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.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• 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 (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

January 1

Talk page cleanup

I noticed an infobox and reflist on a talk page for the ISIS article. This clearly should be deleted, but I'm not sure if I should do it myself or request administrator attention, and how exactly to do the latter should that be the correct course of action. Any help would be appreciated. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tonystewart14: I've added a couple of templates so that the copied infobox and its references stay within the section where it was posted. It will eventually disappear into the archives. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism of Page Description Line

I have noticed that the second line for gay.com reads 'the lair' which strikes me as possible vandalism. Ethylacetate2002 (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2018

The word "lair" appears nowhere on the page gay.com. You'll need to be more specific as to where you saw this. General Ization ^Talk 04:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ethylacetate2002 and General Ization: This came from the topic's entry at Wikidata, reachable from the "Wikidata item" link under "Tools" in the left sidebar. I've changed the description to "Social networking website". -- John of Reading (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

URL–wikilink conflict when auto-generating a reference from a source

Hi guys, need some help. I was editing this article: Kaplinsky, and when I tried to generate a reference (don't worry, there's only 1 reference in the article) by using the in-built wikipedia generator the reference broke down. I visited the help page provided, but I just couldn't understand what was written there. Can someone check it or maybe tell me who should I contact to ask for help with this specific reference? Karl.i.biased (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. It was how the name of the website was written that caused the error. I also fixed the title and how access date is written. NZFC^(talk) 04:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Karl.i.biased (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Notifications

Hi, am not receiving notifications for mentions or edit reverts since a couple of days ago, please advise Atlantic306 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Did you get this notification? Check notifications are enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Please give examples of edits you think you should have been notified about. What is your browser, and your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• • Hi, yes received your notification so hopefully its ok now. Browser is Safari, skin is vector, thanks for your help Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding first "in Fiction" reference

I wrote a near-future sci-fi novella set in North Korea. The setting was chosen in large part to draw attention to the poverty facing North Koreans and is carefully researched such that the other-than-sci-fi elements relating to poverty and the life of non-elites are believed accurate.

Many articles include information about how a topic has been treated in fiction. Is it appropriate to add an "in fiction" mention of my novella in the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty_in_North_Korea ?

If so, what form would that take? I see that "in fiction" information now takes the form of a separate article at least in some cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes_in_fiction

Thank you for your guidance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJohannsen (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Is your novel notable? Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: not yet, it's just been published. How do I measure notability and how do I determine whether the community would find it notable enough for inclusion? Is the threshold for inclusion different on a presumably less popular article "Poverty in North Korea" compared to inclusion on a highly popular article? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJohannsen (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You might like to read Wikipedia:Notability (books) for guidance on the notability of a book. Dbfirs 19:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability is more about if the book merits an article of its own, this is more WP:DUE. Does it "deserve" being mentioned on the topic? If selfpublished almost certainly no. If it is written about in-depth in reliable sources (Publishers Weekly rather than Amazon and Goodreads) then maybe. But be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry of Information or Data in Wikipedia Being Credible and/or Factual

According to a multitude of people I have spoken with in high school and college education institutions, information in Wikipedia is not acceptable to be used as a reference for research. The goes especially for writing term papers, research papers, and articles for school newspaper publication. The reason they are stating this is that they believe anyone can edit the information in Wikipedia even if it is not true or factual or correct.

So, please tell me how often is information fact-checked for accuracy, and who is doing the fact-checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD00:F4D0:BC0C:644B:7B2C:573F (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not systematically fact-checked. Volunteer editors (i.e., anybody) may choose to fact-check. This quasi-random activity is surprising effective, making Wikipedia at least as reliable as other sources in almost all studies of the result. However, this is not good enough for academic work because it is not traceable to reliable sources, therefore, you cannot and should not cite Wikipedia directly. However, you are free to use Wikipedia articles to find the reliable sources on which they are supposed to be based, and then read and cite those sources. -Arch dude (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's like this. Wikipedia is written/edited by volunteers who edit what they please when they please (plus some people who are paid to edit what they edit about). "They believe anyone can edit the information in Wikipedia even if it is not true or factual or correct." They are entirely correct, but WP can an do have plenty of good info anyway, you just have to use it with some caution. More at Reliability of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2

Flagging an article in need of improvement

I have noticed grammatical inconsistencies, amongst other things, on the following page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Paulette_Gebara

How would I go about flagging this page, so improvements can be made? I have attempted to make some improvements but further attention is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benkersey94 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Benkersey94, if you put the code {{copyedit}} at the top of the article. It will mark it for editing for its grammar. NZFC^(talk) 08:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

I would like to add citation for one of the lines in the articles where citation is required; but there seem to be no way of adding it. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.206.206 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

In your last edit, you added "<re<ref></ref>f></ref>" in the middle of a template. You need to remove the template (including braces) then put your reference between "<ref> .... </ref>" tags. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 10:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

... later ... Please don't remove the template until you find the citation. Dbfirs 21:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: I have inserted (and formatted) a reference given by 14.139.206.206 in a description to special:diff/818231571.
Please see and fix, if necessary: special:diff/818324669. --CiaPan (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I just looked at the article, and didn't spot that they had put the actual reference in the edit summary. I've removed the "cn" tag now because the reference does support the claim. Thank you to 14.139.206.206 for finding it. Dbfirs 08:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Reno Divorce

• In the past there was an article of the punkrock band Reno Divorce. Can someone send me the original text so that I can work on it? InfoZZ (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hello InfoZZ, the article was deleted post discussions, which can be read at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reno Divorce. Thanks, Lourdes 13:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

How can I read the old article. I would like to rewrite it including links to non-related articles. This band is playing all the big summer festivals in Europe every year. InfoZZ (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@InfoZZ: Only those with the necessary tools (administrators) can see deleted content. The page has been copied to User:InfoZZ/Reno Divorce so it can continue to be developed. If you have a connection to the band, you must read WP:COI and make the necessary disclosures. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism on Article

Hello,

I've been dealing with constant vandalism on this article for about a year. The content is a direct paste of an article from the Grove Dictionary of American Music, Oxford University Press. Is there any way to keep the article from being vandalized?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Murphy_(musician)

Thank You, Dominic Fragman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawfragman (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be involved in a slow edit war on the article Paul Murphy (musician), but you have made no effort to discuss any problems on the talk page Talk:Paul Murphy (musician). Please be aware that Wikipedia has a definition of vandalism, but are you sure that the other edits meet that definition? You mentioned in an earlier edit summary that you had made edits at the request of the subject, but Wikipedia articles are not controlled by the subject or any other individual. You say that "The content is a direct paste of an article from the Grove Dictionary of American Music", but if the content has previously been published elsewhere it would be a copyright violation to paste it unaltered into Wikipedia, unless the copyright has been released by the processes described at WP:Donating copyrighted material. Wikipedia articles should be written in your own words, though based on the published sources, see WP:Plagiarism. Any limited quotations should be clearly identified as such, and attributed as shown at WP:Quotations. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I should further have added that if you were editing at the request of the subject you should read about conflict of interest and, if relevant, about paid editing (where the requirements are mandatory). --David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I was going to nominate the article for deletion because of the copyright infringement, but I see that you contributed the text to the Grove dictionary. Some of it also appears in the online version with a copyright claim. I think you had better check your contract with Oxford, or rephrase the copied text to avoid the copyright issue. I agree with you that the Hot Dog anonymous editor is a vandal, so I support your reversions of the vandalism. You also need to read WP:Referencing for beginners, and to remove BLOCK CAPITALS from the article. I've replaced one name with a link to Louie Bellson . Could you please check that I've chosed the correct Louis Bellson. Dbfirs 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with a hidden hyperlink

Hello! I would like to make two pages for the characters of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus of the Star Wars anthology film Rogue One; they are the only two characters of the main cast to not have their own pages, and considering their great popularity I found this odd. However, whenever I try to create a new hyperlink for Chirrut or Baze, it simply sends me back to the cast of Rogue One. How do I change this so that I can get started on making the pages? I have gone into the sandbox for virtually every mention of the two on Wikipedia and cannot find where it is coded to send me there. Any help would be appreciated, thank you! TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheGreatClockwyrm: Both titles are currently redirects to the Rogue One page. If you look at the top of that page, after clicking on either name, you will see a link to the redirect under the main heading. You can use the redirect to create an article. However, I do not have sufficient knowledge of the franchise to comment as to whether new pages are warranted. You might consider raising at WT:SWARS to establish whether there is a consensus that the article should exist. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eagleash: You said I could use the redirect...I have never created a page of my own on mainstream Wikipedia, and am unsure how to create a page outside of the old red hyperlink. Do you mind elaborating for me? TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You can edit the page so that the redirects are replaced with article content. I might suggest, after establishing that pages are warranted, that they are developed in draftspace where there is less chance of deletion etc. and then submit for review. Eagleash (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Follow Eagleash's advice before creating the page, but here's more detail on editing redirects. Following the link above to Chirrut Imwe, you end up in a subsection of the main article, but scrolling up you will find (Redirected from Chirrut Imwe) on top of the main article page. Clicking on that blue text will bring you here. From there, you can edit the page. All redirect pages are made in the same way: it starts with the line #REDIRECT [[link to target]] (which is the code that tells MediaWiki to handle this as a redirect) and then contains a few redirect categorization templates. You can edit that as any other page, and it will break the redirection. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Start at Your First Article and follow the pathway through. A few things. It appears that the link from the Rogue One page is to Chirrut Îmwe with an accent on the I, so you may want to make sure you create it with that. I don't think there will be any problem with notability. Use one of the other Rogue One characters as a guide to how it should look and where to get references. Then submit it for review. It may take a while though.Naraht (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eagleash: @Tigraan: @Naraht: Perfect! I understood now. Don't worry, I already have several sources lined up. I will most likely copy and past the format of one of the other characters and use that to help me with the formatting, then sub in my own words from there. Thank you for the assistance! TheGreatClockwyrm (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

How to re-flag updated edits

I submitted a collection of requested edits to a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.J._Murdock_Charitable_Trust).

I was informed by the editorial team that there were formatting issues. I believe I addressed those. I tried to respond that the formatting changes had been made, but have not received a response.

How can I most appropriately re-submit my edits for consideration without creating unnecessary churn for the editorial team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColbyReade (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

ColbyReade, I see that you have created four sections at Talk:M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust (though you only signed the fourth). The first is a request to remove a specified paragraph; the paragraph is supported by two references, and you don't say why you think those references should be disregarded. The second and third sections aren't requests at all, they are just (I think) your proposed alternative and misformatted versions for sections of the article. The fourth section of the talk page seems to me to be a repeat of the first: an unexplained request that referenced content be removed.

If you want your requests to be taken seriously, keep them simple. Say what text you want changed, say what you want it changed to, give your reasons, and provide references. And make one request at a time: if you make a great swathe of proposals, no volunteer is likely to take any notice. Maproom (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Maproom, Thank you so much for your feedback here. I had misunderstood the protocol for proposing edits from an individual with a COI. This is incredibly helpful for me moving forward. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColbyReade (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to finish each message on a talk page, including discussion pages such as this, with a signature given by 4 tildes (~~~~). --David Biddulph (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Where to find the AutoGenerated ToC template?

I read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Section#Table_of_contents_(TOC)

It mentions that ToC of a page is autogenerated. I observed that Telugu Wikipedia(teviki, te.wikipedia.org) shows the English name "Contents" for the headers of ToCs. Where can I find the template or where should I do the respective translation?

I could only find other kind of ToC templates like Compact_TOC. Template template:TOC is getting redirecting to Compact_TOC. However in Compact_TOC, translation is fine, but the translation is not in the template source. So, I'm also wondering about the location of the translations to edit.

Thank you

--Criticpanther (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Criticpanther: The normal TOC heading is controlled by te:MediaWiki:Toc which says "విషయ సూచిక". I tested a random page te:వజ్రకూటం and see "విషయ సూచిక". Please give an example page where you see "Contents". If you are logged in and have changed your interface language away from the default "te" at te:Special:Preferences then you may see another language like "Contents" but that's expected. Logged out users and users who don't change the default language should see "విషయ సూచిక". PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

--PrimeHunter Thank you for your answer. I came to know what's the problem. I have English as the language in the settings on the left panel of teviki. When I changed it to Telugu, it's now showing as "విషయ సూచిక". I think part of the confusion for me is that in the Compact_TOC I see it as "విషయ సూచిక" even when the settings language is English but not the same case with normal TOC. I thought all of the main article section labels will be in the language of the wiki. Thanks again.

Criticpanther (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Criticpanther: te:Template:Compact ToC displays the heading with the code {{MediaWiki:Toc}. This always produces te:MediaWiki:Toc. If it said {{int:Toc}} then you would get different languages like te:MediaWiki:Toc/en for users with English as interface language. The normal TOC uses {{int:Toc}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Help

Dear Wikipedia,

I could use your assistance in finishing up a page for a musician I work for.

Below is the url for the current page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Villarreal

What we are trying to do with this is to add a photo, however we are unsure how to perform this task.

On an administrative note, I’m not entirely sure this is the correct place to send this help request, if so...can you forward it to the correct individual(s)?

Thank you,

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearpockets (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dearpockets, first thing is please read WP:Paid and WP:COI before making any edits to the article. You need to declare your conflict if you have one and if you are getting paid by them. Once you have done that, you can upload a picture to WP:COMMONS that you will then be able to link to the article. Make sure there is no copyright on the picture or otherwise if there is, you get the rights to use it. If you are unsure about copyright issue, please ask. Lastly please don't forgot to sign your posts using four ~. NZFC^(talk) 22:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

NZFC, I don't think that simply uploading an image would fall foul of WP:COI.

Dearpockets, Assuming that you are the copyright owner and you wish to freely license the image (this is important!) then click here.

Under Destination filename type something like Victor Villarreal.jpg (assuming it's a jpg), then copy/paste the following into the Summary box:

{{Information

|Description={{en|1=Photograph of [[W:Victor Villarreal|Victor Villarreal]].}}

|Source={{own}}

|Date=2018-02

|Author=[[W:User:Dearpockets|Dearpockets]]

}}

Next, choose your licensing from the drop down box (I recommend Attribution ShareAlike 4.0) then click on Upload file.

If there are any problems I can fix them once the image is uploaded. nagualdesign 22:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks nagualdesign, I realise that maybe the case but I did say "before making any edits to the article". Just incase they wanted to update information their as well but I can see my message could be confusing. NZFC^(talk) 22:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. I should have made the distinction clear. There are strict rules regarding editing articles where there is a conflict of interest, but simply uploading an image shouldn't be a problem. nagualdesign 22:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Site access

Greetings. I became a member two days ago and I've already built a sizeable watchlist of articles that interest me. I am seeing considerable interference by persons with negative and disruptive intentions. I've already restored two or three articles myself including one just now. May I make a suggestion?

It is too easy to come into this site and make changes and just as easy to open a membership. I do not understand why e-mail address is optional when, well, it should be compulsory. This would not in any way impede the "anyone can edit" ethic. Everyone has an e-mail address, its use for access is widespread across the internet and no one thinks twice about providing it if requested to do so.

I suggest that everyone should be required to register an account by valid e-mail address, so no more IP address editing. A userid can be set up as part of the registration process and, thereafter, the member can log in using either the userid or the e-mail address. Anyone who is banned or suspended would have to use a different e-mail address to regain access and, even if the disruptive elements were determined to keep bouncing back, they would only do it for a short time before giving up completely because how many e-mail addresses can you create without going mad?

It does mean that the "anyone can edit" ethic becomes "anyone with a valid e-mail address can edit" but what is the difference? The difference is nil for the editor but for the site and its readership the difference is a sharp decrease in destructive edits ensuring a higher quality product.

I am enjoying the site so far and finding much that I can work on. I do have a question. So far, I am concentrating on medieval history but I have other interests which are poles apart, such as sport and 20th century music. Is it permissible to set up a different userid in order to edit a different subject area or should I stay with the same one no matter what I am working on? Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can create an email address. Having one does not prove you are who you say you are. nagualdesign 22:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ziggy and thank you for your edits so far. This idea comes up from time to time and isn't new. There are arguements for and against having users have to register as you can here which also links to more articles. Maybe also good to read Not every IP is a vandal. IPs are already prohibited from creating new articles or editing semiprotected ones and there is no guarantee that banning IPs would stop vandalism. IPs aren't any more anonymous than a user with an email are too with the tools that some admins have. NZFC^(talk) 22:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. You could even argue that IP editors have less anonymity, since anyone can perform a search to geolocate a published IP address, whereas signed-in users' IP addresses are not publically available. nagualdesign 22:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to prove who they say they are. After all, who am I? Those percentages are interesting, however, and surprising. It seems that you are heavily reliant upon IP address editors so fair enough. Thanks very much for that. What about secondary accounts for different subject areas, though? Ziggy (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:MULTIPLE and WP:VALIDALT. nagualdesign 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Some light reading. I should be okay now. Ziggy (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
And having quickly read those I think I'll stick with just the one. Thanks again. Ziggy (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, I found those links using the search box. Beginning with WP: (which denotes policy-type pages as opposed to articles) I began typing wp:multiple accounts and by the time I'd typed the l the suggestions included the page I was after. I clicked the link to see if it was indeed relevant, which it was. The second link was found by reading the first link, where it says Main page: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry § Legitimate uses. The shortened form, WP:VALIDALT, was then shown to the right. It sometimes seems like it's difficult to find what you want on Wikipedia, but it's actually incredibly easy, since there are bound to be users who have looked for the same thing in the past, and they've cleared the path, as it were. nagualdesign 23:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 3

Speed of removal of my talk section, possible indicator of favours-for situation

Accusations

PresN , someone with a alert, seemingly, on the Jenova Chen page... has tried to ALSO, characterize my perhaps innaproopriate content on the talk page, about Gevevoa Chen... Firstly ; i do not deny that my listing might have had particuar lines / words that are accusatory or defamatory in nature. secondly , when a person can see that a MISSING subject matter, however badly unresolved, legally... is NOT revealing something about a CRIMINAL they think/know are, a... it is although perhaps not approriate to a unverifyable degree, approriate to put it on the main page... something i thought one could, OF IMPORTANCES ... in the talk. again, i do not deny that i have an interest in defending my OWN idea/IP , person, just as much as Chen would... but like i have said in a message to PresN ... i have already made BINDING STATUATORY DECLARATIONS, about my claim. it is not unwillingness, to take him to court, as to why i have not. i have not, because i am without the knowledge / readiness, to know where to begin, to do so, and in knowledge that i would probably have no evidence. that does NOT LESSEN my obligation to the truth, NOR, my rights to defend my OWN person/personage, when i get described as talking "nonsense". Chen himself, has seemingly never tried resolving this with me, and i doubt he ever will... But to have some alert-reactive INTERESTED person, leap up like a terrier behind a fence when sure, you're taking a whiz on it... rrrrrrmphhh is MORE, than only facilitating valid protection. it is ALSO , inadvertantly protecting criminals. YOUR faciltations, Wikipedia, are allowing favours-for-favours types... CORRUPTION complicits... to protect false images, false deservedness , false personage. the personage of the person WHO CREATED the idea for Journey, is MY, personage. again, i do not deny that i have a vested interest... i should not HAVE TO, i have a right to reveal this criminal for what he is. and i will not be told that the REASON, for a removal, is of it being "nonsense". if PresN , wants to remove the content on a BASIS of defamation, or a BASIS of innapropriate content, THEN HE CAN SAY SO. all he said was "rv nonsense" the part about rv, was right... but not the part about nonsense - HOW would he know? The speed at which this individual acted on my contribution , speaks volumes to me. Vurrath (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Vurrath, this is not the place for a content dispute. Saying that, you need to be careful accusing other users of being biased. There is also policies around what can be added to a WP:BLP page and I'm assuming since PresN has hidden it from site to anyone but admin users that it wasn't appropriate for the article. If you feel differently about that, then you can discuss it on the talk page but you will need to back up everything you said with reliable sources. NZFC^(talk) 02:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Vurrath has accused another editor of bias, without any evidence. Sure, that is bad. He has also accused the subject of an article of a criminal action, again without providing any evidence. That is considerably worse, and will definitely not be tolerated. His accusation has quite rightly been redacted. Maproom (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Their other contributions so far have consisted of wild flights of fancy about Tony Blair and opossums, and free-association rants on mutliple talk pages. I think I'll watch this for a maximum of another three days and then put in for a WP:NOTHERE block. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Why can't i add below sentence to Adrian Cheng Wiki?

Below explanation which is a fact that without any mislead

Officer in the Order of Arts and Letters

On 9 December 2017, Cheng was awarded the title of Officer in the Order of Arts and Letters (Officier de L’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres) by the French government, making him the youngest recipient of such title in Hong Kong. The prestigious insignia is given as a symbol of recognition of Cheng’s significant contribution to, and promotion of, French art and culture in China, as well as his role in the advancement of cultural exchange between the two countries.

References

Previous comment by Wonhm005 (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2018‎ (UTC), autosigned by nagualdesign.

This has been addressed by Citobun at User talk:Wonhm005#Managing a conflict of interest. I suggest you wait for a reply there, or discuss it at Talk:Adrian Cheng. And please remember to sign your talk page posts using ~~~~. nagualdesign 07:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

So, how do you create a redirect? I used to know how to create redirects, but due to the new Article Wizard, I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyndicaterUI78 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You begin by creating a page (type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_redirect into your browser address bar) then type #REDIRECT [[Name of article]] into the edit box and you're good to go. nagualdesign 19:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You can also use this tool : Wikipedia:How to make a redirect --Railfan01 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@nagualdesign Thank you for your assistance! :) @Nagualdesign: SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Railfan01 Thank you for your assistance also! @Railfan01: SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, @SyndicaterUI78:, you did not successfully ping either of those users with that comment, because the username needs to be linked in order to ping someone. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pppery Huh? What's "pinging"? SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What I just did. See WP:Notifications. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@SyndicaterUI78: I just pinged you too by typing {{Ping|SyndicaterUI78}}. nagualdesign 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No you didn't, as pings don't work when your edit does something other than adding content. (Your edit also removed a space elsewhere on the page). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So what's the purpose of pinging? SyndicaterUI78 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@SyndicaterUI78: The purpose is to alert the pinged user, e.g. because you answered a question from them. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pppery: Where does WP:Notifications (or anything else) tell us us that a ping doesn't work if other edits are made to the page? That's not a stipulation of which I was aware. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that if I write a message with no ping in it, sign it, and submit it; and later edit it to include a ping; no ping gets sent. I may be mistaken. There is certainly scope for confusion. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That is certainly true, and made clear at WP:Notifications#Triggering events (though presumably many people haven't read that), but the restriction which Pppery mentioned is not one which I have seen before. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like phab:T138938 was resolved without me every noticing, and thus what I has said was false. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details may need an update but I'm not sure of the precise rules when you do other things than only add new paragraphs. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@SyndicaterUI78: Just to reiterate, you cannot add a ping to an existing message, as you did here. You can only type {{ping|username}} "Message content" "signature".. all in one go. See WP:PING for more help. Eagleash (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Phone number?

Hi! A user just shared me their phone number, but I don't think it would be useful for me. Admin, please hide that edit from public as well as from me, Thanks! M. Billoo 19:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't do anything about the phone number, but due to this comment here, I have posted a warning about WP:COI and also WP:PAID on the users talk page. It maybe because of the poor English though but thought it better to warn them. NZFC^(talk) 20:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to suppress a phone number if it was posted by a user themself, and the user is not a minor. See Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy. But thank you for your altruistic concern, M.Billoo2000. — Sebastian 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Template not transcluding properly

Resolved

Template:Maurice Ravel is not properly transcluding. It is breaking where it is currently placed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

See below:

I found the issue. There was a stray <noinclude>--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

ahem nagualdesign 20:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Linking to previous versions of images

Is there a way to generate a thumbnail of a previous/superseded version of an image file? I'd like to place a thumbnail of this image (the original upload of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg, dated 12:56, 24 March 2015) in the gallery at the top of Talk:Elizabeth II#Infobox image, but I can't work out how to do it. I was thinking it would be something like [[File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg|thumb|version=12:56, 24 March 2015]], although that wouldn't work in a gallery anyway, but you get the idea. nagualdesign 21:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a shame. Thanks for letting me know. nagualdesign 23:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You could upload it as a derivative and make that clear, just like File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg currently states that it's a Derivative of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg. — Sebastian 23:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Sebastian, but I think I'm going to try another idea. If anybody's interested in taking part in the RfC your input there would be very much appreciated. Just give me ten minutes while I sort something out... nagualdesign 23:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

off-topic conversation about cross-posting

nagualdesign, I don't think this is the appropriate venue for notifying others about this discussion; which I would consider inappropriate cross-posting (borderline "spamming"). Moreover, I don't see a need for any more people to participate in the discussion, as User:The Gnome has been very knowlegeable and reasonable in their replies so far, so that the smoothest path forward would be to just wait for their answer to your last question. — Sebastian 23:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC) My apologies. I only mentioned the RfC here because I'd already mentioned what I was trying to do, and I have no expectations as to whether you'd agree or disagree with the proposal I was making; I was only requesting comments. The more the merrier. I certainly wasn't canvassing, since I don't know you from Adam! nagualdesign 00:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) No worries; I see that your reply is sincere. — Sebastian 00:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Or maybe I was just being charming to get you on my side. nagualdesign 01:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

What links there?

Pages that link to "Engineering mathematics" lists direct links from such pages as Materials science. However, I don't see a link from that page. BTW, related question: The only way I can think of to search for links is to edit the whole article and search for [[Engineering; is there another way? — Sebastian 23:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record: In general, searching just for the opening double brackets + first word would not work for inverse piped links, but that's no concern here. — Sebastian 23:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Engineering mathematics is linked in {{Engineering fields}} at the bottom of Materials science. WhatLinksHere does not have a feature to exclude links which are only present in transcluded templates. "Hide transclusions" only hides pages which transclude the page itself (mainly useful on templates). You can enter {{:Materials science}} at Special:ExpandTemplates to see the resulting wikitext after all templates are evaluated. This result includes * [[Engineering mathematics]], but then you have to work back to figure out where it came from. I sometimes also use my browser's view source function to see the html for a page. For Materials science it includes <a href="/wiki/Engineering_mathematics" title="Engineering mathematics">Engineering mathematics</a>. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent answer, PrimeHunter - thanks a lot! Two good alternatives, lovingly and comprehensibly explained. — Sebastian 00:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

January 4

Header Tags

• Ron Wyatt

What templates would you suggest applying to this article in hopes that editors could create a better article that meets WP standards in that the lede itself is basically stating facts / claims (summarized without citations) that are not then covered within the article and backed by reliable sources and equal in weight to POV? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed additions to the lead made in November, which were as you say "undue weight" and mostly not supported in the body of the article: Noyster (talk), 13:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Maineartists: For future reference, there's a list of templates relating to the lead at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Introduction. 'Inadequate' and 'rewrite' may have been the more useful ones. Eagleash (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Noyster. That now reads much more appropriate and without agenda; and as usual: Eagleash, invaluable as always. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The multiplication table pattern section violate my copyright & IP in US.

As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright mentioned, we've issued copyright for multiplication table in US. The method and tool is developed by my daughter and me. Please check the http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150064667.pdf.

The author of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_table) publish it without even asking. Please help remove "Patterns in the tables" section in that page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"Patterns in tables" in a circular format seems to have been in the article since 2008[1] - 7 years before you applied for a patent. Is that what you're referring to? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In 1978, I already knew some pattern when learning multiplication table, such as, "24680" or "987654321" for <10 digit. It is just a part of the puzzle. Although I felt it was fun and could remember it in 1 or 2 days while playing toys, I still have to remember it as others.

My first version of this invention came out in 2007 when I worked in Seagull Scientific. It is okay to use 2008's version in the wiki page as it does not "group" the "carrier" correctly as well as I did not file the patent that time. I have issues for the 2017's picture which is very similar as our IP in 2014. The invention, however is the whole solution for the puzzle, it makes children no need to remember any multiplication item in times table.

We've used transformed 1st circle to indicate the total carriers (as 2017's picture marked the 1st digit differently), and then ask children to find the 3 group of lines with sum up as total carriers (so, straight line is different than curve line). The 2nd rule is it always carries when hit zero. With this 2 rules, they can not only remember the <10 digit from the shift position, but also count the teen numbers. So, children do not need to remember any other complex rules to come out the result.

In short, if you use the content as what in 2008, I don't have problem (which just a partial solution of the puzzle). But, the picture in 2017 is the issue. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you seem to be suggesting that we knowingly include inaccurate and false information in an encyclopedia. Surely you can see that that isn't going to happen. It's still difficult to see exactly what you're complaining about - is it the File:Multiplication mnemonic 7.svg image that is on the page, or the process outlined in the rest of the article that you claim to have invented and patented? While you do link to a patent application this was filed in 2015, which as I pointed out is many years after the introduction of the process to Wikipedia. You say that you invented the process earlier, but there's no evidence to back this up. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

If you need evidence, I still have the flash file on my hand as well as witness from Seagull Scientific. For the content, you can use 2008's content, but no mnemonic 7.svg. You can describe < 10 digit, but no for "grouping/differentiate the connections" for teen digit. For example, as multiplicand is 9, 9 is carried every lines instead of carry from switch rows (as described in 2008's content as for 7, that is switch row as carrier does not apply for 9; which is okay). In your 2017 image, you use "curve" line to differentiate the straight line; which is the problem. In prior work, many content describes the < 10 digits' rules, but no one describes the pattern of the teens. They are not a complete solution. Thanks.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There is discussion of this problem, together with what looks very close to a threat of legal action on the talk page of the article. If we have copied a diagram that is published by you, and not by anyone else, then we take copyright very seriously, and will remove that diagram (just point us to the book in which it is published), but so many people have observed these patterns that I fail to see how the method could ever be patented. Dbfirs 18:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

My Chinese name is Yu-Cheng Tan which is the 2nd author in the patent (see above pdf). It seems like I have to spend another set of money to fight my right. It's so bad for IP system for poor people as us. How to ask my lawyer to contact you guys? In addition, if the result is impact my right, I will ask your page hits multiply by $10 for each then. My daughter, who provided many feedback for me adjust the tool, also published this in her elementary school science competition in 2014 (after IP filed). Anyway, it's 2:35am in Taiwan, and yes English is not 1st language. "it seems just as likely that others had come up with it as well" -- if this is the reason to publish my outcome, you need to provide evidence as well. My patent is approved by US, Taiwan and China governments. Also, my copyright is issued in US. Therefore, before you say something or publish something, you can refer IP database to see if those were published by others. Further more, even so, it is not YOU can publish as well. As copyright and IP tips, if you invented it, you have to issue an IP to protect your right. Unless you are the owner of an IP prior to my IP, you can not say it is you invented earlier including the file / page history (those are just reference, not legal document). For copyright is another story, people who writes something has the copyright by nature. But, you need to provide evidence (with "legal date") as "You" are the author. That is why we issued the copyright through lawyer. In addition, content is another important thing in copyright. You cannot copy a full sentence from others' published document. For picture, it is obviously could be determined (that is why we issue copyright as IP fee grows every year). I don't know if you feel rude or not, I dislike you still publish the picture while we already have argus. Anyway, maybe you own wiki, it looks to me that you play as player and goalkeeper both roles, and it makes me feel unfair. I had lived in US for 7 years, some people are nice but some don't.

For publish, please refer the pdf link I posted (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20150064667.pdf). You can always say "I've draw/seen this before; or many people have observed these patterns that I fail to see how the method could ever be patented", but please provide "LEGAL DOCUMENT", not *think*, nor *wiki history*. The content in the PDF is a legal document approved by US government.

Please check Fig 6, [0030] - [0048], [0052], [0053], [0054], [0055].

If you want, I can also provide legal document approved by Taiwan government; which me live in., or China government; who provided 8x9 multiplication table from archeology. Please remove the picture imediately before you can provide a "legal document" from you to me (YUCHENG TAN) prior Jan 5, 2018 12:00:00AM UTC to if you are not intentionally infringe my copyright. Last but NOT least, please provide the contact info so that I can ask my lawyer to contact you. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

When I looked up the corresponding Patent Application, 14/016138 (file-date: September 2, 2013) at the US Patent Office, their portal shows the following result: Abandoned: Failure to Respond to an Office Action dated June 6, 2016. So, no US patent on this multiplication table exists. It would also seem to me that the possible US copyright would only possibly date to 2013 when the application was filed, in addition the public publishing of this table & its method dates to March 2015. If anything, after looking at the article and its talk page, it appears that WIkipedia's Commons CC-BY-SA licensing has perhaps been breached since a form of the table had already been present on WP's pages since 2004... Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You are right. We are not affordable for paying patent fees because we are poor. But, you don't know what copyright is. You don't need to pay copyright every year to renew, and it is still applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benson tan at work (talk • contribs) 20:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've started a threat at WP:ANI for the legal threats. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Mouseover pop-ups

I noticed that on many Wikipedias (e.g. the French, German, ...) links have a mouseover pop-up. Why does this not appear on the English version? I tried creating an account and enabling the Gadget for pop-ups but this brings up a different pop-up (with messy details about page views and stuff). Is it possible to enable the simple pop-up which seems the default on most language versions into the English version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.240.102 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The feature at other wikis is "Page previews" (also called Hovercards) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering for registered users at the English Wikipedia. See mw:Page Previews. It may be enabled later here by default. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding a link to the Women Classical Pianists

Hi helpdesk,

Would like to add 2 pianists to the Women classical pianists page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_classical_pianists but I can't do it myself since the formatting is too difficult for me. Could you add it for me? Güher and Süher Pekinel should be added to the P section, since they're missing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekinel_sisters

Thanks and Kind Regards. Cleyntje (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cleyntje:  Done. The category is added to the article rather than the other way around. The category now includes the article. Eagleash (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Military service infobox

Is there an infobox that exists where you can add military service information (allegiance, branch, battles, etc.) to a non-military person's article?

I.e. Someone was a musician (Robert Mann) but also happened to be a WWII veteran. In this case, the person is not primarily known for being a war hero, but it is still relevant information to have in their infobox to note that they are/were a veteran and actively participated in a major war.

By using "Infobox academic" or "Infobox musician" you can get the relevant musical achievements to display, but not military info. Conversely, by using the "Infobox officeholder" or "Infobox military person" it then omits all the other relevant info to a musician or academic.

Is there one that can combine both that maybe I am not aware of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:05, 4 January 2018‎ Gysousouris (talk • contribs)

Use the module field of Infobox person, and put the military history infobox in that field. See instructions at Template:Infobox person - Other infoboxes may have the same feature. - X201 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Millions of people have done military service, Gysousouris. The article mentions that he was drafted into the army, but unless something about his service is independently notable (i.e. has been written about in a secondary, reliably published source), it doesn't seem to me that such an infobox would be appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Isaac Newton's correct birth date contradiction

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lee Pahlka (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)