Help desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

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 17[edit]

Possible malware linked in Solomon's Key article[edit]

The first External Link listed for the article Solomon's_Key is the Solomon's Key instruction manual. My avast! antivirus software reported blocking a trojan when I clicked the link. I didn't want to delete the link myself in case it is a false alarm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.218.15 (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some JavaScript code in the external page that has been obfuscated by the Dean Edwards Packer and then again using another common obfuscation method. This sort of obfuscation, commonly used on browser exploit sites, can cause antivirus alerts. Without closer examination, I don't know for sure whether the code is malicious or not, yet I removed the link you mentioned and one other as violations of our copyright policy (see WP:COPYLINK). I also removed a third link as going against criterion 11 of our WP:ELNO guideline, which advises that as Wikipedians we should only link to notable fansites. PleaseStand (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Lack of Anniversary on Main Page[edit]

On September 17th, 1862, 23,000 Americans were killed, wounded or missing at the Battle of Antietam. This was the bloodiest day in American history, so I think it should be mentioned on the Anniversary section on the Main Page. Let us honor those who died for the American cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.36.115 (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the 150th anniversary, I'd tend to agree with you, although that should have been suggested long enough ago that the article could have been checked thoroughly before hand. While no anniversary is mentioned every year, it was last listed in 2007, its 145th anniversary. Dru of Id (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 108.6.36.115! Your suggestion is a good one, unfortunately it is a little too late for it to be approved to make the main page today. If you are interested in helping pick future events for Wikipedia's On This Day segment on the main page, go to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/September and select the "talk" link under the date you wish to make a suggestion for (other months can also be navigated from that page). Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries has criteria for how OTD items are selected. --Jayron32 04:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the battle is obviously notable and probably should be a "selected anniversary", it is not the job of Wikipedia to "honor those who died for the American cause" or any other cause for that matter.--ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain but not visible[edit]

Hello,

why is the public domain file [1] not visible here in my sandbox? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because that file appears to be located on the Russian Wikipedia, rather than on en-wiki or at Commons. AFAIK, inter-wiki tags don't work on files, though I'm open to being corrected if someone knows better. I'd suggest asking the Russian user who uploaded it (Участник:Евгений Мухтаров) to move it to Commons so that it can be used here. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does the MOS say about using descriptors?[edit]

Some editors are discussing whether or not it is appropriate to use a descriptor before a linked article.

The Southern Poverty Law Center says.....

vs.

The civil rights organization Southern Poverty Law Center says.....

Is there a MOS guideline on when such descriptors should be used?

Thanks little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must depend on the context. As a first stab, I would say that "a descriptor should be used if it will make the article easier to understand for a significant proportion of its readers". Maproom (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think is is pretty easy in this case and little dispute about the aims of the SPLC; but as a general rule I think we should be careful about using descriptors. Remember one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Astronaut (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stop that annoying ad on the top please[edit]

It is very very annoying while reading an article...the monument ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.218.93 (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you create an account you can disable those banner notices.--ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to "turn off" temporarily a page which should be validated first (before being published)[edit]

Hi,

We would like to "turn off" a page temporarily for a client. See the revisions on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camus_Cognac

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Edouard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athomedia77 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should actually be deleted as a blatant violation of the rule against promotion. Roger (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other then tagging it for speedy deletion WP:CSD, the only other thing you could do is add __NOINDEX__ to the page so that it wont be indexed. There is no way to 'unpublish' an article short of deletion of some sort. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already tagged it for Speedy deletion as Spam (G11). Roger (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else has reverted it back to a pre-spam state. Roger (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And before you make any more edits on behalf of any of your clients, please read WP:COI, WP:BESTCOI and WP:BFAQ.--ukexpat (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athomedia est une agence conseil et de déploiement de stratégies sur les médias sociaux. They have been blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even after assuming good faith, there is a clear violation of WP:DUCK at campuscow (talk · contribs). EngineerFromVega ^★ 08:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Move and Re-Direct Please[edit]

Hello,

I need help undoing a move and re-direct that I did today from my sandbox. It wiped out a previous contribution of mine on Francis M. Forster and replaced it with Karl Lennert. I did not intend to do that. Thanks for any help you can give. mrwick1 --Mrwick1 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed, by User:GB fan. Maproom (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured it out. You probably went to User:Mrwick1/sandbox but since that is a redirect to Karl Lennert it took you there. You then edited that article and changed it to and article about Francis M. Forster, subsequently moving it to that name. I have since moved it back to Lennert and restored that article. Then I created the Forster article and pointed to the history of Lennert to provide attribution for the edits you made. When working on articles you need to watch the title to make sure you are working where you mean to be. GB fan 17:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should unmerge the history of the Karl Lennert article from that of Francis M. Forster. Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did that, figured out how after a wrong start, but I think I got everything done right now. GB fan 19:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

revamped my article and want to make sure it's ok before I submit??[edit]

I've been working on this page forever. Can someone please take a minute to look at it to tell me if I did it right this time? Thank you!

Robert Zausner (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks far too promotional in tone to me, like something you would read on the firm's website.--ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is User:Robert_Zausner/Thomas_R._Kline. I agree with ukexpat – to be accepted as an article, it needs a lot of hype deleted. (And a picture which actually lets us see his face would be an improvement.) Maproom (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback. I will make some changes and then try again. I uploaded a photo and apparently there was a photo with the same name and it keeps bringing that one up. I can access it through the commons but when I paste it with the file name it brings up another photo. I will not let me upload the same photo with a different name either. Any suggestions?

Robert Zausner (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the picture – what I currently see is an image on Wikipedia Commons (not English Wikipedia), named "Silhouette-red-tall-high res.jpg", with the description "Image of Tom Kline, Trial As Theatre, 2009", uploaded by you on September 12th. I do not think that it would let you upload a picture with the same name as one that already existed. You have also uploaded, on September 14th, an image named "Kline.jpg". This would be a much more appropriate picture, except that it appears (at least to me) with strong grey horizontal lines. I suspect that these are because you used a CMYK jpeg instead of an RBG jpeg – Wikipedia cannot handle the CMYK colour encoding. Maproom (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the picture on Wikipedia Commons, converting CMYK to RGB, so as to remove the horizontal bands. However I find that when I try to use it in the article I get a picture of a tall building among autumn trees. I do not know how to fix this. Choosing a name as short as "Kline" is likely to result in a clash, but this should have been detected by the Commons upload software. Maproom (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kline.jpg" that you uploaded is in Commons, the autumnal building "Kline.jpg" is in English Wikipedia. That is why you did not get a warning when you uploaded it. I am sure there is an easy way to specify that you want the Commons version in the article, but I do not know what it is. Maproom (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed Commons' file. Ruslik_Zero 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got the picture up. Thank you for renaming it for me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Zausner (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this note from my boss:

We can certainly tone down the bio. The idea was never to “promote” Tom Kline but merely to impress the folks at Wikipedia that he really deserves to be on their site on his own merits. He really is the best-known and, by many accounts, the best trial lawyer in Philadelphia, a city known for its lawyering. Just this year he’s been on hundreds of TV news shows such as ABC World News Tonight and Nightline and Good Morning America – showing the news media recognizes him widely -- and he’s won tons of huge verdicts in a 30-year career. Since Superlawyers – and I admit it’s a largely commercial enterprise -- started rating lawyers, he has been their No. 1 in Pennsylvania every year for nine straight years. Best Lawyers says he the best med-mal lawyer in Philly and among the best in America. He’s past president of the Inner Circle of Advocates, which allows only 100 of the best trial lawyers as members from the entire country. He’s on the Drexel Board of Trustees. And he does some things that other lawyers don’t – like his Trial As Theatre performances at the Wilma Theater. For the folks at Wikipedia, I was a reporter at The Philadelphia Inquirer before I left to write a book about one of Tom Kline’s (and partner Shanin Specter’s) cases. The book was published several years ago and is titled “Two Boys.” See Amazon -- http://www.amazon.com/Boys-Divided-Fortune-United-Tragedy/dp/1933822155/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1347907422&sr=8-2&keywords=robert+zausner That said, it’s good that the folks at Wikipedia have recognized the submission of Tom Kline’s bio – and we appreciate the critique. Now we’ll work on shortening the bio and toning down some of the superlatives so it is suitable for Wikipedia’s pages.

Robert Zausner (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, but who is "we"? If you are the Robert Zausner who wrote that book, then you are currently the "web writer" for Kline & Specter, which makes Tom Kline your boss. If so, then you have a massive conflict of interest and should not be writing a Wikipedia article about him. If I'm wrong about this I apologise unreservedly, but please see WP:BESTCOI. - Ka renjc 21:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional language doesn't impress us. Sources that prove notability without fluffing up the subject impress us. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would you distinguish between "impress the folks ... that he really deserves" and "promote"? I can't see a difference. --ColinFine (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]