Help desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28[edit]

Validation of information provided[edit]

Hey I looking at making contributions regarding some of your topics and I would like to understand if information submitted is vetted or reviewed by a panel of "expertises" before its allowed to be submitted as a page, ie how do you stop misinformation.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.215.130 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else see a WP:BEANS issue here? Asking before I answer. — The Potato Hose 01:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems trollish to me. Lots of Help desk stuff going down, troll-wise, recently. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered by the article Reliability of Wikipedia and the sources it refers to. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though this is NOT a reliable source of information...as anyone can post any lie they want to.

Stuck- need photos...any volunteers?[edit]

I have a short task for a bored wikipedian who has access to a camera and the means to photograph the lower part of their face (no-one will be able to identify you from these)

I'm after nice, brightly lit, non blurry close up pictures like:

this [1] (no need to photograph whole face- just mouth)
this [2]
and this [3]

They will be used on the trismus and temporomandibular joint dysfunction articles to illustrate physiotherapy techniques for these disorders. It would be great if someone could make me some photos like this and upload under a license that won't get deleted- public domain or the normal one.

Thanks, and it's definitely worth some barnstars ;-) Lesion (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesion, maybe this is not the best place for such requests. Try commons:COM:R instead, which is on Commons. But there's no guarantee that the request would be fulfilled in a timely manner. --Glaisher (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that more people visit this page so it would a be a good place to ask. The issue is about editing wikipedia- I don't think it's inappropriate to ask this here. Lesion (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do the fingers need to be in them? Dismas|^(talk) 12:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. The external links show exactly what is required. Many thanks if you can do this. Lesion (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting Duolingo Community Translations[edit]

Duolingo is a language learning site that has users go through a language course and, later on, allow them to translate documents from their target language to their native language. Many people upload Wikipedia articles because they are creative commons. Would it be alright if I uploaded an English article without a Spanish (or another language) translation, had the Duolingo community translate it, then upload the Spanish translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Red Rat Writer (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't upload the translation to Wikipedia, because the terms of that site don't allow commercial reuse and anything uploaded to Wikipedia must be available to reuse for any purpose. Also, the site says that you can only submit original work or work owned by you (the submitter), so I'm not sure that uploading Wikipedia content to the site is allowed. RudolfRed (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I follow RudolfRed's response. At issue seems to be whether Duolingo asserts a copyright over the work done by the students. I note that the site says "When the document is fully translated, Duolingo returns it to the original content owner who, depending on the type of document they uploaded, pays for the translation." Normally someone paying for a translation would have all rights to it; if there is a paying customer here (you?). In any case, if you have full rights to the translated text, then you could in turn release it to Wikipedia when you post it ("upload" is a technical term; you won't be uploading).

The other point I want to make is that you're really asking at the wrong place. If you post a translated article to the Spanish-language Wikipedia, it's up to that language community to deal with any copyright issues. We here - at the English language Wikipedia (that's what the "en" in "en.wikipedia.org" means) - certainly welcome you to spread knowledge by giving Wikipedia articles (in English) to anyone you want. Please do give attribution to Wikipedia as the source, however (as in "The following article is from Wikipedia"). (A link to the version of the article you've copied would make the attribution even better.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what their terms say: "As between us and you, you will own the copyright in any derivative work we create that is a translation of material you submit provided that you do not make or permit any commercial use of the translation. " Emphasis mine. You cannot put material into Wikipedia that has that restriction is what I was trying to say. I don't see the note about paying anything, so we're probably looking at different pages. This is the one I found: [4]RudolfRed (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is essentially meaningless. You either own the copyright on something or you don't. If you can't do what you like with it, you don't own it. You might own it in trust, but that'd require significantly more legal complexity than above. I don't know if it is still the case, but Duolingo promoted itself as translating Wikipedia articles but in fact ended up translating articles from Vikidia, which is a non-WMF project that hosts a "simple French" (and Spanish, Italian) wiki for kids. It'd be good if we could work with Duolingo, but there seems to be something of a communications gap between Duolingo and Wikimedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was speculating about copyright ownership, but RudolfRed is clearly right that forbidding commercial use of the translated text makes that translated text unusable for any language Wikipedia - all language versions require a free content license, which includes the right for commercial use.

I'll also note that Simple English Wikipedia might be an even better source for text than regular articles in Wikipedia; too bad Duolingo's copyright terms are what they are, since they prevent sharing the translation results (on Wikipedia, anyway). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Alert[edit]

The page for Fallout: Equestria has been targeted by a troll from "Project AFTER" named "Agnitio Ex Machina", who has boasted that he is using rotating IP to avoid banning (see link below). Thankfully, so far this vandalism has been skillfully taken care of by wiki members.

http://www.projectafterforums.com/index.php?showtopic=2877&st=1540

76.178.163.126 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better way to deal with this would be semi-protection; see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate pages need to stay please[edit]

I have submitted two pages that need to stay up. Mark S Lowe, a write that has worked on LINKED projects on Wikipedia, and who works for several folks in Hollywood, but as a shadow writer who cannot legally claim all his fame.

Two: Tales of a Ratt which is missing from Bobby Blotzer's page.

I'm legally allowed to post about both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drtyrell (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Assuming that your subject meets Wikipedia's standards on notability, (not sure what you mean by "LINKED projects on Wikipedia), it would seem that articles about shadow writers would intuitively require heavy documentation to establish both notability as well as to link them to notable works. Sounds like a tough project. Good luck! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drtyrell, I think you have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is. No article in Wikipedia needs to stay up. The criteria under which an article may stay up are entirely Wikipedia's, not those of the subject: the most important one is that the subject passes the test for notability, in Wikipedia's special sense: if reliable sources, independent of the subject, have written about the writer, then an article which cites those sources may be retained. If there are no such sources, then any article will be deleted. From what you say, it may be difficult to satisfy this criterion for Mark S Lowe.

Secondly, you are indeed legally allowed to post about both - as is anybody else in the world. But if, as I suspect from your language, you are associated with the subjects of the articles, then you are strongly discouraged from posting about them, as you have a WP:conflict of interest.

What this comes down to, is that, reading your post, I get the impression that you are thinking that you can use Wikipedia as a medium for promotion: if that is indeed your aim, I suggest you go elsewhere, as you are likely to meet strong resistance. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we are official owner of poojachopra page and content[edit]

hi we are official owners of pooja chopra page but we are unable to edit her page if we edit its automatically edited again with automated script due to that my account also has been blocked. pls suggest us to edit her page we are ready to provide any kind of info agreement with poojachopra.\

thanks and regards venku official content owner poojachopra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.4.70 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we are the official owner of poojachopra page and content but we are unable to edit the page if we edit it that automatically undo after 15 to 30 min due to 2 many times tried my account got blocked we are ready to show any doc are agreement from pooja chopra pls give us rights to edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooja_Chopra

thanks and regards venku content owner pooja chopra page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkuggg (talk • contribs) 07:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Firstly, you are not the official owners of anything at Wikipedia. Secondly, since it appears the first block you received didn't sit well with you, I'm going to nominate your account and associated IP address for another block. My hope is that after this next block you'll be interested in making positive contributions in keeping with Wikipedia's rules, rather than claiming ownership of pages and submitting questionable content. I hope my good faith expectations don't go unrewarded! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the owner of copyrighted material that you wish to donate to Wikipedia, the process is described at WP:Donating copyrighted material. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history and there is no automated script removing anything you added. All the edits were done by humans, and they appeared to have good reasons for their edits.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Contributions[edit]

General editing Q: Is it possible to order user contributions according to the number of edits on each page ? thank you ! רסטיניאק (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק[reply]

@רסטיניאק, You might be looking for this tool. http://toolserver.org/~tparis/topedits/ --Glaisher (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Glaisher, excellent !רסטיניאק (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק[reply]

Topics related to manegement[edit]

How to read the articles releted to menegement.

Tanks Virinder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.78.34 (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start at the Management article. At the bottom, underneath the External links heading, is a blue bar labelled "Management". If you click the "show" link to the right of that label, you'll see a set of helpful links that will guide you around the subject. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling albums in Japan[edit]

occurs in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pages_with_incorrect_ref_formatting&pageuntil=%CF%84Broken+ref%2Fsandbox%0ABroken+ref%2Fsandbox#mw-pages Why?? --Frze (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other hidden categories that the article/list is in give some hint. It is also in the category Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. Dismas|^(talk) 09:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AWB identified some unbalanced "ref" tags. I've made an edit to fix them. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a company page[edit]

Hi, I want to create a page about our company so was seeking some assist on the same.

Looking forward to hear from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techliveconnect (talk • contribs) 14:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, you shouldn't, see Wikipedia's guidance on conflict of interest. For someone else to create such a page, they would need to satisfy themselves that the company met the notability requirements of WP:CORP. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add Wikipedia:Username policy to the list of material you should probably read. 14:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It boils down to whether your company would be more at home in the yellow pages or if it is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Also your username appears promotional and is likely to be blocked for violating username policy. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has been blocked; troll, I assume. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John Broughton: I don't think so; just someone who hasn't realised that Wikipedia is not a business directory. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: Yup, I misread the situation - the username is unacceptable (and now blocked) because it is the name of a company. (I have trolls on my mind when I read recent posts here from brand new users.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help to publish article[edit]

Hello, I am a little new to Wikipedia and need some help. I had published an article that was deleted a few days later and I was told it was because the article did not contain "notable, significant information". I went to work on this article again and added some notable information, so I went to "move" it or publish it, but then something came up and said I was not allowed to publish it. I am not sure why that happened and what I am supposed to do now. I greatly appreciate any help! Molar28 (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Molar28[reply]

You appear to be trying to create an article about a small business in Amarillo. Everything I have seen suggests that this business is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If that is correct, what you are supposed to do now is give up trying to write an article about it. However if I have missed something newsworthy, such as the business accidentally killing an eminent patient, then you should include this in the article, with references to show that it was mentioned in reliable independent sources. Maproom (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that just warrant a mention of the company in the article of the eminent person and not the other way around? I know it's just an example but if the person is already eminent/notable, then him/her being killed by the company (this is hypothetical of course) would only allow for a mention in the eminent person's article right? And not a new article created solely for a single-time event. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What happened is that you created the article once, and an admin moved the text to your userspace so you could work on improving it, because it wasn't ready to go live. When you moved your new version back to articlespace, it was speedily deleted by a different admin because it did not indicate how the subject was notable by Wikipedia standards.

Notable has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia. Our criteria for what constitutes a notable business or organisation are at WP:CORP. The general notability guideline is at WP:GNG. The business in question must satisfy one or the other in order to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. What's more, an article about it must actually demonstrate how the business meets those notability criteria, or it risks being deleted anyway, which is what happened to you second time around. If you want to try again, please read the notability guidelines I have linked to carefully and decide whether you can show - with references - how this business satisfies at least one of them. Then contact the admin who speedy deleted your article at User talk:JamesBWatson and ask them if they are prepared to copy the deleted text back into your userspace again so you can get it up to standard.

Finally, a word of warning. Your username suggests to me that you may have a connection to the business in question. If so, you should not be writing about it here because you have a conflict of interest, making it difficult to meet our neutrality requirements. You should only continue to try to create this article provided you (a) can demonstrate that the business is notable and (b) are not trying in any way to use Wikipedia to promote the business, which is not permitted. Hope this helps. - Ka renjc 16:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

I have been editing wikipedia for quite some time, I never have had problem adding references to articles, but I am not able to sort the problem with the references appearing on Fuuse article, can anybody sort one link there, I would follow the same method to sort the other links/references. Thanks and regards--Jogibaba (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to put "url=" in front of the urls in the cites. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centering one column of a table[edit]

I have been back and forth through the table help pages and I'm baffled: how can I cause the contents of one column of a table to be center-aligned? JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. You must center the content of each cell in the column. Use {{center}}. -- Gadget850^talk 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. That seems rather primitive; and there was I thinking how clever tables were to be able to sort IP addresses correctly. Thanks, anyway; i'm relieved to know I wasn't being dumb in failing to find it in the instructions. JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a restriction in the underlying technology (HTML). There are ways round it, in CSS, but they're difficult to make sufficiently general to work with Wikimarkup. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need a suggestion or three[edit]

I've been away from the Wikimedia world for a while, save for the occasional "that just needs fixed" edit, so aren't current on editing developments (or the 'verbose' culture), yet have some new article pages I've spent the last six weeks researching about ready to compose with pics. Hence, I need a way to stumble forward:

There was, I'd thought, a WYSIWIG editor capability that was in Beta test from the Mediawiki developers a few years back (?4?-?5? ??!). Did it ever arrive?
My needs are simple, I'd prefer to compose off line with something I can:
1. document the full path link local HDD in the document body' (e.g. C:\All_docs\Project_name\Imagename.jgp/png/svg, etc.)
2. Preferentially, see the image, size and arrange it on the page with some general sense gained of how the prose and image size versus one another. I can sort of do that in Wordpad, but getting the images sized and over on the right margin isn't simple and easy. Ideally would be able to set an HTML like align-right default, and perhaps a default or numeric size=, width=, height= perameter, again, hopefully by default, or at least image by image.
3. Planned on stripping that Document by pasting and re-cutting in/from text editor, paste in sandbox. That of course leaves the formatting behind, and the images. Leaving me with Wiki-markup stub.
4. Then upload pics, and deal the licensing needs in a binge edit
5. Re-edit sandbox, and polish, etc.
The missing link is what Windows XP editor will allow that sort of composition easily... I'm meaning referencing the image with a full pathspec I can use later to upload the pics. I've Open Office and Microsoft Office, but have little 'fancy' experience with either word processor; I can get around in most software, but this is not just a letter! Tend to just use Wordpad in the few times I need .rtf files a year. Perhaps there is a template I can adapt in one of those that would do this sort of thing???
I've been editing here so much that wikimarkup's not the issue, but composing things easily is the need. Seeing the pics near the description text is useful, and in this case necessary. I can read past square brackets galore, so will be able to concentrate on the prose. Thanks! //FrankB 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the WYSIWYG editor in development, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google search on offline Wikipedia editor that had a number of promising links. I'd guess that searching on offline MediaWiki editor would yield similarly interesting, but different, results. I do doubt that many people edit offline, if only because most resources are online and because online connectivity is getting fairly ubiquitous. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Text editor support. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou both. Cheerful greetings, John Broughton, I remember you from back when I was hyperactive here.

In this case the problem is accessing the large number of pics so I can manage the upload and text composition both. The project is actually on Wikibooks, but this site far better manned, and is where I still have the odd contact or five, though sadly so many have left.
Bottom line: I don't need 'not used' battles on the commons before I have text, etc. Thanks again, will see what works for me! //FrankB 15:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Features new to Windows 7[edit]

This article is all kinds of messed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.252.76.95 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out - I think I've fixed it. It seems that someone had messed up Template:Windows 7, rather than the article itself, which took a bit of figuring out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle- What is it ?[edit]

What is 'Twinkle' , with the policeman head logo thing? --Asiew For (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Asiew. See Wikipedia:Twinkle.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much techinical jargon in that article, can someone please 'shimmer' it down for me? Is it some kind of Wikipedia police ? --Asiew For (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: Twinkle is a tool that provides a bunch of buttons and other interfaces that helps users tag articles for cleanup, nominated articles for deletion, and makes finding, reversing and warning people about vandalism purportedly easier. The policeman image is a logo associated with twinkle that people who use it sometimes employ to show they are acting as patrollers, something akin to policing, though the analogy is inapt in my view.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. Maybe one day I will use Twinkle and patrol Wikipedia just like the Twinkle Policeman--Asiew For (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. By the way, I believe it is much better for users to understand how to do manually all the processes Twinkle automates before ever using it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, because you're fully responsible for all the edits you make when using automated tools. It's easy to make a mistake when you're editing very fast, particularly if you're not familiar with the manual way of doing it, and "Sorry, I was using tools" isn't accepted in mitigation. - Ka renjc 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you edit a semi-protected page?[edit]

I learned from an introductory article that you could edit a semi-protected page if you had 4 approved edits and 10 days with your account. I wanted to add something to a page , but i didn't know where to look. I have the requirements, how do you edit it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike1291 (talk • contribs)

No, it's the other way round - you need 4 days and 10 edits. You only have 7 edits so far: nearly there! JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Mike, please sign you name on talk pages such as this one (never in articles) by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your edit, which will automatically format as your signature with a timestamp when you save. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Does editing your own user page count? Mike1291 (going to add a signature after this post) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike1291 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you sign by typing four tildes (~ four times). Britmax (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I think you've found out, the 10 edits don't have to be of articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales[edit]

Hi, just a few more questions for the Helpdesk.

1. Is Jimbo Wales the 'leader' of Wikipedia, as in, the manager, boss etc..?

2. Does Jimbo Wales participate in active editing\creating of articles, welcome new users and of reverting in vandalism?

3. Is Mr Wales popular within Wikipedia ? What can he do better? Does he acknowledge your contributions?

Thanks. --Asiew For (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales is the founder of Wikipedia and of the Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees Wikipedia and all of its sister sites, in all of the various languages it is published in. Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales explains his past and current roles with the organization.
See Special:Contributions/Jimbo Wales. He does still regularly edit articles, as you can see, as of right now he had done some article edits as recently as a week ago.
Like all large organizations (and Wikipedia is VERY large) he has his supporters and his detractors, though he is generally accorded a certainly level of honor commensurate with his role in founding and leading Wikipedia and the WMF.

I hope that helps. --Jayron32 20:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is another troll account.. Яehevkor ✉ 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that account has been blocked. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nice thing about Jayron's GF response is that many more people than the blocked troll will read and appreciate it. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Society of Southern Maine[edit]

What needs to be changed and/or edited to get the article about the Wireless Society of Southern Maine (Wireless Society of Southern Maine) back on the site? I'm willing to make changes to it if necessary.

In case there was any doubt of the organizations existence and importance in their respected field and community, here's some links of interest:

http://www.qsl.net/ws1sm/

http://www.arrl.org/Groups/view/wireless-society-of-southern-maine

http://courier.mainelymediallc.com/news/2012-08-16/Community_News/Community_News.html

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Thom Watson — Preceding unsigned comment added by W1wmg (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you appear to have isn't in establishing the society's existence, it is in establishing that it is notable enough to merit an article under our guidelines: see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Frankly, I can't see any way that your organization would meet the criteria. Note that this requires that "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale", which appears not to be the case. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask the subject specialists at WP:WikiProject Amateur radio for help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls[edit]

1. We are getting a lot of comments and questions at the Help Desk that appear to be trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have an incident to report about a vandal/troll. At about 1200 GMT (0800 New York time), the featured article was vandalized repeatedly by an IPv6 address. It was reverted once by ClueBot, the vandalism-fighter who never sleeps, twice by me, and once by another editor. The article was vandalized again by the IPv6 address after my first revert before I could provide a Level 3 warning, so after two reverts I provided a Level 4 warning, and went to ANV. The IPv6 address was blocked within a few minutes, but not before he put a Level 4 warning on my talk page for harassment. Then he posted an unblock request to his talk page. "This is a shared Wifi. I am innocent." The timing was such that that statement is not worthy of belief, and if he wasn't the vandal, he would have been better to ask to have the block changed to a softblock to allow creation of a registered account. I took down the Level 4 warning. Please verify that providing a vandalism warning for an edit that is clearly vandalism is not harassment. However, I wouldn't expect a troll to be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only "harassment" if you're following an editor around, or repeatedly attacking him/her in various venues. More to the point, if an admin agreed with your AIV request, and blocked the IP address, then you were - almost certainly - correct. Admins are expected to research AIV requests, not implement them automatically, and they can - and do - reject requests upon occasion.

Most experienced editors think it's best to be bold. That's not to say that you shouldn't learn from your mistakes; it's just to say that good editors are so thinly spread that we don't have the luxury - if we want to take care of important things - of doing lots of consultations before acting. It's better to just do your honest best, don't get upset by corrections by more experienced editors (that's a learning experience), and not second-guess yourself. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the relevance of John Broughton's reply: I read Robert as saying that the apparent vandal had accused him of harassment, not a more experience editor. --ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not being clear. I was suggesting that taking down the level 4 warning was a mistake - that Robert was second-guessing himself, and that in the future he should not worry so much about being wrong. Perhaps I'm reading too much that action, but that's why I suggested just being bold and seeing how other (experienced) editors react. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]