Help desk
< December 31	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 2 >

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.

January 1[edit]

Quasi-Autobiography[edit]

Can I WP:PROD an article solely because it is written by the writer of the subject of the article(an album)? --FrankDev (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs are supposed to be uncontroversial, so the tag might be removed by the original author if you place it there. I think articles for deletion is a better place for that. - a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 10:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can, but: what do you mean by "solely"? If it is notable, properly sourced (reliable / independent / multiple, etc.) - and there is no obvious bias, etc. - then you might have a hard sell based "solely" on WP:COI [in my humble, IP opinion]. ~IP=74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While COI editing can be controversial, it is generally accepted that being created by an editor with a COI is only relevant to a deletion discussion if there is some other valid reason for deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I upload a picture?[edit]

I've tried it. Kyxx (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To upload a picture you need to be an auto confirmed user (minimum). Because auto confirmed user ,confirmed user and administrators can upload files or picture. Do 10 edits you'll be an auto confirmed user and can upload pictures. You've only 1 edits. So happy editing.--Pratyya ^{(Happy New Year)} 14:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be autoconfirmed your account also has to be at least 4 days old, so you also have to wait until 17:23 (UTC) on January 3, 2013, plus the ten edits mentioned above. Note that if the image you have in mind is in the public domain or is copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, it can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image. Autoconfirmation is not required for image uploads at the Commons, so once you sign up there, you can upload a free image immediately. Non-free images cannot be hosted there at all, and can only be used here under very strict standards that most images cannot meet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkin' About Edits[edit]

Before making a major edit in an article, would it be a good idea to talk about the edit first on the talk page? Thank you. Henrib736 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on the context, and the history of dispute on an article. Per WP:BOLD you are generally free to be bold and go ahead with the edit, and then discuss it if anyone objects. If you expect the edit to be very controversial it can help to discuss it ahead of time, but its not strictly required except on a very small subset of articles subject to aggressive sanctions. Still, there is nothing that says you can't discuss it first. The advantage to making the edit first, is then there is a concrete set of changes to discuss, rather then you needing to explain your proposed edit as well. In most cases, just making the bold edit is the way to go. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you!Henrib736 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The telephone finally the truth[edit]

I'm a Canadian living in the USA. I've been reading all the complete lies about Alexander graham bell. The phone was invented in Branford,Ontario.my relatives live in Branford and I've been to his lab on the bell homestead where his invention took place. There is a huge monument to him in brantford. He came to Canada at 23 and he stayed longer than a year. That was his home not his summer home as you have have said, his first call was to Watson who was in Paris, otntario, 7 miles down the road, not down the hali in Boston. Visit brantford and you'll finally be able to tell the truth and you' ll also see where Gretzky was born. You Americans think Canada is where you go moose hunting. Bob taylor in Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.192.20 (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ranting aside, do you have a single reliable source for any of that (apart from the moose hunting bit)?--ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Graham Bell clearly discusses Brantford. You need to tell us what articles are in error. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 17:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from smartphone is a pain[edit]

Is there a convenient way for editing from my smartphone ? For example typing this was a real pain because I hardly See what I type . The buttons oft the virtual keyboard hide almost the entire editing window and the window automatically scrolls so far that I can no longer See what I Type.-- Toshio Yamaguchi 18:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone elses mileage will differ, but in my experience, the short answer is "no". There is some advice at Wikipedia:Editing on mobile devices#Scrolling that might be useful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found that how I am holding the phone makes a huge difference. The scrolling problem doesn't occur, if I am holding the phone vertically, because then the keyboard field doesn't hide so much of the screen. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think that the official Wikipedia app should have editing capabilities in addition to reading capabilities. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Key fob[edit]

could you plese post a key fob link thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.28.75 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is unclear, please clarify.--ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you want but here are links to an article and images: Keychain#Key fob and commons:Category:Key fobs. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links for persons added to Wikipedia lists[edit]

I'd like to add Robert Zend to "List of Canadian Poets":

Zend is a notable Hungarian-Canadian poet with many books to his credit (published by reputable presses) and has an entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/robert-zend

However, he does not yet have a Wikipedia entry. May I add his name to the List of Canadian Poets with a link to his entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia? Stunnedplankton (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

depends on the rules for the article- ask on the talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 18:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criterion appears to be blue links only (ie only individuals who have Wikipedia articles about them).--ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...so I have removed Zend and the external link from the article.--ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues at Talk:List of Canadian poets, draft article on Zend in progress at User:Ukexpat/Robert Zend.--ukexpat (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Robert Zend.--ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calixarene article edit removed[edit]

An edited version of "History" in the article on Caixarenes has been removed. The edit was to remedy some serious errors in the original version of "History". What is the reason for removing this badly needed correction. I am often referred to as "the godfather" of calixarenes and am one of the principal investigators in developing the calixarenes. C. David Gutsche — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.David Gutsche (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you pick the 'History' tab at the top of the article, you will see that user "Uncle Milty" moved your discussion to the article's talk page. This is entirely appropriate, because your contribution as it stands was not part of an article but discussion about the article. If after a suitable pause nobody has disagreed with your replacement text, you may add it to the article - without the preamble, but preferably with inline citations to reliable sources. One further point: we value the contributions of experts to Wikipedia, but many experts are accustomed to their contributions to discussions being accepted without question. This tends not to happen in Wikipedia, where we require content to be verifiable. --ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indirectly related topic[edit]

Just curious: ~ if it were possible to establish that user:C.David Gutsche is C(arl) David Gutsche, -could we cite his contribution directly? ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "cite his contribution directly"? References must be to reliable published sources, which does not include anything in Wikipedia. If CDG's research has been published in reliable organs, then these publications may be cited (though CDG himself should be cautious about doing so because of his possible conlifct of interest). --ColinFine (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a thought, but since editing: "...agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.", etc., that in some respect, an edit could be considered "published" material (under certain conditions?). (Anyway, "never-mind" ~E :[modified: added subheader] 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing in Wikipedia may be considered reliable for the purpose of citation, because anybody at all may have posted it or subsequently edited it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

74.60.29.141 asked about an edit. I assume the idea is to link to a specific diff by an account with a confirmed owner, and cite the diff as a selfpublished expert source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. I don't know whether we have a specific policy against this, but I certainly wouldn't do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for having this be more of a discussion than a question. But... What happens when somebody checks the box "I am an expert" (on the feedback box) - and they actually are an expert; and in fact not only pioneered in the field, but actually originated the term used as the article's title. And this person corrects errors, etc. My main concern here is that WP has a reputation of being shunned by experts, and those who choose to become involved are quickly discouraged. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Expert editors. Experts should still be able to give published reliable sources when challenged. Wikipedia feedback should not be used as a source. Per WP:SELFCITE, a recognized expert who wanted something published in Wikipedia could in theory publish it somewhere else on the Internet first and then use that as source. But if they make this publication for the specific purpose of being able to add it to Wikipedia then I think conflict of interest concerns means they should suggest the edit and let others decide. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Citations[edit]

Jacques Koolen:User page Hi, I am editing an article and have inserted several citations. I have mad a mistake on one so am I able to delete that one and replace it with the correct one? Thanks...Jacques Koolen (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Jacques KoolenJacques Koolen (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, but note that your user page is not really the place to create draft articles. You should move the text to a WP:SUBPAGE or use the articles for creation process. And note that as you have a conflict of interest, you should be mindful of the advice at WP:COI.-ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your draft to User:Jacques Koolen/sandbox. User:Jacques Koolen is where you tell us about yourself, Jacques Koolen and how he plans to work here, how he thinks, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Ricardo Falero[edit]

Luis Ricardo Falero. Is it me or could the gallery be adusted to look better? More wide, less tall, and larger images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think it looks much nicer. You like?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work, thank you!--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved