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

January 28

Trial of Mahmoud ahmadinejad

Tehran's Criminal court summons Mahmoud Ahmadinejad( former Iranian President ). Iran's Parliament voted to take President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to court for "illegally" declaring himself oil minister. there are some lawsuits against Ahmadinejad. Please see these relievable sources ( Iranian and European sources):

• Criminal court summons Ahmadinejad Iranian PressTV
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad summoned to criminal court Theguardian
• Ahmadinejad sued on charges of exploitation Iranian Mehr News agency
• Iran court summons Ahmadinejad, ups pressure on outgoing leader
• Iran's Ahmadinejad dodges court date Theguardian
• Ahmadinejad’s legal case still open, says Iran judiciary al monitor

According to Wikipedia's policy about living people, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons , Can I write an article about Trial of Mahmoud ahmadinejad ?

Zeddefesad (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

only if there is so much information about the trial that covering it in the article about the person would give the trial WP:UNDUE weight. It does not appear to rise to that level of coverage and detail. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And if there is excessive coverage, it seems like that coverage would most likely fall within the existing Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in that the trial itself is not notable as a trial, but only as it plays within the perceptions of MA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Wiki software

When searching for the term "model financial", I get a results page, and right under "search results", this appeared:

You have a new message (last change).

Being curious, I clicked on the link, and found myself on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.117.121.44&redirect=no

That user talk is totally unrelated to me, so there is apparently a little problem with the Wiki software itself. Maybe my IP matches one that was used by somebody else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.121.44 (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not our software producing that - you have a Dynamic IP address somewhere in or near Rome - so the number is constantly being reallocated - only 3 edits have been made from that IP the other two were in 2008 - your best solution is to Create an account - Arjayay (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See my comments above. IP addresses sometimes change, typically in the last part of a four-part IPv4 address, or in the last two parts of a six-part IPv6 address. In the US, an assignment of an IP by a telephone company is for a few days, and then the address changes; I don't know about Italian IP addresses. Because IP addresses change, the human behind an IP address does not have a stable contribution history. As Arjayay says, that is one of the reasons why Wikipedia urges unregistered editors to register and create accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a software issue, in that these messages from 2008 are being identified today as "new" messages. There is a request outstanding that would change this: Disable "You have new messages" for anonymous users after 30 days (as IPs often are dynamic). This seems a good idea to me. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I would hope that your IP user talk page shows the message laid out at MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext. There should also be a message saying:

"If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices."

Additionally, each of the warning messages is time-tagged from 2008, and after at least one of them is the message:

"If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice."

--David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How to fix a massive amount of wikilinks?

I recently moved Dosh to Dosh (musician) because the move request I made was accepted. Now I found out there are about 110 pages linking to Dosh meaning the musician, not the disambiguation page. Is there an easy way to fix the wikilinks on all of them or will I have to go through every one by hand? JIP | Talk 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@JIP: Go to WP:AWB/Tasks and explain what needs doing. - X201 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, someone keeps vandalizing a wikipedia article on Danny Blum... someone help please. If anyone visits the page he can ultimately understand the problem. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albatalad (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have warned the IP editor about adding defamatory statements to BLP articles. When I looked at the IP's edit history I also discovered a personal attack against you on your Talk page, I reverted it and gave the IP a Final Warning. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Uploading IMAGES in the Article Miss Universe

I am trying to upload an Image of the Recent Miss Universe 2014 and all the pictures that ive tried have been removed. Please let me know why, and also these images are from the press all over google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socal78 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been adding images in which someone else holds the copyright. They are likely soon to be be deleted: see e.g. the warning message here. When a newspaper published an image (or anything else) it does not release the copyright. Maproom (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As stated, one of the images you mentioned was previously deleted under CSD Criteria F7, which relates to Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Criteria. Please review that information and ensure your submissions comply with those rules. This said, there is also a large collection of other changes to related Miss Universe articles by you including content removal without a reason given. As such, could you please provide specifics such as which articles and diffs you are referring to? See here for further instructions. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 21:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

AEROANDTECH

I am the owner and designer of AEROANDTECH project. The Wikipedia page is not correct, how can I change definitely them?....every time that I update the wrong information I find then the day after again them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.18.124.73 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the only edit by your current IP address and Wikipedia has no mention of "AEROANDTECH" but after some searching I guess you refer to Aero & Tech Nexth. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This was also asked at the Science desk, and the answer is the same: It's a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What's to discuss in article talk? It's clear promotional and COI. You point to the applicable policy, which can be done here (I suspect the folks here are better versed in such areas), and the editor should accept it. If they don't it's disruptive editing, not content dispute. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox was not properly sourced to begin with, and it still isn't. I removed the challenged information. Talk:Aero_&_Tech_Nexth is the proper place to make the case about what should or should not be included on the page. Thanks, all! GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I had this confused with another case, a new article that was a wall of promotion. This case is less clear on promotion, but still COI as per OP (and unsourced). ―Mandruss ☎ 08:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

request edit for Kimberley, British Columbia

We have a new mayor as of November 15, 2014: Don McCormick our population is only 6,700 not 7,600

link for Kimberley Independent School is http://www.kimindschool.com/

Thanks, Patti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.64.162 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You can edit this article yourself. If you don't know how to do the citations and references, just put the source or sources directly in the article and somebody will come along and set it right for you. Regards, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

January 29

Units

Re: Clara Bow ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I just received a message from a "MarnetteD" telling me I was being "disruptive" in editing a page in which I switched an Imperial measurement to a Metric measurement. Metric is a world standard, so I fail to see how I was being "disruptive" in correcting an obscure, outdated system of measurement to a world standard. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs) 04:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Kubrickrules: As MarnetteD linked to, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement describes how we choose the types of units for articles. For most articles (especially scientific ones), SI units are used. However, for articles on US subjects (including American actresses), units most commonly used in the United States are used. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

But the Metric system is the world standard. Wikipedia exists on the internet, which exists worldwide, not just in the US. The US is effectively the only country on the planet which still uses the outdated Imperial system. It is not incumbent upon the entire planet to convert one single country's outdated system of measurement. If US users refuse to learn the Metric system, that is not anyone else's problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The British also use the old system quite a bit. And Americans use the metric system when necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kubrickrules: Being disruptive means demonstrating cluelessness as to correct editing process. There are guidelines in place to assist editors in resolving disagreements in an orderly fashion. Although the community seems unable to fully get behind WP:BRD, it is still a very popular process. The box near the top says, If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. Thus, you deviated from the BRD process with your second edit, and then continued with two more of the same. The other editor should have linked to WP:BRD in the edit summaries of their subsequent reverts, so you weren't the only one at fault in that exchange. But the first error was yours and the whole episode could have been avoided if you had not made it. I would strongly suggest reading and understanding WP:BRD if you plan to do much more Wikipedia editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record the OP had already been made aware of the problem with the edit at this thread User talk:Beyond My Ken#Your reversal of my revision to the Clara Bow page. Thus discussion had already occurred. As the edit was a violation of the MOS and BMK had already explained that fact AND Kubrickrules had made the same edit two more times (oh my and then made the edit yet again) IMO there was nothing more to discuss. This was a MOS violation issue not a content issue so BRD was not applicable. KR was clearly ignoring the explanation and MOS links provided, thus the need for the warning on their talk page. I did more than post a warning as I added links to the same policy that I had mentioned in my edit summary. I have no way of knowing whether KR read the policy at the end of the link but there is little I can do about that. BTW nothing is "required" in an edit summary. While I always use the edit summary line I would hazard a guess that several hundred thousand edits are made each day with no edit summary whatsoever. MarnetteD|Talk 05:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

But there was no "error" on my part. The Metric system is the world standard of measurement. It is irrelevant whether the British "also use the (Imperial) system quite a bit," as they have officially adopted the Metric system years ago, and, as was mentioned before, the entire rest of the world uses the Metric system. Get used to it, because that's the way it is and will always be. The Imperial system is dead and gone. Deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs) 05:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by consensus - and if the consensus it that we use Imperial system units in some circumstances, you will have to comply if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia. You don't have a personal veto, regardless of how right you think you are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, User:Kubrickrules does think that he has a personal veto. He apparently thinks that. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kubrickrules: The error is that you are editing Wikipedia against its defined set of policies and guidelines. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it also has rules. Wikipedia:Manual of Style exists as the style manual for articles. As Andy mentions, consensus from the community is what determines policy, and extensive discussion has lead to the unit standards we have now. One can always discuss policy, and even try to change it through a new consensus - but repeatedly making changes against policy or guidelines on your own is considered disruptive, and will not end well. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: BTW nothing is "required" in an edit summary. If that's in response to my comment about linking to WP:BRD, it's not about what's required, it's about what's helpful and conducive to peace. It's the recognition that some people have never heard of BRD, and it's giving them the chance to become better editors before we jump down their throats. If they refuse the help, that's a different matter. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate what you are saying (and I also have as much respect for BRD) as any editor) I will point out once again KR had already been made aware of what the problem was and the edit was not a content issue which is what BRD is all about. As you have seen (and yes I know hindsight is 20/20) discussion was the last thing that was going to stop the edits made. Thanks for taking care of the last edit and adding another warning Mandruss. Your efforts are appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 06:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My €0.02, BRD is an essay, BOLD is a policy, and an R with a boilerplate rationale is utter dubious if the B was no vandalism. If there's something to discuss, just do it in explanations for the B or R. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How is the "consensus" that Wikipedia must use the Imperial system when no one on the planet except the US uses the Imperial system? Does Wikipedia not exist on the internet, a world-wide website? Don't the first two letters of "WWW" stand for "World Wide"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs) 06:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The WP:MOS has come about by consensus. The section that you have ignored WP:UNIT exists because of consensus. As does the corresponding policy regarding language at WP:ENGVAR. I can only say that you should read the advice given to you on BMK's talk page again. MarnetteD|Talk 06:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to sign each talk space comment with ~~~~. It's important to know who is saying what. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that (1) this discussion move to article talk where it belongs, and that (2) KR understand that they may not make this change again until and unless consensus for it is reached there. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kubrickrules is not only being disruptive by insisting on using the metric system for US articles, but is just being wrong in complaining about use of the imperial system. The term for the system used in the United States is US customary system. Referring to it as the imperial system is not only incorrect, but is deeply insulting to Americans. The imperial system refers only to a version of the British customary system that was enacted in the nineteenth century. I would prefer that the US adopt the metric system, but that is not happening in the US, at least not now. English Wikipedia, which exists to serve English-literate readers in multiple countries, uses the units for those countries. In complaining about the use of the customary system in the US, do not make things worse by insulting Americans by referring to the imperial system. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because on a fixed date in 1970 Britain went metric and now you can't buy beer in pints or buy tape measures calibrated in inches. It was so easy and everyone went along with it from day one. Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha Ha yeah, right. Britmax (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Obsolete template still working?

As Template:Double image is deprecated, how does it still work and exist in some articles? Do I get it right that the noincludeincludeonly-text uses Template:Multiple image with adjusted parameters so that it does exactly reproduce what the old DoubleImage-Template has generated? --KnightMove (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing of this specific situation, but "deprecated" doesn't mean it stops working. It means we should work toward removing all uses, with the intent of eventually withdrawing support. Any help? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately no (I had already understood this), still thank you. Now I'm quite sure that the answer to my above question (with the correction in text) is "yes", however more information would help. --KnightMove (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@KnightMove: The {{double image}} template was converted to a wrapper for {{multiple image}} about a year ago, following this discussion. As described there, it was converted to a wrapper so that all of the {{double image}} parameters would still work, and so give minimum disruption to articles that still had {{double image}}. There was a lot of misunderstanding, and you will notice that I spent some time correcting some misapprehensions.

In short: this edit wasn't necessary, since you could have altered the last two parameters from |[[Chris Evert]] (21 slams, 18 in singles, 3 in doubles)|[[Martina Navratilova]] (59 slams, 18 in singles, 31 in doubles, 10 in mixed doubles) to the single parameter |[[Chris Evert]] (left) and [[Martina Navratilova]] each won 18 Grand Slam single titles. in order to combine the two captions, see right. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. As for the edit:

1. As the template is depricated - isn't it desirable to replace it, if not systematically, at least given occasions like this one?
2. How would I, or anyone else, know how to replace the two captions by a single footer in double image correctly, as the description of the template is gone?

--KnightMove (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The TfD was closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs) as "merge", not "merge and deprecate". Only one person used the latter term, and the comment was "Keep and mark doc as deprecated, unless there is an automatic method to convert old usage" - and since the old usage was effectively converted with these edits, there should have been no need to mark it as deprecated. Nonetheless, that is what Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) - who had not taken part in the TfD - did some weeks later with this edit, where they saw fit to remove the documentation too. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, KnightMove

It is deliberate. As Redrose64 said earlier, it was I who added the deprecated tag; the reasons is what Plastikspork actually did: When a template becomes a strictly syntactic wrapper, deprecating it is the only performance-friendly option with no drawbacks. But wasting time and energy replacing 2834 transclusions while they work flawlessly AND we have more important backlogs to clear, is not worth it. It works. So, yes, it is deliberate.

As for "how to replace the two captions by a single footer", do that by switching over to {{Multiple images}}. That's the purpose of deprecation: To make you switch over.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: - regarding "how to replace the two captions by a single footer" - I demonstrated in this thread at 12:22, 29 January 2015 how it can be done using {{double image}} --Redrose64 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: "As for "how to replace the two captions by a single footer", do that by switching over to {{Multiple images}}. That's the purpose of deprecation: To make you switch over." - that's exactly what I have done, and so I had to replace the {{Double image}} with {{Multiple image}}, as no more explanation for Double image was available.

There is no problem, however a decision whether non-expert users should be practically forced to replace the template for edits like mine wouldn't hurt. --KnightMove (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Aarya Babbar

Please change the name to 'Aarya Babbar' — Preceding unsigned comment added by NairSujata14 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I see it has been moved (from "Arya Babbar") already. Maproom (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving inter language pages: template for standard section names

I've been translating articles from the english Wikipedia and I noticed that there are no templates for creating the standard sections names, such as See also, References and External links. We must write ourselves those names in our own languages (eg: in portuguese they're called "Ver também", "Referências" and "Ligações externas"). It would be much better for the whole community if we could use a template like "{seealso}" (or an abbreviated one) in all the interwikis, so each section name would be translated automatically by the Wikipedia engine to the appropriated language. It would be similar to the Template:lang, but in the case of the section name it would need to write "{seealso}" without informing any parameters. It only brings advantages: revisors will not waste more time fixing errors on those lines, the translators don't need to worry about writing those lines in the correct form for each language, and it makes the inter language pages more compatibable. That's my suggestion.Faltur (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is the perfect place for such a suggestion, so I took the liberty of copying it there. The thread is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Because my eyes

don't work as well as they used to, I am having a difficult (read "impossible") time figuring out what is wrong with the latest entry at List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2015. Also, there are no headings on the table and I think (opinion) that such headings are needed. Also the reference used needs to be formatted. Any volunteers? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Carptrash: It appears that new user Mwmccarrin (talk · contribs) overwrote the column headings, and didn't appreciate the importance of the |- marker to start a fresh row. I've added new headings and start-of-row markers, and then fixed the markup on the two new rows. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Edward Mahon

I just submitted a draft article which Wikipedia should consider highly important and accept for inclusion. It deals with the biography of Edward Mahon (under that title), but it may appear a bit jumbled up as I cannot really understand the instructions in your so-called easy guide for creating a new article. I can develop many Wiki-links from the text as I submitted it if it is approved for publication, as well as additional links to document the validity of the article. Also images, drawn from the Mahon family archives to which I had access while doing by biography of Edward. So hopefully my initial effort is not all lost and with some help it can be launched. Walter Volovsek

Walter, where did you submit this article? Carptrash (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Otmarpub/sandbox is the draft. CaptRik (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The user seems to have reverted after your replies. It was decent, but has now been reverted to the sample page layout. - X201 (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Company site referring to previous owner

Hi there, I work for a company called Spectralink Corporation. We were divested from our previous owner, Polycom, in December 2012, but our company name redirects to Polycom's page. How do I cancel that redirect so I can make our own company page? If you search on Spectralink, it goes to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycom#Acquisitions

Here is the official press release announcing the divestiture of the Spectralink business in 2012 in case you need proof: http://www.polycom.com/company/news/press-releases/2012/20120510.html

Michelle

Hi, Michelle. Although Spectralink may be an independent company, that does not automatically imply that it should have its own article. The general requirement for having a separate article is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.). This coverage must be of Spectralink itself, not just of another associated company.

If you wish to write a separate article, though, I advise you to go to Articles for creation so you can prepare a draft for review, rather than risk a new article being deleted. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Manifestos

At Talk:Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2015 it has been proposed that "the manifesto of each political party be included in the page for the sake of completeness of information on the topic"
Clearly we should not just copy-paste every manifesto into the article, but if people start trying to summarize a manifesto, I foresee endless arguments. Is there a policy that prohibits/limits this? - Arjayay (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL? Anyway it seems a very poor idea to include manifestos in an article. Links to published manifestos should be good enough. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt there is any policy or guideline about this. The editor who wishes to make the change should seek consensus for it on the article's talk page. If there is not enough participation there, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the common method for soliciting the opinions of outside editors. Opinions about article content are really outside the scope of Help desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Lines in tables

I edited a table in Julian calendar#Leap year error. Some of the lines in the table are separated by lines, some are not. Can anyone explain why this is happening? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything out of the ordinary with the formatting/rendering of that table. (I assume that you meant "rows in the table".) Every row and column is divided by a line. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It may have to do with a particular display and the display resolution chosen. I have no problems with my browser's default display size, but if I zoom out, sometimes some of the lines disappear (and not necessarily at the smallest sizes).--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Two similar dab pages

I made two pages into dab pages: Faith chapel and Faith Chapel. Should one just direct to the other? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

January 30

updating info about myself on an page and it is getting removed

I updated info on what I am doing these days, others have placed incorrect info on me, I want to correct it. I did so, then it was almost instantly removed. Please help me with this, others have told my so called story, but I can't? thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Corbin — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreCorbin (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced, undue weight, conflict of interest, BLP violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, AndreCorbin. Please excuse the unkind and rude reply by Baseball Bugs (which was accurate, but not helpful to somebody unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works). The answer is, no, you cannot tell your story: Wikipedia contains neutrally written articles, and people are strongly discouraged from contributing directly to articles about themselves or subjects closely connected with them. What you are encouraged to do is to make suggestions for improvements to the article on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:André Corbin), with independent reliable published sources for any information you want added. No unpublished information whatever should appear in the article, and information published by you or your associates (for example on your own webpage) should be included only if it is uncontroversial factual information. Please see wp:Autobiography, especially the section "Problems in an article about you". --ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Unkind and rude" compared to what? The editors who reverted him without explanation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, compared to how I would hope that beginners get treated at the Help Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, one thing he will have learned is that some established users will take gratuitous shots at other established users. That's a valuable lesson to teach a newbie. Award yourself a rusty star. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Another thing he will have learned is to not file complaints here about a pet article, as it could result in the article's deletion (see below). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The article contains no sources other than an interview with the subject. I have nominated the article for deletion at Articles for Deletion. (It doesn't qualify for proposed deletion because it was created before the new policy took effect. Any editor who has reliable sources that indicate notability of the subject can edit the article and mention their edits in the deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Corbin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Segale - copyright question

Dear Sir or Madam

I looked up the battle of Segale and I noticed that I have the fitting picture for your description. My historic depiction shows the Battle of Segale, which took place in 1916. This battle was between Rasta Fari, the later Haile Selassi and King (negus) Michael. Even if it was merely an internal struggle this battle together with the battle of Adwa 1896 strengthened Ethiopias image as a defender of African independence. That is why I think this ethnic painting has the same pictural figuration in the same landscape as the tableau of the battle of Adwa, which I saw at the British Museum. (Indeed the battles happened at different places.) So both became an inspiration for Africans around the world and could bee seen as a symbol for freedom, not only for Rastas.

For public interests I therefore would like to publish this rare picture, which my grandfather Hermann Neitzel ordered from an unknown lokal artist ca. 1920 in Adis Ababa and which is still in my property. But the German Wikipedia denied publishing the picture for German legal reasons, stating that it is not yet a hundred years old and that the artist is unknown. Do you see a chance for publishing it on the American Wikipedia? I also have a full translation of the words on the painting in amharic and geeze into english, by the Adis Ababa University. kind regards, Wolfgang Neitzel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.196.43.200 (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright law is complicated, but you will find information at Wikipedia:Copyright#Governing copyright law, and at pages linked from there, such as Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. David Biddulph (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Page should be deleted

I would like the page: de:Worthington_Cylinders to be deleted as that company is now listed under Worthington Industries. It is using outdated images and that is causing a conflict with our SEO.

I am an employee in the Corporate Communications department for Worthington Industries. You can verify my employment if necessary.

Thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brtjmllr (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As that article is on the German Wikipedia, you would need to ask there - each language's Wikipedia is run separately, and sets its own rules and procedures. The Help desk at the German Wikipedia is here There are several English speakers there if you feel your German is not up to it. - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Brtjmllr: More information on deletion is at de:Wikipedia:Löschregeln. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia does not care about SEO, see WP:SEO for guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

los coches rancho (sunol)

Article: Rancho Los Coches (Sunol) GermanJoe (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia to help make a couple of corrections to the Wiki listing for the Los Coches Rancho (Sunol).

Two of the corrections need to be made to the heading paragraph and I do not see a link for those corrections.

Roberto Balermino is the corrected spelling of the name that appears; the individual was named for an important saint.

And the second correction removes the name of the community of Burbank and replaces it with the name Willow Glen.

The Roberto Adobe & Sunol House is located on Lincoln Avenue adjacent to the old incorporated town of Willow Glen.

Burbank is a district in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. It is surrounded by the City of San Jose.

How can I make these changes?

April Halberstadt — Preceding unsigned comment added by AprilHope (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello @AprilHope:, thank you for providing this information. However, a brief Internet search reveals several different spellings for the name and different descriptions of the exact location (near Burbank is a bit vague, but seems to be correct). In such a case the article needs an authoritative, reliable source for the changed information (WP:RS and WP:V offer more details on this policy). You can edit the first section (the "lead" section) clicking "Edit source" on the article - this opens the complete article for editing. If you feel uncomfortable editing yourself, you can also add suggestions to the article's talkpage: move to Talk:Rancho Los Coches (Sunol), click "New section" and add a header and your suggested change (disclaimer: low-traffic articles with few viewers will usually need some time to get updated). GermanJoe (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Need Help Adding Information

Hi, I'm trying to add myself to people from Cedar Rapids, Iowa who have done accomplishments.

Name: Joel Sadilek - Resident 1969 to 1987. Film Producer, Writer, Director & Musician. Reference: www.curiousjoel.com Reference: www.imdb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrsadilek (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jrsadilek: When you edit Cedar Rapids, Iowa#Notable people you see this:

"NOTICE * * * NOTICE * * * NOTICE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *NOTICE * * * NOTICE * * * NOTICE

Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here as Notable people. This establishes notability.

All others will be deleted without further explanation."

Joel Sadilek is a red link so you have no Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the requirements, and see Wikipedia:Autobiography if you think about writing it yourself. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Category question

I just came across a category, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT people from Guyana, which was entirely empty — but it has existed since 2006, and was not empty the last time I reviewed the contents of ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT people by nationality. However, because the "related changes" link only tracks changes to articles that are currently in the category, it offers no assistance in tracking down pages that have been removed from the category, and the external "category watchlist" tool only tracks new changes going forward from the time you create a searchlist — but in this instance I need to somehow determine what was previously in the category, so that I can evaluate whether its emptying was appropriate or not. Can anybody advise whether there's any way to determine what pages used to be in the category? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I don't know any clever way of doing this. But I have database dumps from 2014-10-08, 2014-12-08 and 2015-01-12, so I could search for the text "Category:LGBT people from Guyana" to see which articles were in the category on those dates. Would that be any use? -- John of Reading (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Worth a shot, if you're able — it sounds like probably the only chance I've got here. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bearcat: The scan of the 2014-10-08 dump found just one article, which was removed from the category a few days later. The later scans found nothing. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_people_from_Guyana at the Wayback Machine only has a 2006 version. David McAlmont was also the only page back then. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. It looks like his removal from the category actually was appropriate, as the article actually fails to adequately source that he's LGBT. Or actually from Guyana, for that matter; the only relevance to Guyana that has ever been present in the article was the assertion, also unsourced, that he's of Guyanese ancestry, not that he's actually personally from the country. So I'll look into whether those facts are properly sourceable, and recreate the category if it's justifiable. Thanks again, no further action needed here. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The White people page is semi-protected; Yet completely discriminatory against Whites.

Re: White people ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I know the concerns of Whites these days are shoved aside for the "more oppressed" demographics, but this shouldn't allow racial biased to be so publicly advertised. The page states segregation, oppression, eugenics, and marginalization is a trait only for white people, like it wasn't practiced by the Persians, Ottoman Empire, Byzantine empire, Khazaria, or Mongolians.

This is the more far left position one could take on a subject as sensitive like race, and you do not see other pages catering so far against the demographic of which the article is based on. I'm very offended, and I dont think the children who research this page to find ou about their heritage, deserve to be guilt tripped for being born white, when they are the descendants of the western society which fueled modern innovation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctirderp (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection prevents edits by users who are not autoconfirmed. Experience has shown that such users are far more likely to be one of the following:

• Completely clueless about correct editing process, guidelines that are designed to facilitate relative peace among editors who disagree. Wikipedia also has policies and guidelines that govern article content. There are introductory help pages to assist a new user with understanding all of that, but these users have not bothered to read any of them. They are only here to get their view of "truth" into Wikipedia articles, and edit warring is the only way they know how to do it. Edit warring is very counterproductive and wastes a lot of time for the volunteers who try to play by the rules.
• People who have heard that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and wish to investigate that claim (Look Mom, I edited Wikipedia!), again without spending any time learning how to do it correctly.
• People who just want to damage an article, for any of a number of reasons.

Semi-protection has absolutely nothing to do with suppressing any particular viewpoints. I encourage you to become autoconfirmed, learn more about Wikipedia editing, and join the team. Help desk is here to help you with that (hence the name), and it is designed more for that purpose than for handling complaints about Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Doctirderp - It isn't clear what you are trying to say is wrong with the article. I can see that your first language isn't English. However, all that I can see is that you are displeased with the article, but do not know what changes you would like made in the article. It is more helpful to explain how you would like an article improved than just to complain about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

January 31

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Re: William Levitt

I made a mistake and do not know how to correct it. For some reason I am not there! I am William J Levitt's second son (to his first wife, R Kirshner) so I added it yet this error is showing Can you help This is what I added; Levitt married Rhoda Kirshner in November 1929.[5] Their son William Junior was born in 1933.[5] His second son, James was born in 1944. The couple divorced in 1959, and Levitt married his secretary and long-time lover, Alice Kenny.[5] Ten years later in 1969, Levitt divorced her and married a French art dealer, Simone Korchin.[5]

The person being referenced is WILLIAM J. LEVITT Thank you James Levitt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.152.110 (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You accidentally inserted extra ref tags before the "Background" section heading. I removed them. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Gridlock (politics)

Reference help requested. ReferenceBot tells me I have a redundant parameter error. I used the templates, so there shouldn't be an error. I did use a reference with two authors, though, so perhaps that's the issue? Here is how the template created that reference:

Brady, David (2006). Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. p. 4. {{cite book}}: More than one of |author1= and |last1= specified (help)

Also, I cited this reference twice, from two separate pages. I included the full reference both times, only changing the page number. Could that be the cause of the error? Is there a better way to cite a reference that's already been cited in the same article? Thanks, Transdeuce (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

|author1= may not be specified with |first1= or |last1= as they both refer to the first author. Either change |author1= to |author2= or remove it. If there is in fact a second author, and they are a person, I'd suggest changing |author1= to |first2= and |last2= for consistency. You are also misusing |authorlink1= which should always be the title of a Wikipedia article (there is no article titled "Craig"). As for your last question, see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. You can specify the page number by using {{rp}} immediately following the citation, as {{rp|n}} or {{rp|p.n}}, where n is the page number. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

After a second look, I'm thinking perhaps your second author is Craig Volden. In that case, change |author1=Volden|authorlink1=Craig to |last2=Volden|first2=Craig. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Tel vs. tell

I have a style question that is somewhat similar to the question about 'Murican and Commonwealth spelling. In Near Eastern Archaeology, tells are our bread and butter when it comes to sites. Tell is both a Hebrew and Arabic word with different spellings and commonly-used transliterations that match those spellings. They both mean mound in their respective languages.

In Hebrew you have tel (תֵל) and in Arabic you have tell (تَلّ)—which has a wee w-looking character above the lam (ل) indicating the letter should be treated as a double, for those curious. In archaeological writing, both tel and tell are acceptable and recognised by those with even a basic knowledge of the practice. In place-names (be they extant cities or ancient sites), you'll generally find tel used in Israel (Tel Aviv or Tel Megiddo), and tell used in the Arabic-speaking world. In archaeological writing, it's not uncommon for a site whose name starts with Tel to be referred to as a tell throughout a paper and the opposite.

Anyway, my question is, for style purposes on Wikipedia, is it okay to use one or the other so long as you're consistent throughout the article? I want to change the terminology from tel in Tel Kabri to tell (not changing the article name of course, just the references to the 'tel' itself) just because I think it looks nicer. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Shevat 5775 02:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

within a single article the use should generally be consistent (except where direct quoting) 2) see WP:LANGVAR for determining which - follow the sources - what is the most common usage? which usage was in the article first? , is a strong national/cultural tie to one version? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think most of what you asked is answered in my OP. No one version is more common in the sources as I recall. As for which was in the article first, it's tel, but only because it's what I put originally. I did about 99% of the writing for that article (stating fact, not ownership) and put in all instances of the word as most other editing on that as article has been correcting goofs. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Shevat 5775 15:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The pointer to WP:LANGVAR is critical. In short, it doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent (please don't follow your colleagues in using both spellings in the same publication), and we give leeway to the first significant writer, so you ought to make your decision without worrying about some sort of policy overriding you. If the field were consistent, we should go that way, but since you're more familiar with the sources than most (all?) of the rest of us, we oughtn't question your conclusion that the field in general is inconsistent. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I made sure to scope that guideline. The using both spellings thing is generally that it'll be something like Tel Megiddo and then the author will refer to it as the tell through-out. You couldn't call it Tell Megiddo because it has an Arabic name, Tell Em-Mutsilliem. I'm not the only archaeologist Wikipedian, and there's many more qualified than I am, but I guess I am the only person actively editing Wikipedia who has access to most of the English-language sources for this specific archaeological site.

Also, sadly, archaeology, especially Syro-Palestinian archaeology, is rarely ever consistent. Almost every little detail is disputed and fought over. There could probably be a section in an article somewhere or a separate article about it as a lot of people write articles about it (the majority of archaeological writing that isn't bone-dry). Thank you though, I shall follow your advice! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 11 Shevat 5775 16:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Disgusting vandalism

The Julie Bishop page contains truly vile and disgusting vandalism and swearing, please remove IMMEDIATELY how to contact wikipedia ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.18.234 (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted by a bot and the edit was "revision deleted" by an admin. I expect the vandal is already blocked. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No block in block log

I recently got this user blocked after vandalizing one of my article comments. I see no block in his block log. What happened? 118.209.2.5 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the report was badly formatted, so it was removed without action. As the vandal has now been warned, they will probably get blocked next time they edit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A human wouldn't just remove such a report, but a robot maintains the page. It saw your report and wrongly concluded that you'd not made an actual report, or something like that. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Same thing happened when I reported Ryulong for edit and flame warring a few months ago. Thanks for telling me. 118.209.172.194 (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And as you saw, my IP changed. It changes for no reason, and I can't do anything about it, so if I were in a flame war, someone would mistake it for sockpuppetry. Just so you know. 118.209.172.194 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You can do something about it: you can register and use an account. I doubt the bots will care, but it would make things easier for everyone else involved. Maproom (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Content adding

How to add contents in an article.

Hi, the table of contents is automatically added after there are enough sections in an article (I believe it is 4). Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 13:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

See Help:Magic words. If you want a table of contents that wouldn't otherwise appear, you can add __TOC__ on the page somewhere. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not "somewhere": it needs to go immediately before the first section heading. Point 2 at H:TOC#Floating the TOC applies to all TOCs, not just those that are floated. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia v Wiktionary integration

It seems obvious to me that Wikipedia and Wiktionary should be properly integrated. Just about any word in Wiktionary could potentially have a Wikipedia entry if you describe the word in context. Words not in Wikipedia are normally in Wiktionary so i dont know why a link straight through to Wiktionary isnt always given if a reader searched for a word not in Wikipedia. Also Wiktionary entries should include a link to to the corresponding Wikipedia article if there is one. Links within Wikipedia article should be permissible to Wiktionary articles, including in Wikipedia templates and categories - replaced by Wikipedia links should they be created at a later date. I cannot see any reason why the two are not integrated except for political reasons.--Penbat (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Penbat. The best place to make broad proposals like this is at the Village pump: you can make the suggestion, and try and garner support for your proposal. For myself, I disagree. Most words in a dictionary do not merit an encyclopaedia article, and the kinds of information given are quite different (summary of what people have said about a topic, vs the meaning, usage, and examples of a word). Links between the two are perfectly possible, and do get used sometimes; I think it is rarely appropriate to link a wiktionary term in the text of a Wikipedia article: if the ordinary reader is going to need to look up a word, then either it should link to a Wikipedia article, or a more common word should be used instead. --ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not WP:VPP, that's policy. WP:VPR (proposals) is best. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ColinFine. If we integrated the two, how would we handle synonyms? As an encyclopedia, we have one article that covers wood as a commodity: it's called "lumber", and the functionally identical term "timber" redirects to it, since it's the same concept. Wiktionary, however, has different pages for the two, because it concentrates on the words themselves rather than on their meanings. How would you reconcile this basic discrepancy? Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T87645

Can anyone imagine why this is showing up in CAT:CSD? Its sole contents are:

• [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica/Archive 1| 1]]
• [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica/Archive 2| 2]]

No categories, no templates, etc., and it's been around since 2013, so I can't see why it's only now in the category. RHaworth already tried to fix it, but he self-reverted because even blanking the page didn't solve the problem. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted. Null edit and purging didn't fix it, either. —Cryptic 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I just now deleted it and immediately recreated with the same contents, wondering if the system would start over if it were created by someone else, but that didn't work either, so I restored what I'd deleted. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It may just be a coincidence, but this is one of the pages referred to at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#ClueBot III and Cyberbot I created pages in the wrong namespace. Although its name begins "User:", it is included in this list of pages that the software thinks are in namespace zero. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

But if it's in mainspace, why is the page tab "User page" instead of "Article"? And if you click the tab for the nonexistent talk page, you have the opportunity to create User talk:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica, while if it were in mainspace, shouldn't it go to [[Talk:User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica]]? Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there are two pages, with identical names, one incorrectly in ns:0 (main), the other correctly in ns:2 (User); the one in ns:2 has preference, so that is the one that you see when you click the relevant link, but the CSD template is actually on the one in ns:0. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like two pages. I tracked down a diff which explains the CSD category and a mainspace entry at [1]. I still don't know how to delete the mainspace version. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The mainspace one has wgArticleId 45227575; the userspace one's is 45266427. It can probably be deleted via the api, but I'm not brave enough to try. (I was able to get it out of the csd cats, though, by editing from that diff page.) —Cryptic 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How can two pages exist at identical names? I've moved the userpage to a different title, using move-without-redirect, and it didn't affect the A7-tagged one, since I can still view https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=645010876 without using any admin tools. However, I can't move or delete the still-existing page, as when I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot_III/Indices/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica, it only shows that there's no userpage by this name, and if I go to the diff and click "move" or "delete", it only notes that there's no userpage by this name. I haven't a clue how to delete through the API; where can I find someone who does? Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess pages are stored as a (namespace, pagename) pair, and the two pages are effectively (mainspace, "User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica") and (userspace, "ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica"). The first pair shouldn't be allowed and cannot be reached by features which only give a pagename and not a (namespace, pagename) pair or an ArticleId number. There is API documentation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=delete but I don't want to mess with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My theory is that the two pages share names because the names are stored in different ways that appear to be identical to any passing human, but are different for a computer. If I go to the correctly-named page, and hover my mouse over the (redlinked) "talk" tab, and right-click to copy the link, it is
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_III/Indices/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannicad&action=edit&redlink=1
- the namespace prefix is shown as "User_talk:", as we would normally expect. But if I go to the diff mentioned above, and do the same, I get
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:User:ClueBot_III/Indices/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica&action=edit&redlink=1
- notice the presence of "Talk:User:" instead of "User_talk:". So this suggests to me that for the page in error, the "User:" part is not being treated as the namespace prefix, but as part of the actual pagename. I read somewhere that for pages outside mainspace, the namespace prefix (and its colon) is not stored as text, but as an integer; pages in mainspace don't have a namespace prefix, but are still stored with a namespace value, and that value is zero. So, the page that is correct has its namespace stored as the value 2, and its name stored as the string "ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica"; whereas the the page that is in error has its namespace stored as the value 0, and its name stored as the string "User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica". The names differ, one is five bytes longer than the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem with unified login

Regarding a question I posted previously on the Help desk, I have followed the instructions and requested for a username change on the French Wikipedia. However, as previously predicted, since the two accounts, which are automatically global and unified, already exist, there is nothing the people who do the renaming can do. Stewards will be required to take such action. In this case, how should I proceed? Although options seem few, I still do not wish to give up this account. Is it possible for anything else to be done? For example, will it be possible to discuss this with people more familiar with similar procedures on English Wikipedia? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Average Wikipedian: The whole process for changing and usurping usernames has been altered in the last few months, and is no longer a matter for local action: you probably need to go to meta:Steward requests/Username changes. Explain the whole situation, all usernames that you registered, which wikis that they were first registered on. Where applicable, include links to threads here and on other wikipedias where your problem was discussed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you didn't follow my suggestion to ask for a rename or a local creation of the blacklisted name. I have done so at fr:Wikipédia:Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur#The Average Wikipedist → The Average Wikipedian, but I don't know what the answer will be. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I asked for a rename, as your instructions said so. If the local creation of the blacklisted name is a way out, how do I do it? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 December 30#An overheated BLP noticeboard debate and login for other languages I wrote: say something like "I created The Average Wikipedian at the English Wikipedia and mainly edit there but would like to also edit here without logging in and out to another account. I cannot create The Average Wikipedian by myself because usernames containing 'Wikipedia' are blocked here by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. If you can create the account for me then I don't need a rename of X."

I don't know whether they are able to do it in a practical way (an impractical way would be for a local admin to temporarily change the blacklist while you create the account yourself). I suggest you wait for a reply at fr:Wikipédia:Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur#The Average Wikipedist → The Average Wikipedian before going to meta:Steward requests/Username changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Currently I am trying to solve the problem through meta:Steward requests/Username changes. Since the name is blacklisted on a few Wikipedias (examples include French and German), should I request for such a rename of my new account globally or do it separately for each Wikipedia? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Mis-statement on Ella Fitzgerald page

Below states that the child Ray Brown, Jr. was raised by HER aunt. In fact the child is a boy/male. Just fyi.

Her second marriage was in December 1947, to the famous bass player Ray Brown, whom she had met while on tour with Dizzy Gillespie's band a year earlier. Together they adopted a child born to Fitzgerald's half-sister, Frances, whom they christened Ray Brown, Jr. With Fitzgerald and Brown often busy touring and recording, the child was largely raised by her aunt, Virginia. Fitzgerald and Brown divorced in 1953, bowing to the various career pressures both were experiencing at the time, though they would continue to perform together.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylloyd (talk • contribs)

"her" refers to Ella Fitzgerald and not the child. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian Law Journal

Dear sirs, The page Russian Law Journal was created twice and deleted also twice. Could you please explain our faults and suggest how to create it in the best manner? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarik1949 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As has already been made entirely clear to you, your journal does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Brier

Reference help requested. Hi there,

I don't totally understand what the ReferenceBot is asking me to do. Any assistance would be appreciated!

Thanks, Verybrightly (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You added |url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqHJ4V893e0. As the help page notes, the link is missing the URI scheme. This should be |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqHJ4V893e0 to create a proper link. --  Gadget850 ^talk 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I see my confusion now...I understood that I needed to add the "http://", but then I when I went to look at it, the "http://" was already there. Which led me to realize that someone else had already added it. Am still new and getting the hang of how this all works. Thanks, Gadget850! Cheers, Verybrightly (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Hi, I corrected the spelling of my fathers name. Moe Moskowitz was the founder of Moe's books and A very important person to the Print Mint. Don and Alice Schenker were is very good friends and the Print Mint shared an address with Moe's Books at 2476 Telegraph Ave in Berkeley until 1969. These I things I know because of what I have been told over the years. I am Doris Moskowitz, Moe's youngest daughter. I own and operate Moe's Books today.

How can I correct the spelling of his name?

Doris

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorisjom (talk • contribs)

As noted in the help page, you added an empty <ref></ref> to Print Mint. --  Gadget850 ^talk 21:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Dorisjom:. I fixed one problem with a stray pair of reference tags for you - and also removed the "iconic" part of your addition. Such phrases are listed at WP:PEACOCK and are usually not suitable for an encyclopedic text. Editors with a close connection to an article topic should read WP:COI and avoid any non-trivial edits. It's better to post additional suggestions on the article's talkpage in such cases, including links to reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

February 1

How do I remove user/sandbox information?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeafCulture (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The {{help}} template is used only on your user talk page, and I have removed it. If you can edit this section and describe your question or problem in more detail, we should be able to help. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DeafCulture. I'm going to take a wild guess that you have created a draft in a user sandbox (not apparently under the user DeafCulture, which has no edits apart from this one) and you want the article to appear under its proper name, without "User:xxxxx/sandbox" appearing at the top. The answer is that the name of a page says where it is in Wikipedia, and you change the name by moving it. Normally you will have a down-arrow among the tabs at the top of the page, and under that is "Move"; but I think your account is too new to have this yet: you will need to wait four days and make ten edits before Wikipedia decides you are here to help rather than hinder and lets you do this. :-)

However, moving an article from a sandbox to main space is effectively publishing it; and for an inexperienced user I would very strongly advise that you ask for the article to be reviewed first: if it is accepted, the reviewer will move it to the right place. You can request review by editing it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article (review can take a few weeks, as there is a big backlog).

Alternatively, if I've misunderstood your intent, please clarify what you're asking. --ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of someone else's photo of myself on my userpage

Apologies in advance if this comes off as gloating at all because it's not meant to be. Anyway, I outed myself a while back, and I've seen on some peoples' userpages that it's all right to upload a photo of yourself to put on your Wikipedia userpage. I want to use a really nice photo of me that was taken by Eric H. Cline and was apparently nice enough to be the January/February cover of Biblical Archaeology Review. How would I go about using this photo in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Shevat 5775 04:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You would need to ask Eric or whoever now owns the copyright if they would be happy about releasing his photo under the conditions outlined in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. I urge you to read that page carefully, because it provides information on what to do if he agrees. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Good day, please I need someone to help me edit my new Wikipedia profile, it's about my professional football player. I want to help him create a good professional Wikipedia. Can someone help me out. I will provide all details needed. Thanks