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement" has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Any relevant content should be moved to articles related to the India anti-corruption movement.

The source alleging a connection between Bain & Company and the anti-corruption movement, reference #19 (now deleted), is "^ Unattributable source under Chatham House Rules." References to unverifiable sources should not be allowed. Without a reference, however, the assertion is unverified and I believe it should be removed entirely.

In addition, there are proper references, in the sentence below, but they do not justify the claims being made. "In response to client demands from mounting PR pressure, Melgiri's campaign resulted in the replacement of Bain India's MD and Country Head as well as other re-organizational changes to Bain's New Delhi and Mumbai offices;[19][20] the next day, Bain released an article on implementing more "bias-free" HR practices to the Indian financial daily The Economic Times.[21]"

Sources 19 and 20 are simply announcements of changes to Bain & Company's organizational structure, but have no linkage to mounting PR pressure or client demands. Similarly, The Economic Times article ([21]) is a commentary authored by a Bain & Company author (a U.S. based expert on organizations, according to the article) and is unrelated to any change in the firm's HR practices.

I initially attempted to make these changes, and then saw they were reverted. I then reviewed the revision history and found it has been a persistent back and forth since early September. How can this be handled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJmeditor (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

NJmeditor (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed that 34 of the 55 references cited are to support the paragraphs on this controversy. Checking out the first few of these references, I see they support the bare fact but not the controversy. For example: "In response to client demands from mounting PR pressure, Melgiri's campaign resulted in the replacement of Bain India's MD and Country Head as well as other re-organizational changes to Bain's New Delhi and Mumbai offices;[19][20]", ... references 19 and 20 support the notion that Bain made some senior management changes but not that client demands or Melgiri had anything to do with it. The following phrase: "...the next day, Bain released an article on implementing more "bias-free" HR practices to the Indian financial daily The Economic Times.[21]" is supported by reference 21, but there appears to be no link in the reference to the previous days events. Placing the two phrases one after the other seems like unwarranted WP:SYNTHESIS to push a certain POV. It continues in the same way, copious references supporting the bare facts but nothing actually draws it together into the implied controversy. I'm tempted to add a big "so what" to the lengthy discussion on the talk page but I fear it will be lost under the large chunks of the text being copied there too (complete with copious references). This editwar needs to stop (perhaps the article could be protected for a while and the edit warring parties suitably warned) and the article edited so it complies with Wikipedia's policies on No original research and a neutral point of view. For the time being, I have tagged the whole section with {{Synthesis}} and requested additional citations for the claims made. Astronaut (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this Astronaut. That's exactly what I was looking for. I was not aware of the WP:SYNTHESIS concept, but it expresses the concerns I had about the arctile. I'll refrain from making further edits so that I'm not escalating an edit war. Others have tried to pull the content in question onto the Talk page for further discussion, with it being re-added to the article each time. At least now there is a clear label reflecting the underlying concern about it. NJmeditor (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by NJmeditor (talk • contribs) 15:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

External Links to real estate websites

Hello,

Is it innappropriate to add a link to a real estate website under the external links category? Agents that specialize in a particular city should be able to be listed under the external links part, correct?

Thanks, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdjohnson2 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory nor an advertising outlet. The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:External links. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

RICK JAMES/COLD BLOODED (ALBUM)

RUSTYSCAGE 17:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)THE LINK FROM RICK JAMES DISCOGRAPHY TO HIS ALBUM COLD BLOODED LINKS TO A MEDICAL REFERENCE SITE. NOT SURE I AM QUALIFIED TO CHANGE OR MAKE THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT AS THE PAGE FOR THE ALBUM DOES NOT EXIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RUSTYSCAGE (talk • contribs)

Please stop SHOUTING. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've changed the link for the album at Rick James discography to a red link for now. By the way, writing all in capitals isn't always considered good internet etiquette. Singularity42 (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

ABOUT STEAM ENGINE........

Actually my question is that... IN SUBMARINERS, WHY THEY MOSTLY USE/PREFER STEAM ENGINE ?? Y NOT DIESEL ENGINE ??? ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF STEAM ENGINE ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikanth2142 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. I hope this helps. Additionally, please do not type in ALL CAPS. The use of all-caps typing is considered screaming in most places on the internet, and screaming at a bunch of strangers of whom you have a question is a bit rude. --Jayron32 17:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

See Submarine#Propulsion for a discussion of various technologies. Diesel-electric submarines were the standard design from the first and second world wars. Later, nuclear powerplants driving steam turbines enabled submarines to stay submerged far longer, since they no longer needed to surface for air to run the diesel engines, or use a snorkel. A modern nuclear submarine is able to stay submerged almost indefinitely, with the limiting factors being crew fatigue and running out of food for the crew after several months. --Teratornis (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi,

I am an employee of Peter J. Solomon Company, a boutique investment bank in New York City, and I would like to write an article about the firm as currently there is none. Of course, I understand there is a conflict of interest since I work for the company, but from reading around it seems that as long as the article's content is completely non-biased and properly cited from reliable sources, then I can still write the article. Can you please confirm?

Thank you! Evan Schindewolf Eschind (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's advice on conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. An important thing to understand is that once an article appears on Wikipedia, your organization cannot control its content. Other editors might add unflattering content, and it might stick if it is well-sourced. (Putting an article on Wikipedia is somewhat analogous to running for political office. Is there any dirt for someone to dig up?) See WP:OWN. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, so long as the company meets our guidelines for inclusion. It is best to create it as a draft first though and then get another editor to take a look before making it live. If you start it at User:Eschind/Peter J. Solomon Company and drop a note on my talk page, I will take a look for you. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Assistance requested with file version

Quick query - with respect to this image, any ideas as to what happened? In the past, I seem to recall being able to upload a file with the same name as an existing graphic and (by doing so) simply add a newer version to the page. However, when I did that today, it seems to have over-written the old page entirely and thus wiped out the existing rationale. To make matters worse, I can't find the page history to undelete my change, even with the admin bit. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow you've uploaded this to Wikipedia when the other version is at commons - commons:File:Plutoids compared to Luna.png. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's the problem. Thanks for the quick reply - I've uploaded the revision to Commons and deleted the local copy. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dutson

The article for Dutson was recently created and it appeared on my watchlist. This means that it must have been put on my watchlist at some point in the past. Although, when I look at the deletion logs, I can't find any reference to this article at all. What's going on here?

I'm ignoring the question of whether the article even belongs here in the first place, for now. Dismas|^(talk) 18:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You tagged it db-bio on June 20, 2006. --Jayron32 18:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So, why isn't there an entry in the deletion log? Dismas|^(talk) 19:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but there are two deleted edits, and you made one of them, which was to add db-bio. The article was deleted by Pilotguy, when I check the deleted edits, it shows this:

• (del/undel) 14:40, June 20, 2006 Pilotguy (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Dutson" ‎ (content was: '{{db-bio}}DutsonName of family who resided in the Bury district of Lancashire from at least 1725. Earlier generations of the family were hatt...')

Old logs have some missing bits in them; I don't exactly know why, but occasionally I have seen similar glitches. Maybe someone at VPT would know the answer. --Jayron32 19:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I see the same entry in the deletion log:

• 09:40, June 20, 2006 Pilotguy (talk | contribs) deleted "Dutson" ‎ (content was: '{{db-bio}}'''Dutson'''Name of family who resided in the Bury district of Lancashire from at least 1725. Earlier generations of the family were hatt...')

Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 19:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's in the logs for the page, but when you check the deletion log around the time in question: [2] it doesn't exist. No idea why. --Jayron32 19:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Your link is for June 30. It was deleted June 20 and appears in the deletion log at the time.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten

I've forgotten my username and password and need it urgently! How do i find out what they were? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.39.58 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary for you to remember your username, there's just no way around that. If you have a general idea of what it was, try searching for the first characters using Special:Listusers, maybe the results will refresh your memory. If you do remember your username, and you still have access to the email address that you registered with, you can request for a new password to be sent to you at Special:UserLogin — frankie (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Or if you can remember any articles that you may have edited, check their edit histories and see if any of the names look familiar. – ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of other suggestions at Help:Logging in#What if I forget the username? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The New Update it Wicc 600 Logo thats On The New Web Site at www.wicc600.com thats on the top left

Dear Help Desk, 9-19-11 Here is the Update that On WICC-AM on the top right below City of licenese Bridgeport, Connecticut The New Update it Wicc 600 Logo thats On The New Web Site at www.wicc600.com thats on the top left needs to get put on right away & Would you please keep that in mind & don,t forget to put The New Update It Wicc 600 Logo thats On The New Web Site at www.wicc600.com thats on the top left needs to get put on right away & don,t forget to go On The New Web Site at www.wicc600.com The New Update it Wicc 600 Logo is on the top left & don,t forget. Please Write Back to my E-mail address is <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.123.170 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh... what? I'm tempted to remove this whole section as spam. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

WICC (AM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this is a request to update the infobox logo from the station's web site, but I'm too sleepy to tackle it now. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The user is an IP hopper whom has just been blocked. He seems to enjoy removing the logos from various Connecticut radio & tv station pages and has been doing it for well over a month. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

music

who are two dancers in music video another way by gigi d agostino84.41.52.103 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Entertainment reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

confused about setting up disambiguation

Two quick questions about starting a new article. I'd like to do one about the movie "The Gymnast". When I punch in the title on Wikipedia the article about the Seinfeld episode "The Gymnast" pops up. I know to build an article about the movie I'll have to work with the disambiguation angle. The info page describing disambiguation is a bit confusing. Anyone have an abridged or easily understandable explination of the process? On the same subject, the publicized image of the DVD cover for the movie "The Gymnast" is all over the internet and in print. Can I just use the image for the article? When I download it what licensing notation should I use? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmasiulewicz (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You would create the article at The Gymnast (film) and then at the top of The Gymnast use the {{for}} template to direct people to the article about the film. Since there are only the two instances, no diambiguation page is needed. Dismas|^(talk) 23:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly the solution I gave at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 September 5#questions about starting new article. Please look for replies to your questions before repeating them. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Constant Deletion of valid articles by another user

To whomever it may concern,

We have been trying to create an article about "Illinois Articulation Initiative" in order to assist transfer students in Illinois. We are the authority on the subject as evident from this page http://www.itransfer.org/contact.aspx.

Every time this article has been created, it has been deleted.

Please advise !!!

Illinois Articulation Initiative team — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Asharm4 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)User:Asharm4|Asharm4]] (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia: Conflict of interest you shouldn't write articles about your own organization. The article was deleted correctly. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And it was a copyright violation, see the message on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide unbiased encyclopaedic information to everyone. If your purpose is to "assist" a particular group of people, especially by talking about one particular organisation, this is not consistent with the purpose - however worthy your organisation's aims may be. An article about your organisation, written in a neutral tone, and based wholly on independent published sources, would on the other hand be completely appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)