Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Y)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Help Desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, you may also ask your questions at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation, and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?
Search Frequently Asked Questions
Search the help desk archives and other help pages


December 14[edit]

Annoying ads asking to donate money![edit]

I'm trying to do research about my sons medical condition when I go to search about certain things, especially EDS or chiari 2 banners come up and block the page asking for money and donations! Really!!!??? I have never had this issue before. I use my cell phone to do research and I just tried a few other pages and the same thing. Donate to this and donate to wiki etc. Um, no thanks. I will not be using this once valuable site again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So you admit you find this site useful, but you are deeply offended by being merely ASKED to contribute something towards its upkeep? Forgive me if I fail to feel your pain. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I assume that Wikipedia wouldn't do that if they could adequately fund the project without it (and neither of us is an expert on that question). But it's certainly your right to decide that the benefit of Wikipedia articles is exceeded by the costs of any such annoyances. I think it's awesome that we have a choice. Best wishes with your son's medical condition. ‑‑Mandruss  02:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how asking for money to support a site decreases the value of that site. Dismas|(talk) 05:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that the only reason the site exists for you to research your son's medical condition in the first place is because people saw these banners and donated money in the past. --Jayron32 06:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Sir/Madam, perhaps you should instead do some research on: 1. grammar and 2. goodwill. The Wikimedia Foundation is non-profit, and Wikipedia hosts no ads. As such, there is no other way for Wikipedia to be able to upkeep its servers other than by donations. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I dunno where to say this, the wikiepedia ads to donate are extremely annoying, when will they stop being made to be at the top of each search window? If advertising isn't evil, this donation banner is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate articles[edit]

I just discovered duplicate articles: Ron Reynolds (Texas) and Ron Reynolds (Texas politician). I've never encountered such an issue before. What should I do? User:Orser67 created the first in November 2013, and User:Billy Hathorn created the second on December 12, 2014. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the two articles on Konni Burton, they were created by the same editor on the same day, and are copy-and-pastes of each other. It appears that that editor doesn't understand how redirects work. In the case of Ron Reynolds (Texas), one of the two articles was similarly created as a copy-and-paste. I will try to explain to the editor who is creating copy-and-pastes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The editor has been notified. The problem is that we have a new and enthusiastic editor who doesn't know how to use redirects. Another editor and I have tried to explain that creating duplicate articles creates a lot of additional work. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for your help. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
For the reasons expounded above by Robert McClenon, merger is not necessary so I have just redirected Koni Burton to Konni Burton.--ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref[edit]

will there be any danger if the creatinine 4.5 in a patient stable for 2weeks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. In any case, we can't (and shouldn't) offer advice on medical conditions. If you want to discuss content in a Wikipedia article, please use the article's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Treaty 8, bottom of page, regarding the native way of life[edit]

The oil sands have not made the animals and fish dangerous to eat due to contamination. I live up here. That would be a false accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't indicate what article you are referring to. Please discuss on the article talk page of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As the IP hails from Edmonton, Alberta, I suspect they are referring to Athabasca oil sands, specifically the phrase at the bottom of the article Treaty 8. However, regarding pollution, the statements in both Treaty 8 and Athabasca_oil_sands#Animals seem sourced to reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss on a talk page, Talk: Treaty 8 or Talk:Athabasca oil sands. If discussion fails, use dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

New Caution Template?[edit]

With reference to the duplicate articles mentioned above, where would I suggest that a new warning template be created that can be applied with Twinkle? This is a problem that I have occasionally seen before, creating copy-and-paste copies of articles rather than redirects. It isn't necessary in the case above, because the editor has been notified on his talk page, but it is likely to be useful in the future. The template should be relatively gently worded, because this behavior is done by inexperienced and enthusiastic editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the template {{Uw-c&pmove}} not work for you? --Jayron32 18:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I now see it in Twinkle under single-issue notices. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


How does one transfer this photo: to this English Wikipedia? Tinton5 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiet Huidekoper[edit]

Please help to remove the page about the working life of Wiet Huidekoper, as it contains false and untrue information, whilst leaving out the major achievements. For instance Wiet Huidekoper never designed for Formula One, whilst attributing failures that he had nothing to do with. This was obviously done maliciously and I do not recognise him or his work in this description. So please prevent the contributor "RedPenOfDoom" to reinstate the page every time and delta the page for once and for all. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Care to explain why you're removing sourced content?Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Logging in[edit]

Iam a new user wanting to log in. The computer will not accept the temporary password I was sent or the password I asked for. Can you help?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the name of your account? Ruslik_Zero 03:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

Administrator edit summary deletion requests[edit]

How can I request an Administrator delete or edit an edit summary to remove the name of a person who is semi-anonymous and would not be named in the body of an article on Wikpipedia? Omnibus (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:OVERSIGHT is what you're looking for. Dismas|(talk) 02:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Creating a second article using my sandbox[edit]

Hi, I've written an article and this has been accepted. When I click on my "sandbox" I am redirected to the published article. How can I create a new article on a different subject and use my sandbox to do this? (Or is there some other way?) Thanks. Arjaysmith (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

On the redirected page, look at the top left of the page. You will see "Redirected from". Click on the link and you can edit the page. --  Gadget850 talk 02:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne (album)[edit]

There's unreliable sources like, and Muumuse (see References section below). Somebody remove please. (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Whenever you see an issue with a specific page, it's always best to just hit the "Talk" tab in the top left of the article and post a message there. You could also consider just being bold and remove the sentences/paragraphs that are sourced with these problematic sources yourself. Scarce2 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

how to know if somebody replied to my questions in help desk?[edit]

how to know if somebody replied to my questions in help desk? i mean is there any notifications & also how to get that notifications to my email? Ram nareshji (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ram nareshji: - The best way is to check back here within 48 hours after you posted your question. Other methods are people using your name, like I did, which will leave a red notification on the top of your screen next to your username. Click the red button. Some people will also inform you on your user talk page, which will also leave a red notification, and a message that someone edited your tal page. If you want these notification to also be by email, you can click at the top of your screen on the button "Preferences". Cick the section "Notifications". Here you can select for what type of message you want an email send, and you can save these changes by clicking the save button. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Government work copyright[edit]

Hello. I am aware that works produced by the United States Government are, in most cases, not subject to copyright. Also, state government works are usually copyrighted. But what of works produced by the District of Columbia government? I'm wondering in general. However, the issue that brought this to mind was possibly adding a map of DC Streetcar proposed routes. DDOT has such maps on its website. (If they are copyrighted, I could probably draw my own.) Thank you.    → Michael J    08:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

D.C. claims copyrights.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems odd, because D.C. is federal territory. But it is what it is.    → Michael J    18:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


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


Below link from Wikipedia is actually owned by admin or private person,

i thought Wikipedia, allows "Anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles", but why private pages are provided and with false information, request to administrators with useful links doesn't seems to be appearing and still the page claims with false information.

I would expect above page link should be made public and allow anyone to edit the information with possible links. not with private false information to be there.

Thanks, Siva Prakash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheosiva (talkcontribs) 08:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is not 'owned' by anyone - it is currently protected against editing by anyone except administrators due to persistent vandalism. If you wish to make a proposal regarding changes to the article, you can do so on the talk page. You should note however that article content should be based on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I get this uploaded?[edit]


I would like to include this image on a wikipedia page - the point being that it was displayed by google.

Is this image permitted for that purpose?

Eileen — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The image is almost certainly copyright, and accordingly almost certainly not suitable for use on Wikipedia. The only justification might be under fair use criteria - but that would require evidence that the image itself had been the subject of significant commentary, and inclusion in an article would likewise require that our article discussed it, rather than just used it. We would probably also have to reduce the resolution of the image. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There are already a number of Google doodles shown at Google Doodle. I don't see a reason to add yet another. Dismas|(talk) 11:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How can I work on multiple books at the same time[edit]

How can I work on multiple books (collections of Wikipedia articles) at the same time. If I am reading the instructions correctly, if you want to start a second book, you have to purge the first book you started. I am trying to assemble reference books for two courses that I am teaching. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearey (talkcontribs) 15:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fearey: Yes, if you are using the Book Creator tool, then you can only work on one book at a time. But the banner at the top of your saved books also has an option to edit the "Wikitext" of the saved book. If you click that, you will see that the formatting of the chapters and included articles is really rather simple. If you edit your books that way, you can edit several books at once in different tabs of your browser. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Fearey: I'm not sure what you mean by "at the same time" and "purge". John gave a way to work on two books at the same time by editing the Wikitext directly instead of using the book creator. The book creator cannot work on two unsaved books at the same time but you can always save one book and then open another previously saved book and work on that with the book creator. You can work on a saved book by clicking a link to the book and then clicking "Book Creator". You can for example find saved books in your account by clicking "Contributions" at the top right and then "Subpages" at the bottom. If your book is visible in "Contributions" then you can also just click it there. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

Answered on the talk page --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is there a wiki-rule that says that a unique page title should not also contain a country-name as a qualifier? For background please see: Category talk:Economy ministries#Moving non-country specific articles to country-specific. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text[edit]

How do I unlink a Wikipedia page from appearing with a Google result? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the question, but from the heading it looks as if you saw a red error message in the reference list for Henry Moskowitz (real estate investor). This appeared because your edit today removed the reference where the ref name ArgoAbout was defined. (I don't know why you would do this, when the link still works and still supports the statement it was referencing). I suggest you revert your last edit and make a fresh edit for the change you want, without removing this reference: Noyster (talk), 16:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NOINDEX, adding __NOINDEX__ will do the trick. However, it should not be; and does not; work in the article space. If you want certain websites from not appearing in your Google search results, this can be done by logging in to your Google account and going to However that service seems to have been discontinued, and provides a link to some Google chrome extension. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Question About Questionable BLP[edit]

How do I deal with a posting, that only exposes a living person's dirty laundry, in a cascade of half-truths, in a way to purposely and misleadingly discredit that person? The structure of wikipedia seems to make this a legally daunting task, and not just a simple matter of user editing. Could I post a rebuttal page, that the authors of the original posting must link to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't state which article you are concerned about, so the answer can only be in general terms. Please look at our policy about articles on living people, which will show you that the course to take depends on references to reliable sources to support what the article says, and on the balanced presentation of what all the available sources say.
  1. If the material you object to is unsourced (not supported by any reference cited in the article) then you are encouraged to remove it by directly editing the article.
  2. If the case is less clear - the material is referenced but you doubt the reliability of the sources, or you consider that it is presented so as to misrepresent the balance of views published in reliable sources - then you may either comment on the article's talk page, or post to this forum where your concerns will be investigated by experienced editors. When posting to either of these venues, please remember to name the article, and sign your posts with ~~~~.
  3. If the material you object to is supported by reliable sources and the article presents what all the sources say in a balanced way, then it must remain, regardless of your own opinion of the subject: Noyster (talk), 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the advice given by User:Noyster but will expand on it. Unsourced material in biographies of living persons should be removed. Wikipedia does not have "rebuttal pages". However, if there are issues about the facts, with differing facts cited by different reliable sources, the issue can be reported. It is best that any disagreement be discussed on the article talk page. That is what talk pages are for. As noted, disagreements about biographies of living persons should be taken to the BLP noticeboard to involve other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Citing out of print scientific book by Carnot and Kelvin by image and/or upload. Advice and guidance asked.[edit]

I would like to add content regarding Carnot Cycle and Reversibility. It already references the original work by Sadi Carnot, but does not list specifics. In some cases the existing content, although consistent with current textbooks, is not supported by Sadit Carnot's book, "Reflections on the motive power of heat", and in fact the original contradicts the article (and contradicts some material in physics texts). As the book is clearly the source for information cited as from the book, I would like to post a few pages as images, which show the correct quotations from the book. Also, the book was last printed in the 1800's, a version scanned from original may be found at, but there appears to be no way to create a direct link. One must go to and do a search.

My questions

A) Can I post scans of 3 to 5 pages from the book as images? As it is from the 1800's, copyright is long since past. I have found through experience that simply quoting the original is generally met with skepticism. I believe showing the original quotes in context alleviates that.

B) Can I upload or post the book in its entirety (a PDF scan of original document, which is also searchable). Although wikipedia is not an archive, the original book is not generally available anywhere.

The book is quite important as it is Sadi Carnot's only work, literally started the field of science of heat engines and of thermodynamics, and is co-authored by Lord Kelvin (Kelvin scale) The book is quite illuminating, and in many ways gives a clearer understanding of heat engines than modern texts. My thinking would be to upload it, and credit as the source.

I believe A) is within guidelines as copyrights are clearly expired. I find (for B) no posted way of uploading PDF, although perhaps the image upload may accept it.

As you may guess, I have not yet contributed wiki articles, although I have offered a few errata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William A. Kelley (talkcontribs) 16:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't cite sources, even out of print ones, by uploading scans - that would almost certainly be a copyright infringement. You should use the {{Cite book}} template, completing as many of the parameters (see Template:Cite book for the full list). Then anyone who wishes to, has enough details to locate the book in a library and verify that it supports the material for which it is being cited.--ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is true that we don't upload scan of out of print works, but in the case in point that is not because of copyright. The works to which the OP refers were published in the nineteenth century and are in public domain. Other than that, I concur with the advice of User:Ukexpat. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
see also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility - the source does not have to be on line accessible (and someone's scans would not be any "better" verification as it is trivially easy to create a fake book and scan that) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I would also caution about making observations/commentary based on the primary sources rather than what current third party scholarship is actually saying about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

re: red pen- I'm uncertain what relevance forgeries have. One could make paper from electronic or vice versa, one could checkout an original and check in a forgery, so finding it in an actual library is insignificant to the sufficiently paranoid. William A. Kelley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) re: How, when every source points to this book as the source of Carnot's work (It is in fact Sadi Carnot's only published work), could third party scholarship have superior knowledge of what the book says or what Carnot said? I am really not following your comments. So citing the original source is inferior to citing the other peoples opinions of what the source might have said that were passed from person to person over 150 years?William A. Kelley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad I asked. While copyrights have limited time, just as patents do, I want to stay inside the policy not just the law.William A. Kelley (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC) This is not just out of print. Everyone who wrote it died over a hundred years ago.

According to Wikipedia Term of protection[edit] Previous copyright law set the duration of copyright protection at twenty-eight years with a possibility of a twenty-eight year extension, for a total maximum term of fifty-six years. The 1976 Act, however, substantially increased the term of protection. Section 302 of the Act extended protection to "a term consisting of the life of the author and 50 years after the author's death."[6] In addition, the Act created a static seventy-five-year term (dated from the date of publication) for anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire. The extension term for works copyrighted before 1978 that had not already entered the public domain was increased from twenty-eight years to forty-seven years, giving a total term of seventy-five years. In 1998 the Copyright Term Extension Act further extended copyright protection to the duration of the author's life plus seventy years for general copyrights and to ninety-five years for works made for hire and works copyrighted before 1978.

So the copyright ended some time before 1950, as both the authors died before 1900. It is definitely not a copyright law infringement. (I wrote this before the previous post. I agree it is public domain)

So, follow up of A), if the policy is never to show a scan even for non-copyrighted material, public domain material, are quotations allowed? Cited of course? Follow up on part B) The last publication of the book was around 1890, which was why I asked the upload question. It is not possible to locate in the library, except for a very rare book library. So it is unavailable to almost everyone except the electronic version.

And although one can point to a site that has it, it is somewhat clumsy and certainly not standardized as to how to reference it. I could place a copy on another web site, then a URL, but that seems odd, even though pointing to is basically that.

I came across this dilemma myself, when I first tried to follow this reference. It took me several days of searching to find anything but really fragmented text copies with all illustrations missing. Surely there is a better way to do this? (Because the book is not just out of print, its long past being in any libraries us mere mortals have access to.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by William A. Kelley (talkcontribs)

All I can do is reiterate the advice to use the {{Cite book}} template and not worry about uploading scans. If these book are available on Google Books, I think the template has a parameter for adding the URL.--ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Will do my best. William A. Kelley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) And yes, it is in google books! Thanks for the suggestion!William A. Kelley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I think this satisfies my concerns about quoting an unimpeachable source.

If Carnot's book supports statements in the Wikipedia article, then use {{cite book}} to cite the scan at Internt Archive ( For |url= include the url for the appropriate page at For example, assume that the fact that you want to cite is on page 57 of that scan, then do this:
{{cite book |first=N.-L.-S. |authorlink=Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot |last=Carnot |title=Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat |editor-first=R. H. |editor-last=Thurston |page=57 |url= |date=1897 |location=New York |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |via=[[Internet Archive]]}}
Which renders like this:
Carnot, N.-L.-S. (1897). Thurston, R. H., ed. Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat. New York: John Wiley & Sons. p. 57 – via Internet Archive. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have just checked Wikisource, Carnot's book is not available there. I think such an historically significant work ought to be uploaded. (Sometimes we forget that Wikipedia is only one part of a whole family of interrelated wikis, we should use them more.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Excellent point Roger (Dodger67).--ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text[edit]

Hi I need help with the references for Walking With Our Sisters, the message I receive is that the reference name :0 was invoked but never defined. So I don't understand how to fix this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amay542 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing_sources explains how to cite sources in an article. Help:Referencing_for_beginners does the same, and is easier to understand.
I see that the article appears to be a copyright violation of this page, and have tagged it accordingly. You may be able to deal with the copyright violation by re-writing the article in your own words. Maproom (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Where can I find an example outline of the format to write an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc2015 (talkcontribs) 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please use the article wizard which is part of the articles for creation process. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-setting Password Help[edit]

I would like to get back into editing articles on Wikipedia, but have long since forgotten my password. On several occasions, I've tried using the "Forgot your password" link on the login screen. I've tried entering my Username, email address or both. I've never received a password reset email.

Advice? Ideas?

Thank you, Randy

BTW, my user page is still up (User:Rocketmaniac) (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked the spam folder for your email? Is the email account that you were using in 2013 the one that you are still using? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Robert.... Yes and Yes. This is why its so puzzling. (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I recently registered an account at Wikimedia UK, and did not receive the verification email until I'd added that domain to the "safe senders" list of my hotmail account. Wikipedia password reminder emails are sent by "", so you could try adding that as a trusted sender. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The account was created in October 2006. Did you have the same email address back then, or have you received mail for your Wikipedia account at your current email address? For privacy reasons Special:PasswordReset does not reveal whether an entered email address belongs to an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

John, as far as I know, Wikipedia is among the "trusted" emails

PrimeHunter, Yes, Oct 2006 sounds about right for the creation date. I can't remember what my email was then and if I received any emails after the creation date. This could explain the trouble.

So, if this is the issue..... what is the solution? (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some websites allow users to retrieve lost passwords online using "secret questions". However I don't believe Wikipedia is one of those websites(?) Ottawahitech (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a "secret questions" feature. We cannot see when an email address was stored in the account or whether it has been changed since then. We can only see the account was created 22 October 2006.[2]. If an old email address is stored and you can no longer retrieve mails sent to that address then you cannot get access to the account without remembering the password. Passwords never expire. You can create a new account and mention on the user pages that it is the same person. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

PrimeHunter. I now remember the old email address. LOL, but it was closed down by my ex-wife when she changed internet providors. So, I will now create a new account and start over.

Thanks for everyone's help. (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Am i doing the fixes wrong??[edit]

I'm going on few pages fixing the broken links and reference, and i notice my points in the contributions are negative am i doing the changes wrong? the all idea for me to volunteer here is to help and fix so if I'm doing it wrong i hope i can be guided. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDonly (talkcontribs) 22:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Those are not points. That is a counter, showing whether the article is net longer or shorter and by how many characters. So if you correct "doug" to "dog", it will show -1, because the article is now one character shorter. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed so, same applies to watchlists, see WP:+/-.

Smashburger Wikipedia Page[edit]

Hi there,

My name is Christine Ferris, I am the PR & Marketing Manager at Smashburger. I came across our Wikipedia page yesterday and found that much of our content that had previously been on the page had been deleted. The page also contains information that is incorrect and out of date. So, I created a username and password in order to log in and make changes. I tried to use the username "Smashburger" but someone had already created that user name and I was unable to do that. So, I created a username called CCPSmash. I went into the page and made edits (all that were factual, nothing was plagiarized) and it has just been removed. I received the below message. "Hello CCPSmash, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Smashburger has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here."

Can someone please let me know why we are not able to write long content about our own brand, a brand that WE own copyrights to? And how we can immediately get this updated to include the right content?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCPSmash (talkcontribs) 22:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Christine. Please read WP:ORGFAQ, and understand that a Wikipedia article is required to be a neutrally-written summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject. If your company meets Wikipedia's requirements of notability (which it probably does) then we can have an article on it. You do not have any more control over this article than any other of our thousands of editors; and in fact because of your conflict of interest you are strongly discouraged from editing the article at all: you may request edits to the article on its talk page, but they should be carried out by people uninvolved in the company. The text from your website would be permitted from a copyright point of view only if you irrevocably licensed it for any use by anybody (see donating copyright materials) but it is very unlikely that much of it would be appropriate to a Wikipedia article, since your website is for promotional purposes, and Wikipedia forbids promotion of any kind. --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

Signature not working[edit]

Problem solved. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For some reason, whenever I add the "~~~~" to my posts, it lists the date but not my signature...and I don't recall ever changing any of my preferences. Can anyone figure out what's wrong? 03:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC) (User:Erpert)

Hey there @Erpert: Your signature code is currently this:
'''<span style="background-color:Erpert; color:red;"></span><!-- -- Two parameters -- -->''' <small><sup><span style="background-color:[[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]]; color:green;"></span><!-- -- Two parameters -- --></sup></small>
It's pretty convoluted - the text is mixed in with the HTML syntax. Not sure what you wanted exactly, but I'm going to assume you wanted red text. The code for that is:
'''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>'''<small><sup>[[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]]</sup></small>
This should appear as Erpertblah, blah, blah...
You can change that accordingly to what you want; if you want help, feel free to ask! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Based on [3] it looks like you have a lot of junk in the signature field at Special:Preferences. Here is an old signature which worked so you can copy the code from there: '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">[[User talk:Erpert|blah, blah, blah...]]</span></sup></small>. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Erpert: Does your signature use the {{font color}} template? I believe I've just fixed an error in that template that would have caused your signature to fail. Please see if it is any better now. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
My signature always worked fine before and then suddenly it didn't. Oh, well; it does work now. Thanks! Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Download As PDF[edit]

I am a very old user of wikipedia. Recently when I download a page as pdf the pdf file seems to have 2 columns but earlier it had only 1 column. I don't like the 2 columns view. It feels like I'm reading newspaper. Is there any settings or options by which I can fix it & get it like the way it was before ? And if I can't can you help me out in this problem ? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Assistance Dogs Australia[edit]

Hi there - I recently set up a page for the Not for Profit I work for- Assistance Dogs Australia and submitted it for review. i was looking to go into the page today to add some info / edit but when I am logged in i am unable to see the page. Is this deliberate? Am i unable to see / make changes to my page until I have had a response?

Please advise.

Thank you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleynissim (talkcontribs) 05:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that there has been an article (or draft) under that name since one was deleted back in 2009 for copyright infringement. Are you sure you have the title right? And are you sure you actually saved it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The draft was deleted as "Blatant advertising, blatant copyright infringement --". [4] This is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for free advertising (regardless of the worthiness or otherwise of the cause), and we cannot accept material copy-pasted from elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi there @Hayleynissim: Your draft was located at Draft:Assistance Dogs Australia; it has since been deleted. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted content, as all our text is licensed freely under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Technically, a company can donate their text under a free license as outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However, official company text is often useless for Wikipedia, as it tends to be promotional and non-neutral. Wikipedia articles need to contain information taken from a variety of independent and reliable sources; as a result, simply having text taken from the company website will almost surely result in the declining of the draft. Let us know if you have any more questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Hayleynissim. It might help to realise that "setting up a page" is something you do in a social networking site or directory. It is not something you do in Wikipedia, where you "write an article" (but you shouldn't do so about something you are closely associated with). --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

i got warnings that my wiki account will be blocked soon.[edit]

i got warnings that my wiki account will be blocked soon. please help me i using this wiki account since 2012, i never done vandalism on wiki articles.

i just posted questions from other sites in reference desk to get answers that's all i done, so User:AndyTheGrump decide to block my wiki account soon. please some one help me. i don't want to lose my wiki account. Ram nareshji (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

See response here [5]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The key phrase is:  "If you copy-paste any more questions then..." [emphasis mine] —Simply stop doing that! Face-wink.svg ~E, aka: (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

trying to create page[edit]

im new to this and im having a hard time creating a page for Lubella Gauna, Please help me create this page and who to go for help on this because i feel that im doing everything ok just that i'm new to this and these people need to give me a break and help me out instead of deleting the page... what should I do? PLEASE RECOVER My the page I created LUBELLA GAUNA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerrca78 (talkcontribs) 09:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you would do well to take another look at the guidance you have already received on your talk page. Yes, there's a lot to read, but there is a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia - probably more than most people realise before they start! Before starting another new article you need to decide if the subject is notable: here is a brief guide to help you decide this. Because if the subject is not "notable", no article on that subject, however well-written, will ever be accepted. Then if the subject really is notable, that means there are several independent published sources: summarise in your own words what these sources say and give references to them, but never copy-paste from them: Noyster (talk), 11:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Against heavily biased article with title Ashutosh (Spiritual Leader)[edit]

The above given article is heavily biased against Shri Ashutosh Maharaj Ji. Ashutosh (spiritual leader) This article declares some person as chauffeur of Ashutosh Maharaj Ji and another person as son of Ashutosh Maharaj Ji. Both of these facts are incorrect. And both of these lines are added to malign the image of a great Indian saint. Recently Chandigarh high court has declared both the persons as fraud. Any reference to any article and newspaper is thus meaningless if its intended to proove that both of these persons as close to Ashutosh Maharaj Ji. Another thing that the organisation has how much amount of property should be told objectively, because there is no money stacked in any money chamber etc. and honorable high court of Chandigarh has declared that there is no property dispute or property stacked as money. Another fact that Shri Ashutosh Maharaj Ji has tried to create controversy related to Sikhism is false. There is no proof for that. Previously too honorable court has declared that no single evidence or recording(written or spoken) has been found which can indicate that Shri Ashutosh Maharaj Ji or his preachers have tried to malign any religion including Sikhism.

I request every user and readers of Wikipedia to protest against this false article and report the users who have created it. And also help me on how to make this person/these persons apologize and remove this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyeshndixit (talkcontribs) 15:42, 16 December 2014‎ (UTC)

The place to make comments regarding an article is on the article's talk page. Be sure to support your comments with references to reliable sources published independently of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss on the article talk page, Talk: Ashutosh (spiritual leader), citing reliable sources disagreeing with the article content. Your demand to make editors apologize is not constructive, and is not likely to achieve your real objective, which should be improvement of the article. If discussion on the talk page is not successful, read dispute resolution, and follow one of the various dispute resolution procedures. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi, all. When is it appropriate to use the label 'terrorist' to describe someone? I know that Wikipedia discourages this via Wikipedia:LABEL, but I suppose I'm looking for something a little more in-depth. I'd like to be able to cite firm policy rather than argue with others on who is exhibiting better judgement. Specifically:

  1. Is the label terrorist considered properly sourced and defensible, if one provides an RS that uses it?
  2. Is an individual's conviction by a country for terrorism or membership in an organization that another organization has labelled 'terrorist' sufficient to use the label?
  3. What if one is killed perpetrating what reliable sources later refer to as a 'terrorist attack'?

I know that this is a highly-charged issue that inflames passions, which is precisely why I would like firm guidance backed by enforceable policy. Thank you all for your help. Rustandbone (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing Submission Question: Draft: Cherzong Vang[edit]

I attempted to submit a draft article for submission and review entitled: Cherzong Vang

Draft:Cherzong Vang

Has it been reviewed or deleted ? Cannot seem to find it in the Articles for Submission date of December 14, 2014 when it was first submitted.

Has it been deleted ? If so, for what reason. Or is it still under review ?

It seems to have mysteriously disappeared completely.

thanks Publico2020 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your draft is there in the review queue. I converted the partial url in your question into a wikilink which you can follow. You can also find it in your contributions page. It is listed at Category:AfC submissions by date/14 December 2014, so I don't know why you couldn't see it there. As it says in the review box on the draft, "There are 2987 submissions waiting for review.", so you may well have to wait for more than a month. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The page history [6] shows an unregistered user removed the AFC submission templates.[7] I restored them [8] before David's post and will contact the user. Thanks for posting the problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you David Biddulph and also Prime Hunter for your thoughtful response and efforts to explain and assist. Much appreciated, since I am still rather new to how these things work and the various processes.Publico2020 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref[edit]

I was editing the page on Sharabha.I can't seem to insert the reference link properly.please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talkcontribs) 18:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If I'm looking in the right place, all you needed was to remove one character: <ref name=Sharma> instead of <ref> name=Sharma>. I've changed it for you: Noyster (talk), 21:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

why is this a post?[edit]

Stevan Lieberman

I feel this bio of a living person has been made to serve as a pamphlet for the subject. Nearly every lawyer could have a similar page. How do you request removal — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Blimey I have seen plenty of WP:Yet another lawyer pages but that one is way over the top.--ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I attempted to delete it under G11, but there was some sort of server error. Let me check back later., look at our criteria for speedy deletion if you're curious; G11 is the criterion meant for blatant advertising. PS, hmm, the deletion went through after all. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What does a strike-through signify?[edit]

When I look at an edit revision history, what does it mean when a specific entry date has been stricken through (like this)? See this example: Talk:2014 Sydney hostage crisis: Revision history. (I am not sure why that entry comes out as a red link?) Or the dates of December 15 and 16 on my User Contributions page. See the "contribs" link here: Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That talk page history shows that it has been subjected to revision deletion. Although there was nothing wrong with your revision specifically, the detail has been lost because all intervening edits are hidden to prevent visibility of the content concerned. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You cannot make a wikilink to a history page. You can post a url like [9] instead. You can also use {{History}} but that is cumbersome and not necessary. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. But, I am still confused. What circumstances would typically warrant the need for a revision deletion? And all of the intervening edits are "lost"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
See WP:REVDEL. When it's a talk page, it could be a matter of copyvio if someone dumped a big chunk of infringing text, but that's rare. Much more common is the situation here (see details at WP:AN#Could we check this possible link between the Australian terrorist and a wikipedia account?), where people were discussing whether a Wikipedia editor were the perpetrator of the crisis. People at WP:AN were suggesting that this was a case of outing. A bunch of revisions were removed because the username apparently was present in a lot of revisions; for the revdel to be effective, they had to remove the one where it was added, the last one before it was removed, and everything in between. PS, this is oversight, not simple revision deletion. As an admin, I have the ability to look at revisions that have been subjected to revdel (they're stricken, but still linked), but when oversight is used, it's stricken and greyed out without a link, appearing just as revdelled and oversighted revisions do if you're not an admin. PPS, it's still possible to access the revisions themselves (see, but you can't look at the contents, and there's not much point. You have to access a visible revision and then navigate backwards with the "Previous revision" or "Newer revision" links. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Dranga[edit]

Hello Wikipedia,

The name that performer Peter Dranga is known for outside of Russia is Peter Dranga, Please could you help us to solve this issue and change the name of page "Pyotr Dranga" to "Peter Dranga. It is his personal will and also would help people to research information about this performer.

Thank you, Sincerely, Dranga Team

The article is currently entitled Peter Dranga, and Pyotr Dranga is currently a redirect to it. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota page[edit]


I am working on editing the Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota wikipedia page (Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota)

Initially, I joined just to make my ten edits and wait four days so that I could change our name to Episcopal Church in Minnesota (which we are now called) but since decided to do some further editing.

I am specifically needing help with the little info box summary thing on the right hand side. I am hoping to change the word "congregations" to "faith communities" but it doesn't appear that I can simply replace it, as when I do the entire statistic appears.

I appreciate any help you can offer.

Sincerely, Annie

Snide034 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct: it is not possible. The infobox is a separate page, a template, that gets "transcluded", or basically made a part of this one; Help:A quick guide to templates will explain the basics. The only way to get it to say "Faith communities" would be to edit the template page itself, and that would cause "Faith communities" to appear on every page that uses it, not just on this one. You can start a discussion about editing the template by going to Template talk:Infobox diocese; I would be willing to help you if you wish. By the way, please note that moving the page would not be a good idea; our naming conventions for Christian dioceses are always "FAITH (Arch)diocese of PLACE". A page entitled "FAITH in PLACE" is used for overview articles without regard to ecclesiastical polities, e.g. "Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania" would cover the five dioceses here in PA. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Inserting images[edit]


I am currently having some issues with uploading photos with accurate copyright information to my article on John W. Cooper. I uploaded three different photos with the appropriate information, but received a message that the information I provided did not fulfill the copyright requirements. How do I go about uploading these images with the appropriate information? I have tried to find information regarding these images on the websites they were posted on but was unable to find certain aspects.

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabel Sarah Mitchell (talkcontribs) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to be able to demonstrate that an image is in the public domain or that the author expressly released rights to it under one of several copyright licenses that Wikipedia calls "free". The latter is very unlikely in this kind of situation, so you need to focus on finding a public-domain image. Can you find an image of Cooper that was certainly published (not just taken, but actively published) in 1922 or earlier? If so, it's in the public domain. Can you find an image of him that's included in a post-1922 publication with insufficient copyright information? If so, it's in the public domain, but there are plenty of details to check. If you have a picture that you think came from a document with insufficient copyright information, I can try to help you decide whether it really is lacking some of the important information; please don't just assume that a source doesn't have enough information. Final note I can't give you a full answer because I can't see everything you provided. I've asked for help from the administrator who deleted some of your images. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Boundary Dam Power Station page - journalism/agenda as an entry[edit]

Hello! The page Boundary Dam Power Station was recently amended to read like several opinion columns printed in Saskatchewan media. Those opinion pieces are even used as citations. Some of the information presented also contains a fair amount of speculation or citing sources that are not specifically saying what this entry states or is flat-out 'withheld at the request of the author'. In the past, there was a way to flag articles or portions as 'questionable' or 'containing speculation'. I was just wondering if that was still an option. World CCS experts have tried to modify the article with a balanced view, but user Sktaxpayer, who has grown this article five-fold in the past few weeks, has reverted any change to his journalistic view.

Further to this, the same journalist used as one of the only sources in this entry printed another lambasting article today, citing this Wikipedia entry. The entry now uses that new article as a source... I'm wondering if there's an abuse of the system here.

I'm not looking for censorship in the slightest. Just a bit of balance and to keep Wiki as the online Encyclopedia it is, not a forum to pursue an agenda.

Thanks for any insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKcontent99 (talkcontribs) 21:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some possibly useful tags are at Category:Neutrality templates. Rmhermen (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In addition to placing tags, you should consider stating your specific concerns at the article's talk page. This is always the recommended first step in resolving disagreements over an article's content, rather than reverting and counter-reverting. It may help if you can identify how parts of the article are not written in a neutral and balanced way, or if they are not soundly based on reliable sources, and thus contravene WP policy: Noyster (talk), 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the article back to the October 21 version - all of the substantive edits since then are non-neutral and read like an opinion piece. Further discussion should take place on the talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have just reverted again - the user in question doesn't seem to understand WP:SYN and WP:BRD - need additional eyes on this one please.--ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirects from main space to draft space[edit]

Is there any simple way to search for all redirects from main space to draft space? There should be zero such redirects, as it kind of defeats the whole purpose of the draft space. But anytime a non-admin moves something from main space to draft space, a redirect is left behind, and they aren't always tagged for speedy deletion by the mover. I'm hoping the solution is (a) not really really simple, so I look like an idiot for not knowing it, but (b) not so difficult that I can't easily be done without knowing how to create a bot or use AWB or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects#See also? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that, no. I knew about the existence of the database report from some previous issue, but it's now 11 months out of date. The first tool there looks like it would be exactly what I'm looking for, except it doesn't seem to be working right now. I'll try it later. But thanks, @PrimeHunter:, for the pointer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the tool finally worked, and it is, indeed, exactly what I was looking for. There are currently about 2 dozen of them. Gives me a chance to renew my gnome license. Thanks again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]

Question about conflict year cats[edit]

I've been in a little edit war over the Namibian War of Independence, see

The issue is whether to include conflict year cats for each year the conflict went on, whereas my colleague insists that there is a practice of using decade cats for conflicts of this length (the war lasted from 1966-1990), though I do not see this anywhere. What is the WP regarding long term conflicts? Do we add a conflict cat for each year it went on or what?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bellerophon5685: I believe the tradition at Wikipedia is to first (try to) take the dispute to the talk page in this case: Talk:Namibian War of Independence. Maybe give it a try? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
But what are the wikipedia rules for this situation, if any?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Major beefs[edit]

I rely on Wikipedia often, and I've donated to the project frequently.

1. Why is it so damn difficult to find a contact email?

2. Why is it so damn difficult to share a page with my colleagues?

3. Wtf does save page mean ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

1. The left pane of every page has a link saying "Contact page", and the bottom of every page has a link to the same page saying "Contact Wikipedia". That page includes an email address, but for most things we prefer users to find the proper place for whatever they want, like this help desk to ask the type of questions you did, or ask where else to go with something.
2. See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Share pages on Facebook, Twitter etc.
Symbol move vote.svg Sharebox is a script that reorders your toolbox. It adds new buttons that make it easier to mail, print or share an article on Facebook or another linksharing service. You must have an account to add Sharebox to the sidebar. See User:TheDJ/Sharebox for more information.
3. The same interface is used to edit articles and other pages like this help desk. "Save page" is a better term for articles. New software for discussions is being developed and tested but it's controversial. Many editors prefer the existing system. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sharebox has been deleted by the TheDJ. I updated the HD template. --  Gadget850 talk 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"a proud member of"[edit]

Other than inside quotes or references, can anyone think of a reason that the phrase "a proud member of" shouldn't be changed to "a member of"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Naraht (talkcontribs)

Presumably, you have a specific such usage at Wikipedia. If you link to it, maybe we can answer the question definitively for whatever situation you have in mind... --Jayron32 04:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Some context would help but in general it sounds like the kind of statement in an article that would be part of improper editorializing, and which I would expect to find in promotional article, or at least one full of tone problems.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean one of Wikipedia articles found here: Special:Search/proud member of...? --CiaPan (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I can imagine at some articles it might be necessary to create a context for the storyline; why someone took a certain action. Honor related actions for instance, or why Muammar Gaddafi always dressed in certain clothing. If based in sources this usage is ok. However, in most general articles I would support the deletion of such a terminology. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
outside of the direct quote, no, i cannot think of a reason for that phrasing in Wikipedia's voice; there might be, but I cannot think of any circumstance. WP:PEACOCK / WP:NPOV / WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree and if you do a search for that phrase limited to the main space, in 99% of the hits it is used inappropriately.--ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the failure to sign, I should know better... In general, my concern was mostly fraternities and sororities. I've been looking at (example) "Mike Slinda is a proud member of Gamma Gamma Fraternity, Inc." type entries. I know that the Fraternity should be uncapped, the Gamma Gamma should be wikilinked if possible, the Inc should in general be deleted (generally keeping the "Inc" in other places if the person is a founder or a national officer) and I was wondering if the proud should be dropped as well.Naraht (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case, absolutely. Just " a member..." is fine. --Jayron32 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem at DYK[edit]

I submitted three articles for DYK in October/November. A few days ago an editor told reviewers I would need to do a QPQ in order for the hooks to be passed. The person pointed to a conversation on the talk page but apparently the discussion is over. I'm not sure what exactly I've done wrong. The "Instructions for nominators" section says for anonymous editors to submit possible submissions on the DYK talk page. My understanding is that hooks are approved or declined on that page depending if they meet the criteria on Wikipedia:Did you know. I read the submission rules and unless there's an issue with the hooks (and two editors were learning towards approving them) I don't see why they should be declined.

There's no mention of anonymous editors being required to review other DYK hooks and I feel like I'm being singled out. I wouldn't have had a problem reviewing submissions myself if I'd been asked. But as one editor pointed out my reviews would need to be double checked so it's really a waste of time for both people. If there's a problem with me editing anonymously then I'll leave.

Thanks for your time. (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the only edit by your current IP address but Template talk:Did you know has several edits by 72.74.*.*. I guess you refer to Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on October 11 which links to a section now archived at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 112#QPQ - IP wrestling nominations. QPQ refers to point 5 at Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria. Does that answer your question? I don't know whether there are other IP's who have been noticed to apparently have at least 5 DYK credits so it is possible you are the first IP to be "singled out". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How to fix this bare URL reference[edit]

Can someone instruct me on how to fix the lone bare URL reference at Kennedy Scholarship? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 10:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The link leads nowhere (except a metasearch engine), and the statement it supports is already sourced. I've therefore removed it. For future reference, User:Zhaofeng Li/Reflinks is very useful for these sorts of fixes. Yunshui  13:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


I am nearly 70 and have had a career spanning a number of organisations, experimental technologies and events. I would like to contribute in a number of ways but the biggest one is correcting, or adding to, existing Wikipedia entries. There are few if any references to verify many of these additions. For example I recently corrected an entry on Sam Leitch who is described as BBC Head of Football. I worked with Sam for six years in the 1970s in BBC TV Sport and we never ever had a Head of Football. My corrections were rejected. I accept that my corrections had a more personal context which was inappropriate but correcting factual errors is something I can do while my memory stays intact. Please advise.

Roger Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogleswil23 (talkcontribs) 12:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Roger. Thank you for wanting to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we don't accept information that is not backed up by a published reference, especially anything evaluative (whether good or bad). The reasons are several: in the first place, it is very difficult to know who anybody is on the internet, and whether what they say is genuine (please don't take this personally: it's just as true of me). And even given that you are who you say you are, and your recollections are accurate, there is another problem: because Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, somebody may come along at any time and change what you have written (whether by mistake or deliberately). While there is a record of that change having taken place, it is hard to find, and the page will look just as you left it, but with different information. The reader needs to be given the information required to verify it if needed.
In this case, the whole article is unreferenced (which unfortunately many articles are) and actually your correction might well have been left alone; but you added a personal appreciation. This is absolutely not accepted in Wikipedia, where articles are required to be written in a neutral encyclopaedic style. No evaluative copy is permitted, ever, unless it is directly referenced to a reliable independent source.
My recommendation would be to find a reliable published source which says that he was Editor of MoTD and Sportsnight, and reapply the factual part of your edit, with the reference. This will improve the article in two ways, one by correcting an error, and the other by adding a reference to an article which lacks them. --ColinFine (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TAAS / TCAA[edit]

Hi there,

I have an enquiry about updating new statistics onto wikipedia pages. I can see that the pages for The Air Ambulance Service and The Children's Air Ambulance need updating now the helicopter has launched and completed it's first trips. I can see two users Grafen and PRL1973 update this page. How can I send them links to websites and new statistics so they can update the page? I am new to wikipedia.

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to communicate with specific users, the best way to do so is through their user talk pages, but I'm not sure why you mention those two users particularly. The best way of proposing changes, if you don't feel confident in editing the articles yourself, is to use the article talk pages (Talk:The Air Ambulance Service and Talk:Children's Air Ambulance). Use the "New section" link to start a new topic, & add your suggestions, with links to the published reliable sources (preferably independent of the subject) to support the material you would like to see added. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


How to do I take out an IBAN to prevent an editor posting on my Talk page? I have read the WP help page on bans generally and can find everything except how to actually ask for an IBAN. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You ask for one at WP:ANI. Though generally, if you ask someone to stop bothering you, they should. Be aware that IBANs are two-way. If enacted, you wouldn't be allowed to deal with them either. --Jayron32 14:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Jayron: Thank you. I have repeatedly asked the editor to stop continuing a dispute on our Talk pages. Being unable to dealt with the editor because of an IBAN would be tremendous relief. I will take this to AN/I. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Request edit[edit]

My name is Haleema Tanveer.Kindly mam/sir have a review of my article written.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleema tanveer (talkcontribs) 14:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't written an article. I assume that you are referring to the content of your user page? If so, that is not yet fit to become an article, primarily because it contains no references to published reliable sources to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability. I have added some usful links to your user talk page, and in particular you need to read WP:Your first article. We can, if you like, move the draft from your user page to a user subpage as a userspace draft, and from there you could submit it for review when it is ready (but not now). There is a page WP:User pages which explains what you could validly put on your user page, but it is not the place for a draft article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have moved the content to a user sandbox at User:Haleema tanveer/Sandbox.--ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


How can I get my book on Wikipediea — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOMANOFGRACE (talkcontribs) 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

By ensuring that it satisfies the notability requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (books). --David Biddulph (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
And then by reading the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. If your book merits inclusion in our encyclopaedia, you are not the best person to write about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you Kathleen Morgan? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability & PROD per radio stations[edit]

I couldn't find the exact stance on radio stations and their notability.

Two articles, Virgin Radio Dubai & Virgin Radio Jordan, are written like adverts and don't list sources (Jordan's station lists its own "about" page). I've tagged them both with {{advert}}, one with {{One source}}, and the other with {{unreferenced}}. On a side note, Jordan's logo image was deleted, does Lebanon's logo also violate image guidelines?

Both stations exist, and are on the air.

Do they qualify for a PROD, or are the tags enough? ¬Hexafluoride (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I just took a machete to them removing most of the problematic advertorial content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirects to a parent company would be another option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
see also WP:ATD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)