Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners.

Ask a question

November 21

Do I want to delete this page @ "Articles for Deletion" or "Proposed Deletion"? (No rush)

Hi, I have a question concerning deletion of the page State bag.

Background on the page: it's not doing too well, not many viewers, nor editors. It's also stub-class, an orphan, and lacks any sources.

So it's not that I think WP:PROD would be inappropriate so much as, would anyone even see it? I mean, if it's orphaned and unpopular, would AfD or WP:PROD be more appropriate? Kind of confused about the difference between the two deletion methods, by the way, since they both seem to go through the same 7-day process.

meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally see no point to using PROD for anything. Anyone can remove the tag, including the creator, and then you waste 7 days with it tagged, then the tag removed. I'd personally take it to AfD. I've brought stuff there before with no or 1 person weighing in, and the page still was deleted. You could still PROD though, it's 100% your choice. CTF83! 01:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Meteor sandwich yum: - I've prodded articles successfully, and I personally think it's better to go that route first. Yes, someone might remove the prod, but if the person who created the article has ceased to be active (very typical), then it's quite likely no one else cares. By contrast, posting at AfD makes more work for other editors (who have to decide whether to comment or not), may be reposted again and again if little or no comments (so, way more than 7 days), and generally should be second priority, in my opinion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(/e/c) Prod and AfD are quite different. Prod is for uncontroversial deletion without discussion of the merits and AfD is for discussion on the merits through consensus. By uncontroversial, what we mean is that we would not reasonably expect opposition because the basis for deletion is rather clear under policy and guideline and does not need to be sussed out. Prod is far less burdensome on the community and conserves resources because we do not take up the time of many editors in needing to weigh in ar a deletion debate. A prod tag, unlike an AfD nomination, can be removed by anyone (even the creator) and if it is, that act itself is considered to render the deletion controversial and so the removal cannot be reverted and thus you need to go to AfD as the next step. I disagree with CTF83 regarding the utility of prod. We delete maybe 300 articles per week through prod and save hundreds of hours of editor's time by doing so, and I consider time (especially of core editors, who do a great deal of the heavy lifting here) a most precious and finite commodity. I do not have any statistics on what percentage of prod taggings are removed, but there certainly are enough to result in those few hundred a week that make it to end without removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra info. Will keep that in mind. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Elliott-Halberstam conjecture

I clicked on Elliott-Halberstam conjecture at List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics#Number_theory_.28prime_numbers.29 which used a redirected to "Elliott-Halberstam conjecture". I tried to see if I could removed the redirect by changing the "_" in the link, but nothing happen. It still redirects to itself? I just don't understand it, so I hope someone can fix it. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was already fixed. It links to Elliott–Halberstam conjecture CTF83! 01:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The redirect seems to be workign correctly, it goes from the version of the name with a hyphen to the more correct dash (between the two names). It is possible (but unhelpful) to set up a page that redirects to itself, but I don't see one here, nor any recent changes in any of the pages involved. If it is the underscore you are concerned with, Wikipedia substitutes underscores for spaces when an article name is converted to a URL, since URLs generally may not contain spaces. DES ^(talk) 01:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:DASH for the guideline. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Title Page

I'm trying to create a new wikipedia page. I've added all the information for the page to my Sandbox already. But how do I title the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIO267 F13 02 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Search on your title. Since there presumably isn't such an article, you should get a message telling you that you can start one. Then click on your title, which is red. (And, as you can see, you should have signed your message above in the same way that Talk (discussion) page messages should be signed. You can in future do that by clicking on the pencil stub icon at the top of the edit box.) --Hordaland (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that the article has now been copied to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alternative_Mating_Strategies. I found it very interesting – it's about a field I used to work in, a long time ago. It is well-written, easy (for me, anyway) to understand, wide-ranging within its topic, and has an appropriate number of references. It's like a review article from Annual Review of Genetics, from the days before that journal was all biochemistry. I have been wondering, "is Wikipedia the right place for an academic review article?", and have decided, "yes, why not?". Maproom (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed and accepted (after some minor tweaking). I wish all submissions to AfC were this easy to review! Please help improve/refine the categorisation, I've just added a few "rough guesses" as I'm not particularly expert at zoology. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article needs incomming links and there could also be more wikilinks in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Alternative mating strategy to comply with our naming conventions (lower case and singular titles preferred) and made some conforming textual changes to the lead. I have also changed some of the section headings to comply with WP:MOSHEAD. I think the tone of the article needs a little more work it has the feel of an academic paper about it.--ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What to do with this article -- Split? Merge? Delete?

Hello,

I came across this article recently: Political messages of Dr. Seuss. I think it's very out of place and doesn't serve much of a purpose. It was written as part of a college assignment. It definitely needs to be dealt with. I think the best way is to split its contents across the various articles about the books that this article discuss, i.e. info about the Sneetches will go into the article The Sneetches and Other Stories, etc. But I'm a little overwhelmed. How do I go about doing that? Do I have to nominate the article somewhere? Please, any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Bobnorwal (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated it at AfD with your above rational. In case you wish to comment futhur, it is at this page. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The AfD nomination, whilst referring to this page, only supplied the deletion aspect of the suggestion here.[1] Splitting the article requires nothing more than someone going ahead and doing it. Deletion would prevent this and splitting would not require deletion. Wikipedia:Splitting gives relevant advice. I think deletion would be unhelpful. Thincat (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation

Hi, Would you please let me know the right way to add reliable sources to prevent the immediate deletion of this article and to enable me to remove this tag. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.219.65.143 (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about Amr El-Samra. The article needs to meet a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NOTE and WP:BLP.The article needs considerable work and just from scrolling through it and looking at the edit history it clearly has an issue with WP:COI.I would say the article should be shortened and his notability needs to be added as well as reliable sources (WP:RS).For information on how to cite you can look at WP:CITE. XFEM Skier (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article Amr El-Samra reads more like a personal blog than a Wikipedia article. Some of it is even written in the first person. It provides no evidence that its subject is notable. Frankly, I doubt that you can do anything to save it from deletion. Maproom (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Maproom above, but if you want to try, the first thing is to find reliable sources. These must be published, independent sources with a reputation for fact checking, that discuss the subject in some detail, and support the specific information in the article. Cites to facebook, linkedin, youtube, twitter, blogs, and social media are not reliable for this purpose, nor is anything published by the subject or any company he ran or was closely affiliated with. Newspaper or magazine articles (of more than purely local circulation), or books or scholarly publications all work. For how to list them, read referencing for beginners or just list them on the article's talk page (and indicate what facts each supports) and then ask for help with the formatting. DES ^(talk) 15:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

At the moment the article reads like a vanity bio, replete as it is with family holiday snaps and other content completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. There may be some material in there that could form the basis of a bio that meets the guidelines but I think we will only get there by blowing it up and starting again.--ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Change name of article?

Is it possible to change the header in the article about Sperry Drilling? The Halliburton division's name changed three or four years ago from "Sperry Drilling Services" to "Sperry Drilling", so the article should be called "Sperry Drilling". The rest of the article is correct. Hveding (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ref.:

• Sperry Drilling Services
• http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1005&pageid=2425

Best regards, Hveding

You can change the name of an article by using the "move" function. Highlight the dropdown icon in the top-right (to the right of "edit" and "view history") and select "move". From there you can rename the article. — Richard BB 09:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not autoconfirmed yet so you cannot move articles. I have made the move to Sperry Drilling. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The page for the company PowWowNow has disappeared?

Hi, I work at Powwownow and our company page seems to have been deleted for some reason? Can someone please tell me why it has been removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.63.16.76 (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The page Powwownow has been deleted multiple times because it failed to meet the requirements for a stand alone article. A version is currently being held as a workspace draft at User:Basebot/Powwownow although it doesnt appear to have been touched for a very long time and may be eligible for deletion.

You should also be aware of our policies regarding conflict of interest and the fact that we are not here to be a free host for a web presence for your company.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, PowWowNow (with the extra capitals) was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", as notified on User talk:Sau222sau. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Article on Wikipedia?

Is the claim here true - that Wikipedia deleted the noted page almost immediately after it was posted. I can't find any such deletion. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Look in the sbnation article below the image. It states that the article is Satire and there was no such Wikipedia page.Naraht (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced claim

In the List of cities in Punjab and Chandigarh by population an anonymous editor has put in some unreferenced information, which may have some basis. I have reverted it twice but he has put it back. Can someone see and do as he deems fit? - Chandan Guha (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You removed information about Patiala.[2] Why do you think it does not belong in the article? -- Jreferee (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is some misconception here. I removed information about Rajpura in Patiala district because it is unreferenced. Rajpura is in Punjab - that is not the point in dispute. The point is whether it is a city with 100,000 population. There should be some referenced support for that information. Also please read Rajpura (Demographics). - Chandan Guha (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

My search for the population turned up ~83k people as of 2001. I added it to Rajpura with citation. I would guess it is higher than that now but that is the last reliable information. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the search. There does not seem to be any referenced support for Rajpur having a population of 100,000 or more. In that case, the anonymous editor's edit in List of cities in Punjab and Chandigarh by population (for cities with a population of 100,000 plus) should be reverted. I have already reverted it twice. Will some other editor please take it up? - Chandan Guha (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Album chart

I am currently working on the article As Good as Dead, trying to get the albumchart templates to display correctly, but I can't seem to do so. I was hoping that someone here would know what should be done to fix this. Thanks in advance. Jinkinson talk to me 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look at some of the FA-class album articles, you should be able to find an album chart template and other features that represent how best to put together an album article. The FA-class album articles are at Category:FA-Class Album articles. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Naomie Harris biography

The Naomie Harris biography has a section under it called "Voice of the voiceless=" which states personal attacks of Winnie Mandela, and is not relevant to the biography of Naomie Harris. I cannot seem to edit the content, even after I try to login. Can someone help me edit this page? The content of that section is disputable at best, libelous at worst. Thank you! --Appiah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.184.183 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Jreferee has removed the section. Maproom (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

please help!!

How do I link a name on a Notable person (PJ Cambo-soccerplayer on Wilbraham, MA page) to a User page referencing him (User:Soccernotes)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccernotes (talk • contribs)

You don't, or at least you shouldn't, see WP:SELFREF. Instead you just include a link to an article about the person. If the article doesn't exist, but you think it plausible that it should or will in the future, link anyway and it will become a working link when and if the article is created. Such a link to a non-existent page is often called a "red link" because by default it is displayed in red. There is nothing wrong with plausible redlinks. DES ^(talk) 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

DES sums it up pretty well and if you want to read more about red links, there's always WP:REDLINK. Dismas|^(talk) 17:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing an article as it was on a given date (Including Templates)

Is there anyway within the wikipedia website (as opposed to archive.org) to see the way that an article was on a given date *including* templates and other trancluded items. Right now if Article A includes Template B and I look back at Article A from the version that was there a Year ago it will include the *current* version of Template B (presuming it also included Template B at the time) Any ideas?Naraht (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way to do that, short of an archive link. DES ^(talk) 15:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Naraht: I can think of one way but I am not suggesting you actual do it. It's a lot of bother, a lot of copyright attribution (WP:CWW) required and a lot of G7s at the end. Anyway, I suppose you could copy the article's code as of a certain date to a sandbox. Then you would need to go to each of the templates that are transcluded in it and copy their code as of the date you are attempting to replicate and create each of them in turn in sandboxes (make sure to check each of the templates to see if they are nesting internal templates that might also need to be sandboxed). Then go back to the article and replace each of the template names with the sandbox templates you made. If the images used no longer exist or have been changed that might present an impassable obstacle.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Trouble logging in.

I seem to have forgotten my loggin details. I understand they won't be provided by this method of questioning but the issue comes when I am requesting a password reset and I am simply not receiving any emails at all... Any solutions?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.169.5 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The system e-mails the reset information to whatever e-mail address you provided for "E-mail this user". If that account has shut down or been moved without forwarding, you may be out of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

TELL LIKE IT IS

Within the pages about TELL IT LIKE IT IS there is no reference to the first Uk recording of the song by a British girl, Kim Davis [Kim D]. I was a band member at the time. I think the first UK recording should be of interest Kind Regards Colin Woodland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.186.140 (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are refering to Tell It Like It Is (song) you should mention this at Talk:Tell It Like It Is (song), the page for suggestions on improving that article. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for your information, as none of the rest of us can see or verify your personal memories.

By hte way, if you register an account and sign in, your IP address will not be displayed with every edit.Your IP addr could expose your physical location, if that matters to you. In addition, using an account provides a watchlist, a clear record of contributions, and other benefits. DES ^(talk) 19:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't cite pdf file as reference

I've asked for help with this type of problem before. The difficulty seems to be that I can't copy the correct url when I find a pdf file on the internet which I wish to cite as a reference in a Wikipedia article. In this case, the Wikipedia article is on Thomas Lodge [3], and the only url I was able to copy is [www.c-s-p.org/flyers/978-1-4438-3762-0-sample.pdf‎], which I expanded to [4], but it still didn't work. The full citation (with my attempt to copy the url) is in the External links section at the end of the Wikipedia article on Thomas Lodge.‎ Any help with this would be much appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

When I pointed at the link, my browser told me I was about to jump to a URL ending with "...sample.pdf%E2%80%8E", a sign that you had copy+pasted some control characters along with the URL. I deleted the "pdf" and the space, and retyped them, and all seems to be working now. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If you looking to cite this as opposed to providing an external link to it, this might help. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

John of Reading, thanks again for your help with this problem (you helped with an earlier similar one). I'll watch out for the control characters when copying in future; that does seem to be the problem. Thanks for your suggestion also, XFEM Skier; I've added it as a citation rather than as an external link. NinaGreen (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

co-operatives

It has ben reported by the Daily Telegraph and Gardeners Question Time in recent days and is repeated in your article that the first co-operative movement was started in Rochdale. In fact, the first such organisation started in Sheerness in 1816 and I would welcome the further attention of your author to this point,please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.228.88 (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles have no individual authors. Each is a collaborative work, the particular contributors may be identified on the article history. You may edit the page directly, but be prepared to back up the statement with a reliable source if challenged. Or you may discuss the matter on the talk page of the article in question.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

By the way, it is very helpful if you link to or at least name the article you are talking about here -- en-Wikipedia has over 4,000,000 articles, and looking for clues in your comment and then searching for the intended article wastes time. DES ^(talk) 20:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Page

Im trying to make a profile for a Saracens rugby player Petrus du Plessis. Ive added a reliable reference so will the page be reviewed or deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi5agent (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, but please read WP:REFBEGIN and WP:MOSBIO for help with citing refs and formatting a bio.--ukexpat (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Derek Acorah Page - Wish to edit and add some info

I wish to add the fact that Derek Acorah appeared in a Dr Who episode.

The link and info to the episode appears Army of Ghosts

Would I need any other information in order to have it added?

Thank you.

145.255.240.145 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You will have to cite a reference from a reliable source.--ukexpat (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just edit Derek Acorah yourself, copying over the reference from the article Army of Ghosts (do not use the article itself as a reference). This does, of course, presume that the article has a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's already in the Acorah article. (I'd theoretically like to clean up the article, but I despise fakers like him so much that I can't be arsed to waste my time.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

+1 Some of us remember the time he was posessed by a person who didn't exist... Also, "Mary wants dick!" - the only thing he ever said that was probably true. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAQ

How can I get a WP question added to the FAQs page? I've seen a very long answer to it but it would be nice to see the question about editing answered in just a sentence. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: One option is to simply edit the relevant FAQ page yourself, per WP:BB. Another (perhaps better) would be to post the suggested question and answer to the talk page, and see if anyone has any objections, or suggestions for improvements. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@John Broughton: I looked at the FAQ Talk Page and there is no activity there. I think the last post was in January 2013 (even comments going back to 2011 have received no response). I think I might take your first suggestion as if I put some answer on the page, it is likely to spark interest and other Editors will edit it to improve it.

I just posted this here because I thought that maybe the FAQs arose from questions you receive at the Help Desk. I mean, someone has to determine a question is one that is frequently asked, right? I didn't realize I could add my own question right to it. I'll try and maybe Editors who have the page on their watchlist will help with the answer.

Thanks for responding to my question. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Spokane County Library District

Spokane County Library District is currently under Spokane County. However, this is not a government entity for the county and has enough information to warrant having this as its own page. Spokane County Library Distict used to be its own entry, but I have been unable to figure out how to move it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choffman313 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The old page, now a redirect with significant history, is at Spokane County Library District. You can just edit that, to copy the content (wikisource) into that page. (click on the link in the "redirected from" message at the top left of the page when it redirects you the first time.) To preserve attributions, please add {{merged-from}} or {{copied}} to the talk page -- this should have been done after the previous merge into the county article (Spokane County, Washington). And please, lose the timeline, it is way over-detailed and out of proportion for such an article. You might want to discuss the matter on Talk:Spokane County, Washington firsat, or at least announce what you are doing there. Someone thought the merge a good idea, (actually Abductive on 13:17, 28 December 2009). There is no rule that says that only governmental organizations can be described in a county article. Nor that they must be. If you do plan to make it separate, please consider the issue of notability. The current Libray section has only a single reference to the library's own website. As a separate article that would probably not pass AfD unless it were improved. I advise having independent reliable references ready before doing an unmerge. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November 22

Children in BLP

In a Biography of a Living Person, is it acceptable or not for children to be named and/or discussed if the children are not themselves famous?

More specifically, say a moderately famous person's son commits suicide. Is it acceptable to write about that suicide? Note that there are no other references to the person's children in the article.

Something about it just strikes me as inappropriate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samantha1961 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If the information is cited by a reliable source then it should not be considered a violation of BLP but it might be an issue with undue weight. I think the question becomes is it significant to that person the biography is about. An example of appropriate weight is probably John Walsh and the murder of his son. My two cents. XFEM Skier (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

While potentially possible, in general there is no good reason to and per WP:BLPNAME - they are generally only known for the 1 event of being a celebrity's child - the bar should be pretty high for including names of minor children. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've seen lots of articles where relatives are named for no reason. AS XFEM Skier says, very often it's undue weight to name them. And in the case of underage, it's certainly inappropriate except for notable cases. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that it might be true in regards to a Minor child in isolation, but for example, I would be fine if the article on State Senator Creigh Deeds included the name of his son who the police believe stabbed him and then committed suicide. The son in this situation was age 24.Naraht (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor removing my maintenance tags because they are "ridiculous" and "make a mess"

I have been involved in a dispute today, the subject matter does not matter for the purpose of this question, first I raised the alterations that I thought were needed to a range of articles on a talk page and on two noticeboards, got a consensus, not from very many people to be sure, but there was agreement that the changes should be made, so I started to do so and am not surprised to find myself now in a dispute with an editor who does not agree with those changes. S/he has reverted a lot of them, so instead of edit-warring I have put accuracy and point of view disputed tags on an article and a template. What does surprise me though and I am not sure how to deal with is that this user simply removes the "disputed" tags, telling me that I am being disruptive, the alteration I and others agreed should be made is "ridiculous" and the tags "make a mess". I don't want to get into a silly "I put the tags on,s/he takes them off" over and over game, but I don't want to have to accept either that the other user can just say" there's no dispute, you are disruptive". Is there anything I can do about this? maybe some way to ask for admin intervention without going to AN/I? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

One user agreeing with you does not make a consensus when trying to change a very old status quo. Changes should be made, of course, but not all those that you proposed. Your edits have been reverted by a number of users, not only the one you are discussing here without notifying him. You should have explained what it is that I reverted. Since you failed to do that, I will. You changed "Franz, Duke of Bavaria" into "Franz Duke of Bavaria" because it is supposedly more accurate and more neutral, being closer to the subject's legal name ("Franz Herzog von Bayern"). It is, of course, neither more accurate nor more neutral. It is merely a terrible abuse of orthography. You inserted dispute and POV tags because I reinserted the comma, claiming that the comma makes the article biased and inaccurate. Of course, the comma does no such thing. The comma is there because common sense requires it to be there. It is one of the most basic principles of punctation, and has absolutely nothing to do with your on-going crusade. If you believe that the title should be treated as a surname (i.e. without the comma), then you should not translate it. Mihály Kovács does not become Michael Smith, nor does Stefan Schumacher become Stephen Shoemaker. However, the man whose legal name is "Franz Herzog von Bayern" is known as "Franz, Duke of Bavaria" in English, much like Dana Elaine Owens is known as Queen Latifah. This is a plain case of WP:Use English. Surtsicna (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What I wanted to get another opinion on here was whether it is OK for you just to revert my edits, remove the tags that I put on instead of getting involved in an edit war, tell me not to be disruptive, and put the article(s) back to the way they were before. I know you think it is ridiculous, I and Dougweller do not, I really don't want to have to go to AN/I or something about this,I did not go into the subject matter because I all wanted here was an outside opinion if it is OK to remove "disputed" tags from an article and dismiss the dispute as "ridiculous".Smeat75 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

claiming a consensus within less than one day, unless you have 20 people all in agreement, is generally claiming a consensus before one exists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

First, if you are in a dispute, there are dispute resolution avenues and such you can go to without going through ANI. And based off the information presented here by both you and Surtsicna, I think that context/subject matter was important here, and that the reverting was not out of line. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, forget "claiming a consensus" me and one other guy thought it was a good thing to do, and I am not surprised to be reverted. What I want an opinion on is "is it OK just to remove those dispute tags and tell me to stop being disruptive and making a mess?" And I think there will be dispute resolutions on the subject matter.Smeat75 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I said that the reverting was not out of line (something that I was only able to determine knowing the background). "Making a mess" may have been a tad incivil, but I believe the removal was justified in this situation. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the overwhelming majority of sources and standard English grammar would call for "Franz, Duke of Bavaria", it is not out of line to call the removal of the comma "ridiculous" and to call it "making a mess" when, because the "ridiculous" edit was reverted, someone spammed the article with inappropriate tags. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What RPOD said. Franz, Duke of Bavaria has a comma in English for the same reason that Diana, Princess of Wales and Philippe II, Duke of Orléans do. Cherry-picking a Wikipedia article that uses this accepted title format and attempting to change it to a nonstandard version without a wider consensus is not the way to improve the encyclopaedia. Neither is changing the focus of the dispute to the behaviour of the person who who reverted your attempt back to the accepted version and then got mildly and understandably testy when you tried to progress your point by adding inappropriate tags onto the article in question. If you want to focus on the issue, and discuss whether there is a case for changing how we punctuate the titles of all such individuals, a good starting point might be Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility). - Karenjc (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, RPOD and Karenjc. Unfortunately, the comma was again removed from the lead sentence and the inappropriate tags were readded today. Please see Franz, Duke of Bavaria. This rape of grammar is completely senseless. Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Lincolnshire

The template for Lincolnshire used to include the category in its definition, so that all of the villages and civil parishes were included in the parent Lincolnshire category as well as the Villages in Lincolnshire and Civil parishes in Lincolnshire. I removed the category from the template, but all the articles are still listed in the parent category. I can't figure out what keeps them showing up. Thank you for any help. Jllm06 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at WP:FAQ/Categories#Why might a category list not be up to date?, but then I was looking to see when you removed the category from Template:Lincolnshire and couldn't immediately find such a change; when was it? - David Biddulph (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it was the Template East Lindsey (district). Jllm06 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had just spotted the similar change at Template:South Holland (district). The FAQ may therefore be the answer. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try the null edits.Jllm06 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit of "Everyday Edisons"

Hello. My edit was removed. I was given an explanation and a link to reply. Unfortunately, that link disappeared. I think the moderator's name was GeofItalic text Any ways, the explanation stated something to the effect that my edit was not Constructive First, this is a highly subjective term. Being destructive against evil results in a very constructive outcome. The double negative thing. It is a mathematical thing - X - = + Anyway, this is my edit (Only additions) to the article. They are factual, truthful, non-inflammatory, statements written in a very civil and proper fashion.

Out of the above referenced concepts, only "Befudium", "Loopa" (Rebranded 'GyroBowl') and "Pressix appear to be launched as products. There is much uncertainty about all the other concepts of Season 1, Season 2, Season 3 and Season 4. Season 5 was reportedly produced but it has never been broadcasted. According to his consumer advocacy site www.edisonnationisascam.com, Luis Rodriguez alleges that his 3 inventions, collectively dubbed "Trick Stick", selected by Edison Nation ('Everyday Edisons' parent company) for season 3, were unlawfully excluded from the show, and their three respective agreements violated.

-- Vergulito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

at the top of every page is a "History" tab, and for Everyday Edisons, it is this record. Were you previously editing before you registered your account to make this edit? If so, the response to your edit is on this page User_talk:69.115.111.78. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edits were correctly removed, as you cited no source for the first paragraph, and the personal website of a person involved in a dispute with "Everyday Edisons" does not constitute a reliable source as far as Wikipedia content is concerned. Unless and until this dispute is given significant coverage in third-party published sources, it doesn't belong in our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See the policies WP:V content must be verifiable as having been published by WP:RS a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and an editorial oversight process. The content in the article must also WP:NPOV be presented from a neutral point of view WP:UNDUE without excessive weight being given to relatively minor aspects of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I found several sources mentioning Loopa and Everyday Edisons,[5][6][7][8] but nothing mentioning Befudium. Pressix and Everyday Edisons is mentioned in this article. I did not find any Wikipedia reliable sources mentioning Luis Rodriguez and Everyday Edisons. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't edit an article.

I want to edit the piece names section of the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece. I want to insert a new language in the table. But the table is not showing up in the editor. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess_piece&action=edit&section=8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHUBHANKAN DAS (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a template so you would have to edit the template not the table in the article. Note you should pay attention to where else the template is used and be careful as the edits will effect multiple locations. XFEM Skier (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

As the user above me mentioned, the section you are trying to edit is a template which is essentially a "page inside a page" which can be included in many different articles. Heed with caution because if you make an error, it could potentially affect hundreds of articles. I suggest you read WP:TEMPLATE before you advance! 07:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)teratogen (talk)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Chess names shows it's only transcluded in one other article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Hummingbird

I gave a blog link in the External links section and it was deleted. But many other blog links can be found in your references. Is it Wikipedia paid that the moderator can put their friends links only or paid links only. The link was - http://technologiesinternetz.blogspot.in/2013/11/how-hummingbird-has-changed-definition.html First I put this link under - References - the link was deleted. Later on i put this link under - External Link - Again it was deleted. Is it biased that only moderator or checker can do anything. Other blog links are visible but when i put my favourite blog they delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.24.62 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you probably can find many blog links in external link sections. And they most always are inappropriate and should be removed. You will probably find the fact that other articles have some crap that needs to be cleaned up is not really a convincing argument that you should be allowed to clutter bad links in yet another article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please take some time and read WP:RELY, especially sections 2.3 Biased and Opinionated Sources and 3 Questionable and self-published sources. teratogen (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If there any remaining blog links that you think should not be listed in the article, please note them below. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Using Archive.org or Google Cache to fix dead links

If an article's reference has a dead link, is it acceptable to change the link to the Archive.org or Google Cache copy? teratogen (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not Google Cache, as these quickly become dead too. Archive.org is ok, however, it is generally better to use a CS1 template (eg. {{cite web}} with archived links, as they can have |archiveurl and |archivedate , leaving the original URL intact. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See more at Wikipedia:Link rot. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

kinfra

KINFRA

<large amount of draft article text removed>

K N Srikumar, Sr media advisor KINFRA, KINFRA House Sasthamangalam Trivandrum- 695010 ph 04712726585 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.238.36 (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. This is the help desk, for asking questions about using or finding your way around Wikipedia. You seem to be trying to create an article, but this is not the place to do it. Unfortunately your text also breached Wikipedia's strict rules on copyright violation, because it appeared be cut-and-pasted directly from other websites, so I have removed it. Wikipedia:Your first article is a good place to learn more about how to create articles that comply with our policies! and the Wikipedia:Article wizard is there to help you create and submit it correctly. -Karenjc (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop posting this copy+pasted text on random (?) Wikipedia pages (1, 2, 3, 4, ...) as this just wastes the time of the volunteer editors who put things straight again. Instead, since you are the media adviser for KINFRA, you should have a look at the Wikipedia guideline on conflict of interest and its summary page. I also recommend that you register a named account, so that other editors can leave you messages more easily. Since your IP address has changed several times already today, you may not have seen the messages left for you at, for example, User talk:122.167.198.10. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Harvard Lampoon

The wiki article on Harvard Lampoon tragically and erroneously states that Douglas Kenney and Henry Beard are the co-founders of Harvard Lampoon. Truthfully, one of the longest published humor magazines was founded by a girl and only a girl. Submissions by other humorists, even if they're well liked by the girl, are not accepted for life.. Also, Harvard Lampoon is in no way associated with any college and the college which is near the Harvard Lampoon is not named Harvard, but everybody in the whole world knows that. Please correct the mistakes on your wiki article so that I could sleepy happily :) Also, National whatever is not associated with Harvard Lampoon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.232.26 (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable published sources for the information, you are welcome to edit the article, giving the sources. Alternatively, the talk page Talk:Harvard Lampoon is the right place to discuss improvements to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Harvard Lampoon makes no claim to be founded by Douglas Kenney and Henry Beard. Their only mention is: "An important line of demarcation came when Lampoon editors Douglas Kenney and Henry Beard wrote the Tolkien parody Bored of the Rings." This post sounds like attempted humor. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article in question is "The Harvard Lampoon is an undergraduate humor publication founded in 1876 by seven undergraduates at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts." Considering that Harvard University had no women undergraduates in 1876 (or for decades thereafter), one can only assume that 66.216.232.26 is trying to be either clever or insulting. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Article on John McKelvey - Actor

I submitted a page on John McKelvey, the actor, some months ago. So far nothing has happened. I am new to submitting articles to Wikipedia, and I confess that I do not understand all the terms, protocols and stuff. Can anyone help? Has my article been received? Is it in the right format? How does it become part of Wikipedia?

Regards,

Arthur Hill Ganzyratcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganzyratcher (talk • contribs) 08:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I quickly looked at your draft and would say that when it gets reviewed it will be declined. While you have 3 references at the end I don't see that they are referencing particular data and don't meet the reliable source requirement for Wikipedia. It is also not formatted correctly for a Wikipedia article. I suggest looking through WP:YFA. My quick Google search did not return any reliable sources but you might be able to find more. Good luck XFEM Skier (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It was submitted in August. Have it been missed for reviewing somehow? The backlog is not that long, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It was created back in August but not actually submitted. The correct template was applied this morning by User:Rankersbo in this edit, and it has now joined the queue for review. - Karenjc (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn´t know the difference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the submission was actually made in the previous edit, also this morning. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what is said above, IMDB is not a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB. Dismas|^(talk) 10:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Campbell McKelvey reads like a biography. However, it appears that you got the information from John McKelvey himself (Resume and 'A Life in the theatre' a personal recollection by John McKelvey). Wikipedia uses sources that are independent of the subject (here, independent of John McKelvey) to determine whether to have an article on the topic and determine what should go into the article. Resume and 'A Life in the theatre' a personal recollection by John McKelvey are not sources that are independent of John McKelvey. From his career, he likely has received newspaper, book, and/or magazine coverage that is independent of John McKelvey. Look for and use those independent sources to rewrite the draft. For an example basic biography formatting, take a look at James Le Jeune. The best examples are at Category:FA-Class biography articles. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone knowledgable about the workings of Google searches and deleted articles?

Hi! Brief summary: An article was created, tagged for deletion, and then deleted by me. Editor asked a question on my page (turns out the article was an autobiography) , and then deleted that, but I responded on her talk page. In the meantime, she raised a request at WP:REFUND, and got a response on her talk page.

Summary over! She has now asked a question regarding Google searches and how to stop the deleted article (which is stating that she is non-notable) cropping up when people search her name. I don't know enough about the workings of search engines to be able to help her. Can anyone stop by her talk page and help her out? Thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 10:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've observed that when I post a new Wikipedia article, the article turns up almost immediately in a Google search. (Google's bots are probably crawling Wikipedia 24/7.) It usually is listed down on the Google search results page, but rises up over the next few days. I assume the opposite would be true for a delete page such as "Mina Ghabel Lunde - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".Google search. Perhaps over a few days, the Google search of the Mina Ghabel Lunde Wikipedia article will drop down in rank and eventually disappear once the Google bot reports back to Google that there is no such Mina Ghabel Lunde Wikipedia article page. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

How to rename the category

Hello,

what is the procedure to rename the category title which return wrongly.

Regards Ananthesha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananthesha (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of categories is done at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism text not findable in Wikisource

As reported by User:Discmon in Talk:Escalator, there is some vandalous text appearing in the article, but the offending text appears nowhere in the Wikisource. My guess is that it comes from a vandalized template or Wikicode, but I don't know how to localize it further. Can anybody help fix this, or at least direct me to where to ask for more expert help? Thank you. Reify-tech (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was due a server cache. I purged the page and it's gone. This is the edit. Cheers, --Glaisher [talk] 17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wish to add names to incomplete list of those already identified as 'Men of Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic'

Hello as found on the the Subject/headline above, I have been trying and failing to edit/add names to the list acknowledged as accepting additional names. Each name of this page has a corresponding page number to locate, and learn more about, and the root of this page was the story about a popular and famous, Dominican artist named Yoryi Morel, whom I knew well as I did the members of his family. I knew many other persons of Santiago as well, a landlocked, second city of the D.R. I would like to add names of people I remember to this page. I have not logged in with Wiki, and I appreciate all of its volunteers as I too wish to become one of. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.48.15 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add links to the actual pages you are referring to, without them it is very difficult to figure out what you are talking about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP is talking about Santiago de los Caballeros, where Yoryi Morel is mentioned. Although User:TheRedPenOfDoom has removed some redlinks from the "Notable people" list, as of 1 November, Morel was not on that list, so has not been removed recently (I haven't gone right back), so I'm not quite sure what the IP is referring to. Arjayay (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the IP user is trying to add new Notables to the page, and is finding that his red links fall victim to the Red Pen. He's not complaining about Morel's page being missing. I think he wants to know how his additions can survive (and perhaps, how they can have pages like Morel's, too.) The best answer is probably that to justify their belonging on the list, (if they are indeed notable) the subjects first need to have article pages written on them to assert their notability. --Kdtully (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And of course we would not have a list of "Men of..." any place; merely of "Notable people of...". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle twinkle

Hey guys,

I don't know what was wrong with my TWINKLE, but its not working properly for me for the past hour. Is anybody having the same issue or its working properly? --    L o g  X   18:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been reported on the Twinkle talk page here: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Glitch?. Dismas|^(talk) 01:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

November 23

Access archives archived by Miszabot

How can I, or is there any easy way, to access and search through the archives that Miszabot and others have moved old sections of talk pages to? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The archives usually appear in the upper right corner of the screen that has archives on them. If you have the specific page that you are looking people might be able to help more. XFEM Skier (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Talk:Doctor Who page has an archive with a search box set up for the archive. You should be able to set up a similar archive search box on the talk pages to which you are referring as an easy way, to access and search through the archives. The search box seems to operate the same as adding the search string "October prefix:Talk:Doctor Who/" in the general search box on the upper right of your screen. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it was right in front of my face and I just didn't see it... Eflatmajor7th (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

biographical entry

My biographical entry is incomplete. What is the procedure to improve it. Is it ethical for me to send the informaton, or sould it be from an independent source? To whom would it be sent?

John Weeks Professor Emeritus of Economics SOAS, University of London

Most recent book: The Economics of the 1%: How mainstream economics serves the rich, obscures reality and distorts policy (Anthem, January 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.45.52 (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Professor Weeks, and thanks for asking. As you have realised, you have a conflict of interest, and so are strongly discouraged from editing the article. As indicated on the page Best practices for editors with close associations, your best course is to make suggestions on the talk page (in this case, Talk:John Weeks (economist)), so that uninvolved editors can decide what to add. All information should be referenced to reliable published sources; for non-controversial factual information the source can be connected with you (eg the SOAS web page) but for anything evaluative or potentially controversial it should be referenced to an independent source. In the case of a book, its existence is easy to substantiate; but an article about a person should not necessarily mention every publication, and it would be desirable to reference an independent source such as a review that establishes that the book is notable enough to appear in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem with you identifying source material that is independent of yourself. However, your recent book is not independent of John Weeks. The SOAS staff listing source and Weeks personal home page cited as references in the John Weeks article - the only two references listed in that article - are not independent of John Weeks. The columns you have written and the things you said in interviews are not independent of John Weeks. Unfortunately, your name is so common that it is difficult to find any reliable source newspaper, books, or magazine articles about your life. You can help put by identifying two reliable sources that discuss you life in detail and that are independent of John Weeks. You can post that source material in this thread. I suggest avoid listing websites and press releases as source material. You also can create an 'In the News' section on your personal home page that lists newspaper, book, and magazine media coverage of your life events (including reviews of your books and other written material). Wikipedia editors then can go through that source list and expand the John Weeks biography. It would help Wikipedia editors if you use APA style, Harvard style , or Chicago style with URL links to the source material. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Which template to use for tagging external link

When should I use {{Login required}} and when {{Registration required}} when tagging an external link? More specifically, which of the two should I use for tagging the fourth link at Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search#External links? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

GIMPS Forum is an official discussion forum of GIMPS, but if it requires a login and the page shown by clicking on the URL does show any information about GIMPS that would be helpful to the Wikipedia or is directly relevant to the GIMPS Wikipedia article. WP:LINKSTOAVOID (1) site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article, (6) Sites that require registration to view the relevant content, (10) chat or discussion forums, (12) Open wikis (for the Mersenne Wiki EL), 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject, such as a discussion forum website on an article about the general GIMPS subject. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And regarding the GIMPS Wikipedia article, there are hundreds of reliable sources that are independent of the subject from which the article can be written. Yet, the article is almost entirely sourced to the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search published material, which is not independent of the subject of the article. The article should be stubbed and allowed to expand with independent source material. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with copyright issue please!

I've found a picture from a different language Wikipedia article that I want to use on the English Wikipedia, the original is here, I have looked around on the internet for this and can only seem to find it on journals and other sort of sites with no information on the copyright such as [9] it comes from allegedly the Richard Rein - Rasse und Kultur unserer Urväter. Ein methodisch-schultechnisches Hilfsbuch für Unterricht und Vorträge in der Vorgeschichte. 1936. "Race and culture of our ancestors. Methodological manual for school classes and lectures on ancient history." but I can't seem to find this on any official websites. The article in the Russian Wikipedia states that its past its copyright date

"This work is in the public domain because the term of the exclusive rights to it has expired. It was first made ​​public until January 1, 1943 , and its author (if known) died before that date."

So would this be okay to just save the image and upload it as copyright expired?--Windows66 (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Windows66, the copyright experts hang out at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

my wikikedia page

Hello, I am writing you because a wikipedia luxembourg has been created. And as a luxembourgish director, my information are visible. I dont want that some information about me been so easily found. Even if they are somehwere in internet. I asked the moderator about my request and they are not doing anything. If my request is not done, i want that they remove me totally from wikipedia, what they ndont do either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus neshvad (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias#List does not show a link for Luxembourgish Wikipedia. This appears to be Luxembourgish Wikipedia. There is a Diskussioun:Cyrus Neshvad here that began 7. Aug. 2013. It looks like the Diskussioun:Cyrus Neshvad page was blanked 13. Aug. 2013‎ by User:Zinneke.[10] The article page, Cyrus Neshvad, is still be there. English Wikipedia's information on Dealing with articles about yourself is at WP:BIOSELF. English Wikipedia information where the subject of an article has requested deletion of the article is at WP:BLPDEL. You maybe able to use that information back at Luxembourgish Wikipedia to support your request that the Cyrus Neshvad article on Luxembourgish Wikipedia be deleted. English Wikipedia does not normally delete or blank discussion talk pages. We do have Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing and Wikipedia:Oversight that can result in the removal of particular posts, including talk page posts. Luxembourgish Wikipedia may have something equivalent to these. English Wikipedia does not have a Cyrus Neshvad page, so there is not much we can do here. You might be able to find help from users listed in Category:Luxembourg Wikipedians or Category:Wikipedians in Luxembourg.-- Jreferee (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

privacy concerns are probably best handled through the WP:OTRS channels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this by Jreferee. I'm afraid that, not writing Luxembourgish, I cannot contribute to the deletion discussion directly, but I will say that I'm not sure what Mr. Neshvad finds bad about his article (which incidentally is here). It seems to be pretty anemic and carries only very basic information, with no "controversy" or remotely libelous or invasive content. In fact, 50% of the article is content found on Mr. Neshvad's own website, and the rest comes from the Lux government's website. I know different Wikis have different notability criteria, but to be honest, I think his best option might be to argue that he is non-notable. There are certainly no WP:RS on him that I can discover. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Help on Creating A New Page (Unique-ish situation)

Hello, I'm a new user to Wikipedia seeking to create a new page. However, I'd like to state my situation a bit more specifically so I could possibly have a bit more pinpointed help. I currently taking a Literature class in my high school that is requiring it's students to do a project on something that would change the world. I decided that my world-changing project would revolve around adding to the largest collection of information on the Internet, this site. If it wouldn't be any trouble, I would like some suggestions on tips on what I could create a new page on as well as some of the materials (like books) I should keep in mind and use when creating this new page. Thanks, gauhceGoose — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaucheGoose (talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

More potential subjects that you can shake a stick at : Wikipedia:Requested articles.

Reading this before you start will probably be very helpful: Wikipedia:Your first article.

Good luck!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

What are the best hours to edit/view Wikipedia?

There have been some complaints recently (example} about busy servers and technical problems. Just wondering if there are less busy hours in the day to access Wikipedia. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only find some extremely old (2002) data at WP:Traffic which suggests that the quietest time then was 03.00 - 07.00 UTC Wikipedia:Statistics may be able to suggest a more up to date page, but so far I haven't been able to find one. Arjayay (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

content authenticity and lack of monitoring

please remind the general public more often that what isthe mode of operation of wikipedia. Fact is that amount of disinformation is growing so fast and especially people behind many usernames are in fact professional promotion agencies and thus provide paid-for dis-information. Currently many so-called trend topics, ufos, genetics, etc. are soon containing more paid pages than actual, referenced information.Say, you have interest on origin of human. 1st thing you get is fiction after fiction stating notes and quotes from tv-series!!! Pleade, just delete or categorize pages like those under class: fiction. To begin with, separate fact and fiction! Only thing preventing me from donating money for wikipedia is the fact that you do not provide what you say you do. Eg. ancient aliens as tv-series is reauired to have statement about program being fictious entertainment, but wikipedia claims it as truth or at least as equivivalent. Now, you have a decision to make, cut out shit or sell shit. What is it goung to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.131.237.31 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 November 2013‎ (UTC)

You could help us by giving examples of articles with misinformation in them, or fiction presented as fact, so that we can deal with them. Maproom (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing

Hi. I am a donor to Wikipedia as I find it so useful. However I find editing so complex I have been unable to add an article. The "Teahouse" was equally bewildering and when I tried to type a question on "livechat" my typing did not connect Is there a user friendly guide to editing Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidg58 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL should help you get started. RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Selecting beta and visual editor might help as well. XFEM Skier (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

November 24

Infobox Float Right

I'm using this sample infobox to guide me in creating my own. All I want it to do is align to the right like most infoboxes found on the Wiki. -- MF14 00:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

One way to do it is to use the infobox class in MediaWiki:Common.css by starting with class="wikitable infobox". Another way is manually adding CSS like class="wikitable" style="float: right;". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped! -- MF14 05:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

information source

There is a person with an article in Wikipedia that I am related to. I have some information that I would like to add to the article to clarify part of the article. How can I do this since I am the source?LouGarfinkle (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on published sources for article content. Personal knowledge isn't acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Style Manual

Sir/Ms

The style manual deprecates the use of "issue" when "problem" is intended, yet the template "issues" inserts a statement that a page "has multiple issues". How can this be remedied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.246.9 (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This has already been asked and answered at the appropriate talk page, which is Template talk:Multiple issues. There are many issues (such as style) that aren't necessarily problems.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The style manual is discussing actual article content. The phrasing of clean up banners does not fall under the Manual of Style for article content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Website including

how can i put my website in Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.18.231.63 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

YOU cannot. ( see out conflict of interest policy.)

In order for a subject to have an article, the topic must meet some standard criteria. If your company meets those, you can propose that an article be created by following the steps outlined Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mis-use and alternating comments, attack's on autism with false information.

Originally I changed the Autism article to be classed as a 'condition', I have been told to talk about it in the Talk:Autism page I have done, I did. I added my topic to the talk page, I didn't add/remove any comments, yet user Favonian (talk) has used this to remove the topic, accused me of Vandalism. Currently I have noticed the person is one of your admins, is mis-used the privileges given to that person to exploit the page to provoke responses, the fact is I have Autism myself, I find that what he's doing is no better than Racism since he's removing my appeals, accusing me of removing it. I have requested a cease, desist. I'm asking for something to be done about the member, by restricting the person's systems since they clearly are being exploited. --Ronnie42 (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ronnie42: Hello Ronnie42. This is a very straightforward matter. Maybe, though, you are not aware of the result of your edits. Please examine this "diff" showing the changes you made when you edited the talk page. As you can see, you removed massive amounts of text already present on the page by other users. That can occasionally be done by newish users by mistake. Were you aware that you had done that? That was the reason User:Favonian reverted your edits. And he stated that this was his reason in the edit summary] that accompanied his edit. To wit: "Reverted 1 edit by Ronnie42 (talk): Massive deletion of other editors' postings."

You then undid his reversion with the edit summary "Vandalism/Offensive removal by Favonian". It is unclear to me whether you meant by that, that you found the reversion of your edits offensive, or you were reinstating your edits because you had intentionally removed the content because you thought its content was offensive. You were reverted with a link to WP:NOTCENSORED to cover the second possibility.

What is straightforward is that you may not remove lots of talk page discussion by others and if you persist in doing this, you may very well and rightly be [WP:BLOCK|blocked]] from editing. But again, I'm not sure you were aware that that is what you were doing. If not, then it's all a bit of a misunderstanding. You are welcome to post to the talk page in a civil manner. You just must be careful not to remove other user's posts. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)