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

February 9

Moving comments from a draft talk page to a mainspace talk page?

Dear editors: I was checking out a page in the Draft namespace, and found that it had been copied into mainspace by the same editor. According to the history merge guidelines, the fragment isn't needed for attribution purposes so I deleted it. However, the draft had a talk page, Draft talk:Katie Boulter, which has information about the notability of the draft. Should this be copied to the mainspace talk page, with a note about its origin, or should it be deleted with the talk page? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anne, the discussion is relevant to the article, and should not be deleted if at all possible. I would move it to the new talk page. A note about the origin would be great. All the best, Taketa (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Taketa. I did that. I just wanted to make sure before moving another editor's comment. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Image uploading (infobox) - Basics

Hi,

I've never fully understood the formalities of uploading / changing an image, since I'm stuck on simply how to present it essentially. An example is the page Mauro Icardi, where I am trying to change the first picture, in the infobox, to the following:

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mauro+Icardi+FC+Internazionale+Milano+v+Udinese+GJDZrK3Q9bfl.jpg

It was my understanding this was a simple replacement process but there appears to be lot more to it than that. I've visited the help page on uploading images, but am unaware of how to present it in the editing page of the infobox, i.e. whether it is, for example, image = http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mauro+Icardi+FC+Internazionale+Milano+v+Udinese+GJDZrK3Q9bfl.jpg (what I believe to be the image's name in full), image = Mauro+Icardi+FC+Internazionale+Milano+v+Udinese+GJDZrK3Q9bfl.jpg (so remove the initial website's link), or image = [ [ File:http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Mauro+Icardi+FC+Internazionale+Milano+v+Udinese+GJDZrK3Q9bfl.jpg ] ] (without spaces) , etc.

Any help would be appreciated.

UnknownBrick22 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)UnknownBrick22

In brief, the steps for arranging for an image to appear in an article are:

1. Decide what image you want to use
2. Establish that it is not restricted by copyright
3. Upload it to Wikimedia Commons, stating its copyright status. (In some special circumstances, you might have reason to upload it direct to English-language Wikipedia instead.)
4. In the article, add a link to the uploaded image (not to the original image, as you appear to have been trying to do). If the image is to go inside an infobox, the syntax for this is confusingly slightly different.

You appear to be omitting step 3, and possibly step 2. Maproom (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maproom, thanks very much, this is helpful - what is the most efficient way of establishing an image's copyright status, for example the aforementioned one? UnknownBrick22 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The link you give is to an image on www.zimbio.com. Here is Zimbio's copyright policy. It seems to me that they are saying that users should only upload images there that they are legally entitled to upload, and that if they become aware that an image on their site is in fact protected by copyright, they will remove it. This falls a long way short of confirmation that images on their site are not protected by copyright. Therefore that image of a footballer should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Maproom (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

adding references to an article

Hi. Can someone tell me how in easiest terms to add references to articles, an an easy way to do it without code?Barniecadd (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Barniecadd. When you are in the edit mode, place your cursor where you wish the reference to appear. Near the top right of the page you will see the word "Cite". If you click on that, you will see a pop-down list of Templates. Choose one depending on whether your reference is a book, website, newspaper, etc. Fill in as much of the form as you can. If you want to see what it will look like, select "Preview". When you are finished, select "Insert" to add your reference. The codes are added for you. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. thank you very much.Barniecadd (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

how to invoke a reference to use several times

Hello, I am editing this page to try and bring it inline with your expectations Draft:Yes, I Can literacy method (Yo, Si Puedo in Spanish). i am having difficulty invoking a reference which i wish to use several times. You can see the highlighted problem at footnote 8. I am not sure where I should invoke the named reference? also why is my reference list appearing in the middle of my article under the heading "community wide approach"

thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthratcliffe (talk • contribs)

Hi Ruthratcliffe, to use a reference twice you replace the <ref> with <ref name="name"> the first time you use the reference. So the rest of the reference would be the same as always. When you want to use it a second time, you simply put <ref name="name" /> instead of the entire reference. So you replace the entire reference (<ref>reference</ref>) with this.

Example first reference:

<ref name="name">text of the citation</ref>

Example second reference:

<ref name="name" />

I hope his helps. All the best, Taketa (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Two editors have made corrective edits to that page, see its page history for details. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss, I noticed but figured I might as well explain for the future :). All the best, Taketa (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur, I might have done the same if you hadn't already. I was adding information for the OP's benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Curate this page language settings

If I use curate this page system and my language settings are Finland, then all info come finnish language. Are there soime setting in Curate this page that I can use language setting Finland and with this tool comes english text--Musamies (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know a way to do that. User:PrimeHunter/English interface.js may be of interest but it requires a click each time you want to change to English interface on a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the tool myself, but from Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help it looks like you might be able to get further help by posting your question at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation or by contacting the Page Curation liason, User talk:Okeyes (WMF). -Thibbs (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for info--Musamies (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with GPG company URL

Hello, I've posted a request for a very simple change on The Glover Park Group article, asking to update the company's URL from the old to the new one. More details at article Talk; if you need any other information, please just ask! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding a graphic

Good morning,

How do I add a logo to our wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohionational (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ohionational: Help:Introduction to uploading images should start you off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What links here

I am wondering if there is shortcut to getting to to end of the list, when the list in What links here is several thousands links long. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Use one or two of the "hide" buttons to exclude group(s) of items you're not interested in. And/or
• Choose "500" items on a page to greatly reduce the number of clicks required to get to the bottom.

Don't know of a quicker way to the bottom. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Choose one of the "View N at once" options, and then adjust the url to read "&limit=5000". You can then skip through them 5,000 at a time - I think that's the maximum allowed. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mandruss&John of Reading for the helpful tips. Just wondering if there a page Help: What links here? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is. You can reach it by typing "help:what links here" in the Search box at the top. But here's a nice time-saving link: Help:What links here. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And Help:What links here is linked from the top of any "What links here" page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Obliviously!! ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Deceased - Andrew Lingen-Stallard

I notice that the page for Andrew Lingen-Stallard has not been updated and his sad death will mean he himself cannot update this. I wonder if anybody could assist in this matter as it doesn't seem appropriate for the talk page. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.245.109 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparent reference to User:Andrew lingen-stallard. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I do not know WP's policy on user pages of deceased users. This article confirms his recent death. Maproom (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have set some templates and the userpage has been fully protected. Not sure about archiving/removing the only entry on their talk. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss and Mlpearc, I have requested assistance at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. Hopefully someone with more experience in these matters will reply so it can be dealt with properly and respectfully. The guidelines can also be found there. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

how do I get my draft article on Patricia McConnell approved and finalized?

I work for Dr. Patricia McConnell and she asked me to create a page for her in Wikipedia. I did that about six months ago. Yesterday I got an email from Wikipedia (from HasteurBot) saying that I hadn't edited the page in six months so Wiki might delete it. I can't figure out how move it from the sandbox to being a final wiki page. I"m sure this is very simple, but I can't figure it out. Here is the link to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_McConnell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.146.240 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. The url that you gave us in your question is to the Wikipedia article Patricia McConnell, not to a draft. Under the IP address from which you posted your question, you haver not written any drafts, nor have you received any messages from HasteurBot. I guess that you might be the same person as Llemberger, and that account did receive a notice a month ago that Draft:Patricia B. McConnell had not been edited for more that 6 months. As another month has gone by without you having done anything about it, your draft has been deleted. Your user talk page does, however, give you instructions as to how to get it undeleted (but see below). You refer to your sandbox, but your draft was moved from User:Llemberger/sandbox to Draft:Patricia B. McConnell in June 2014. You had previously edited the Wikipedia article Patricia McConnell in 2013, so it is not obvious why you have subsequently been producing a new draft. Such a draft will usually be rejected if an article already exists. What you should be doing is improving the existing article. One of its major shortcomings is that it has no references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. It is also written in very promotional language, which of course isn't surprising given that the material was written by an employee of the subject. There is a danger of the article being deleted under sppedy deletion criterion WP:G11 as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". You need to read about neutral point of view, and about conflict of interest, and if you have relevant, non-promotional, information which can be verified by published independent sources, then you could suggest such improvements at the article's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Submitted to AFD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect from mainspace to a WikiProject?

Someone recently created a redirect from mainspace to a WikiProject, I'm not sure such redirects should exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd guess we treat it as any other cross-namespace redirect and delete it per the consensus at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. I can't see any reason to link from mainspace to a WikiProject, where is this? Sam Walton (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that there should be redirects from mainspace to any other space. What page in article space has been redirected? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's WikiProject Disability, but I think there may be more such redirects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cooperation is another odd one, it redirects to a mainspace article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe my question wasn't clear. What article redirects to the project? You provided the project. The real issue is an article redirecting to any Wikipedia space other than article space. (Cross-wiki links are not the same situation.) The redirect from a project to an article also seems odd, but is not the clear impropriety of a redirect from article space to project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You obviously haven't actually looked at the redirects - note the absence of a "WP" prefix in the links I provided. WikiProject Disability is a mainspace page that redirects to WP:WikiProject Disability and the mainspace page WikiProject Cooperation redirects to the mainspace article Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#WikiProject Cooperation and WikiProject Integrity (WP:WikiProject Cooperation does exist). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Inexplicable reverts

I noticed that Samwalton9 just had an edit inexplicably reverted by another edit within the same minute. I don't think the second editor is one to ignore an edit conflict notice. I'd generally chalk it up to freak accident, but the same thing happened on the 6th, in an article, where this edit and this edit were both reverted by this edit. Again, the reverter was an experienced user. It's very odd that I'm seeing these for the first time, and twice within three days. Is there cause for concern or am I becoming neurotic in my old age? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wild guesses, the 1st case could be a side effect of an unresolved edit conflict, @Samwalton9 and David Biddulph: what do you think? The 2nd case could be serious and therefore off topic here. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. At least in the first case I think it looks more like an edit conflict being forced through than a revert. These are both busy pages. Rwessel (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something or lacking in knowledge about ec's, but as I said David Biddulph is not likely to force through an edit conflict. And an edit conflict forced through IS a revert, just an unintentional one. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

From my end I edited the section, added my reply and saved. Can't recall if I saw my reply in the subsequent window but I was obviously confused when it wasn't there later on. Didn't see an edit conflict on my end, and I don't think I should have since I was editing a section. Sam Walton (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This sort of edit conflict does happen from time to time, and is certainly very annoying. I don't know how the edit conflict software works, so no idea why we get these occasional screw-ups (particularly strange when folk are editing different sections). Surely we shouldn't have to do a diff every time we make an edit, to make sure it hasn't been screwed up. Glad it was sorted (and let's hope there's not another edit conflict while I'm making this reply). --David Biddulph (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Seems worthy of a bug report, if two occurrences are seen by one editor within three days. I don't need to do the math to consider that a significant problem. Many of these will never be noticed, let alone sorted. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you create a report on phab:, please mention that one contributor (=me) thinks that editing the last section of a page over a slow connection while somebody else adds a new last section might be a factor. Or just add a permalink to this section. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If there's no more concern than this, not worth my time to learn phab! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• This issue is already on phab and has had some dups I believe. When I get home tomorrow, I'll look up the ticket number and CC anyone here interested in following it if I can find you on Phab. All you need to do to make sure you are there is to go to the login screen and click the yellow flower 'login with MediaWiki Oauth' or whatever it's called. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested. I don't see a yellow flower, but when I clicked on the strange white blob near the upper right it displayed information including my WP username. I guess that means I'm "there", I don't know... ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Carl Smith (American Football) photo incorrect.

My name is Tyler Smith, representing my father Carl Smith, current quarterbacks coach for the Seattle Seahawks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Smith_(American_football)

The photo being used on his wikipedia page is incorrect. Another gentlemen who currently works for the Seahawks is pictured. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Coach_Carl_Smith_in_2013.jpg/220px-Coach_Carl_Smith_in_2013.jpg

These are genuine photos of my father Carl Smith:

http://instagram.com/p/ykpDVqvCnk/?modal=true http://prod.static.seahawks.clubs.nfl.com//assets/images/imported/SEA/bio-images/2012/Coaches/smith-carl/120718-smith-480.jpg http://seattletimes.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/huskyfootball/files/2014/05/UWprodayLOK17.jpg http://www.imageofsport.com/image/thumb/250-250/28122738.jpg

I am not familiar with editing wikipedia pages. Please make this correction- Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely, Tyler J. Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.25.244 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The place to make the request is the article talk page, Talk: Carl Smith (American football). What is the copyright status of the genuine photos that you provide? Are they freely available for use on the Internet? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

North Bergen, New Jersey

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I read your narrative on the Township of North Bergen, NJ. You have left out one of the Townships famous residents: Gene Cornish guitarist for 60's rock group the Rascals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.169.130 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user. I added a header, so that it is more obvious that yours is a new question and not attached to the question about Carl Smith. The place to make suggestions for a particular article is on that article's talk page, Talk:North Bergen, New Jersey. If you have a reliable published source that he is from North Bergen, you may add him to the list, or suggest on the talk page that somebody do so; but it does need that published reference: unpublished personal knowledge is not enough. Our existing article Gene Cornish doesn't mention North Bergen. --ColinFine (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

February 10

How to indicate that I have copyright permission

My page (Draft: Eric T. Costello) was deleted because of copyright infringement. I now have written permission from the copyright owner. How can I add this permission to my new page?

THIS IS THE PERMISSION I RECEIVED; BELOW THAT IS THE MESSAGE TELLING ME THE PAGE WAS DELETED From: Davis, Lester [1] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:18 AM To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Cc: Doreen Rosenthal (Doreen.Rosenthal@gmail.com) Subject: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org I hereby affirm that I, Lester Davis, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://www.baltimorecitycouncil.com/District11/default.htm. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Lester Davis Copyright holder and Director of Communications & Policy January 22, 2015

MESSAGE NOTIFYING ME THAT MY PAGE WAS DELETED: A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

11:15, 1 November 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:DoreenRosenthal/sandbox (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoreenRosenthal (talk • contribs)

According to the copright notice on the source page the copyright owner is the Baltimore City Council, not Lester Davis, so Lester Davis will need to prove that he is properly authorized to act on behalf of the council. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why the text would need to be released under a free license to begin with since we only rarely use text verbatim from a subject's website. I'm not the OP but could someone explain that aspect to me? Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Finding instances of source

Suppose you consider a particular source unreliable (e.g. National Enquirer). How can you go about finding instances of articles that cite the National Enquirer as a source? I remember there's a tool for doing this somewhere. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Linksearch works for ones with an external link. —Cryptic 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Search for recently added text

Currently, message notifications are not working reliably (phabricator:T72329), so I'm looking for a way to find any instances of my user name added in the last week or so. Is there a way to search for this? (I posted a similar question at mediawikiwiki:Help_talk:CirrusSearch#Edit_date.2Ftime_53704, but I want to be open to ways other than CirrusSearch, since it doesn't look like it can do that.) — Sebastian 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This may not be what you're looking for, but as a non-tool-user I'd come up with a way to do it manually a few years ago (as a sockpuppetry hunting method). All you have to do is to search for the target string with profile set to "all", note the number of hits and logging the results in a spreadsheet. I was running my check monthly, but I could speed things up by searching within the results for "January 2015" (for the last month). It's pretty simple when you only have less than 10k instances of your name in the results. For you it's a piece of cake. Here is the basic search with profile set to "all". If you search for "February 2015" you'll find that your name has only been introduced into the encyclopedia 21 times since February began. You can tweak this search further by increasing the value of the limit. I set it to 1000, but you can change it to 2000 or more. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note also that I was trying to determine changes to the number of instances so I was interested in additions or deletions of the name. You wouldn't need to note the number of hits and log the results in a spreadsheet if you're only interested in additions of your name. -Thibbs (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I requested February 3, 2015 that this article and the photos under the same title be deleted. The article is no longer factual and needs to be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

CORRECTION- the article and the photos under the same name in wiki common need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article will be deleted soon: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurelle Mehus You will have to ask at Commons for the photos to be deleted. Since they are uploaded under a free-to-use license you may encounter some pushback. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is no longer factual and I want it deleted immediately. I requested this February 3, 2015. it needs to be deleted immediately. I am blocked from wiki common and can not request the photos be deleted. I did request the photos be deleted on the talk section of the article February 3, 2015. The photos need to also be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bluntly, your "wants" are irrelevant. The discussion I linked to above will run for seven days and then the article will be deleted according to the discussion. Repeating the same thing over and over again will not do anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This requested was made February 3, 2015. It is 7 days. If you check the TALK page I believe the discussion began February 2, 2015. I am telling you - you have an article about me - that is not factual. I requested it be removed February 3, 2015. You said it would be taken down in 7 days. It has pasted 7 days and you have been notified it is not factual. I am requesting you take the article and photos down immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlntundra (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is gone. You can plead your case at Commons for the photos. We cannot do anything about them here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on C. K. Nayudu

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Bariissh (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Hi, Pl help me fix an error in this page that I edited. It says duplicate page is created by error.

These reference errors are long gone. At the time (June 2014) there was a pair of <ref></ref> tags with no reference between, and separately there was a {{cite book}} template with both fields

page=

and

pages=

present. You can have either of these fields, but not both. Please see this page for basic help on inserting references: Noyster (talk), 11:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Change name of an article

The Institute for Energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Energy) changed name in 2012. Now it is called Institute for Energy and Transport. Could you assist me with the update of the title of the article and how to set up a redirection from the old name to the new one.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkostov (talk • contribs) 09:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done See Help:Move for future reference. - X201 (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Change title of a topic

How to change the title of a topic ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imewhy26 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

See the answer above. --CiaPan (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Conference transcript citation help

How do I cite this lecture/conference? Cite conference was obviously NOT thought up for cases like this:

Giulio, Alfieri; Carlo Felice, Bianchi Anderloni; Orsi, Adolfo; Colombo, Alessandro. The Maserati 3500 GT (PDF). The Maserati 3500 GT, by its designer, Giulio Alfieri; Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia, Milan, 12 April 2000. Associazione Italiana per la storia dell'automobile, conference. Vol. 46. Translator: Christopher Gawne. AISA.

A mess. What the citation should convey is that Alfieri etc. weren't authors of a paper, but rather lecturers at a conference titled “The Maserati 3500 GT, by its designer, Giulio Alfieri” and hosted by AISA at Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia, Milan, on 12 April 2000; the transcript was then translated and published on AISA's website. — Cloverleaf II (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can create a citation manually (i.e. without using a template) by enclosing text formatted however you like in <ref></ref> tags. For example here's one pretty ugly way to convey what you want:

"The Maserati 3500 GT" (PDF). The Maserati 3500 GT, by its designer, Giulio Alfieri; Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia, Milan, 12 April 2000. Associazione Italiana per la storia dell'automobile, conference 46. Lecturers: Alfieri, Giulio; Anderloni, Carlo Felice Bianchi; Orsi, Adolfo; Colombo, Alessandro. Translator: Christopher Gawne. (AISA).

Enclose that in <ref></ref> tags and you're good to go. Or modify it however you want, enclose it in ref tags and then post. Note also that the "Name, Other name" credit format should be "Surname, Given name", not "Given name, Surname". -Thibbs (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also note however that citation styles like MLA and APA do list conference presenters at the start of the citation, so I wouldn't say your initial reference was improper at all. -Thibbs (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Sure, I didn't notice I mixed up the "first" and "last" fields. So in your opinion the corrected template would be acceptable? I also wanted to add wikilinked footnotes, but something like "AISA 2000, p.x", or "Alfieri 2000, p.x" doesn't read right. What would you suggest? The problem is the same, this work being a transcript hasn't an author proper. – Cloverleaf II (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think the template would be fine with that one correction. As far as footnotes are concerned, I'd probably just go with something like "Alfieri 2000". Alfieri may not be the author, but if it's his words that were transcribed then he's as close to an author as we're going to find. I think that's what would be expected. -Thibbs (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagging citation needed

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for being a complete newb. I literally created a wikipedia U/P 10 minutes ago. I did check FAQ but could not find an answer. I am trying to edit an article whose neutrality has been questioned. There is a important sentence in the article that begins "Research shows..." but there is no reference or citation given anywhere in the article that would point a reader to this "research." I would like to place a mark at the end of this sentence pointing out that a reference or citation is needed and not given. How do I do this? Thank you--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by BacSD (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, BacSD, and welcome to Wikipedia. Don't worry about being new: we were all new once! What you're looking for is a cleanup template. You can find out about all of them at WP:Cleanup templates. The one you want is called "Citation needed", and you add it by inserting {{citation needed}} (including the paired curly brackets). immediately after the relevant sentence: this displays in the article as . Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, BacSD that change is probably uncontroversial; but be aware that if you're editing an article which has been the subject of dispute, it's often worth discussing any changes on the article's talk page before going ahead and making changes. See WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BacSD (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

interwikilinks, tool unuseable, could need some help

Sorry, it seems that I am too stupid to use the "new edit feature":

I simply wanted to add an interwiki link to an other version of an article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inimitable_Jeeves (english, here the link should be added) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Jeeves (german addition, this link should be added to "other languages")

after about 15 minutes I gave up. sorry people.

The German version covers the whole series, there is no article in German Wikipedia only covering this one subject, therefor the automated tool wont find anything. Maybe somebody has more time left to waste and wants to add the link.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.176 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links are typically not more added manually here as, say, [[de:Reginald Jeeves]], but as wikidata items for what you find with an item by title search for either enwiki:The Inimitable Jeeves or dewiki:Reginald Jeeves, and as it happens the latter d:Q521812 does not yet match the former d:Q7742044. At that point I don't know how to fix it, or if it is as it should be (different wikidata items.) –Be..anyone (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, but still: There wont be an article for the single books in German any time soon (German Wikipedia people wont find it "woth noting in an own article" therefor even there will be one, it will get deleted in no time), as a reader of English Wikipedia who happens to be native German speaker, it was a hassle to hunt down the translated/transcribed article. Therefor I would perfer to add a link. But how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.34.176 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The dewiki folks went into some revert + speedy delete mode when I tried to add [[:en:HMS Proserpine (1777)]] as Interwiki link or soft redirect for an IMO not notable topic needed on a German page, and I fear the rules in the other direction aren't better. Some kind editor later simply created a German [[HMS Proserpine (1777)]] page for this ship. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links at Wikidata are always 1 to 1 with mutual links. The English Jeeves is correctly linked back and forth to the German de:Reginald Jeeves. The English The Inimitable Jeeves is more specialized and cannot be linked to the same German article. That happens all the time. If readers of The Inimitable Jeeves want to find related but not identical articles in other languages then they can look for a more general English article which will often be linked in the opening sentence, like here: "The Inimitable Jeeves is a semi-novel collecting Jeeves stories by P. G. Wodehouse ...". If you click P. G. Wodehouse then you get even more languages but less relevance to the topic of The Inimitable Jeeves. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Anchor link

There is one word which appears twice in an article and I want to link them. I have followed the instructions in WP:ANCHOR but cannot make the anchor link work. I think it may be because the word needs to be wikilinked and italicised as well [as] (word added later P-123) linked. The article is Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya and the word is mutawatir. Can you help, please? ~ P-123 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, P-123. Sorry, I don't understand your question. What do you mean "I want to link them"? At present there are two instances of 'mutawatir' in Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya, both of which are wikilinks to the redirection page mutawatir which redirects to the section anchor Hadith terminology#Mutawatir. What is it about this that you want to change? --ColinFine (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine: I meant link them to each other. The word mutawatir appears twice in the article. I want to link them so that when clicking on the first one it goes straight to the second one. I also need to wikilink the second one to the section of the article where "mutawatir" appears, as you noted. This was done before in an earlier article I worked on. I looked at the wikitext there but could not duplicate it as the wikilnk there was straightforward without any italics. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, P-123. I think this is a quite bizarre thing to do, but it should work fine. Italics are irrelevant, as long as you don't try to put them in the link. You mark the destination as {{anchor|mutawatir}} and the link as ''[[#mutawatir|mutawatir]]'' (note I've put the italic markers outside the link). I've just tried this and it seemed to work for me (but I haven't saved my trial edit, as I don't know which way you want to link them: neither way round makes any sense to me). --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

While technically possible, it is quite improper. any blue link should go to the main subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you a citation for that, TheRedPenOfDoom? WP:WIKILINK tells you how to do it, and doesn't mention any restriction on doing so. It seems to me that linking to a section of a page is quite common, when a page uses a concept that does not merit an article of its own, but that gets described within in a more general article; and within a single page, to link a mention of something to a section of the page which expands the matter. What I found odd about P-123's request was that the word 'mutawatir' occurred twice in the page, but neither was a section heading, so to link in this way needed adding an anchor. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:OLINK "Do not create links in order to highlight or draw attention to certain words or ideas in an article. Links should be used to help clarify the meaning of linked words, not to place emphasis on the words." WP:LINKCLARITY "The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context" WP:SPECIFICLINK "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link" . Links are to be used to go to articles not navigate within an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine You have described in your second example exactly why I wanted the two words linked. The wikilink alone was not enough to give the reader the needed information. Your instructions worked, thanks. I cannot see what is odd about the words not being in section headings, though. I have seen this done before, several times, for the same reason, and assumed it was fairly common practice. That type of linking of words in the text but not headings is very useful and can help Wikipedia readers a lot. ~ P-123 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Maproom has removed your link to the anchor. Apparently, they agree with me that such usage is inappropriate. A link should provide more information about the word linked - either a Wikipedia article, a section in a Wikipedia article, or a Wiktionary entry. I removed the unused anchor. The internal section you were linking to with the anchor is not the primary or best description of the word available on Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss You say, "The internal section you were linking to with the anchor is not the primary or best description of the word available on Wikipedia." How would you know that? Have you looked into this, as I have? I am staggered that two outside editors, who have not been involved in the intricate talk page discussions on this page (principally about clarifying the text) as I have, feel able to make sweeping judgments of that sort. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems intuitive to me that a section called Hadith terminology#Mutawatir probably is a better description of "mutawatir" than a section called Al-Sahifa al-Sajjadiyya#Authenticity. If I'm wrong, the redirect for mutawatir needs to be changed to point to the latter section, and the former section needs to be renamed. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That link was carefully thought through. Its removal means that readers will now be as confused by that word as they were before. How about you sort this out for the editors on that page? You will find all the information you need on its Talk page. ~ P-123 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the necessary explanation is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. If an editor has trouble understanding it or disagrees with it, they are free to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. And they will get the same answer I have given above. If linking to Hadith terminology#Mutawatir would be confusing in the context of that article, then add some prose to clarify things. It might make sense not to link mutawatir there, or you could create a link to the internal section some other way. I can't say what would be best in this specific case, but if you link mutawatir it needs to use the redirect. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ICBB. I'm not a Wikipediholic. You say, "If linking to Hadith terminology#Mutawatir would be confusing in the context of that article, then add some prose to clarify things." That was already done. You say, "It might make sense not to link mutawatir there, or you could create a link to the internal section some other way. I can't say what would be best in this specific case, but if you link mutawatir it needs to be to Hadith terminology#Mutawatir." Those things are exactly what the anchor link I provided did. Please inform yourself before criticizing or handing out advice. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The anchor link did not use the redirect (I modified my comment before you added yours) and to use the anchor link for the word mutawatir would be clearly contrary to MOS. That's about all I have to say on this, perhaps others would care to argue with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, ICBB. I'm not a Wikipediholic. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Mandruss, to use the anchor link for the word mutawatir would clearly be contrary to MOS. Elementary Watson. IDMB for P-123. Perhaps not. 194.169.217.74 (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a really weird idea to make links wandering across the article contents. Links are supposed to direct you to a new article (or a section of an article) which defines or describes the term shown as a link. They are not for pointing to another place of use of the same term in the same text. Your explanation of 'reader confusion' does not convince me. If you think the reader needs to get enlightened in the matter, write a separate section to explain a specific meaning of 'mutawatir' in the context, which is not covered in Hadith terminology, then make internal links to that section.

IMHO, linking one instance of the word to the other, and the latter to another page simply does not make sense. Nothing guarantees that readers will follow them in the order you presume, so they may miss your point anyway. KISS! --CiaPan (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:CiaPan may be referring to the KISS principle, offering a new form of WikiLove, or something else, but I don't think the link to the disambiguation page was intentional. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's right, of course should be KISS principle! Sorry for the mistake and thank you for clarification. No kisses... --CiaPan (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm watching with interest to see when the momentum of the ball I started rolling runs out! ~ P-123 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, the KISS principle, meaning "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" couldn't be more appropriate here. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha. I can't stop laughing... Thank you for the laugh Mandruss and my Polak friend CiaPan . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.217.51 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Martin Luther signature

Note that the picture of Martin Luther's signature is capsuled: "The Signature of Martin Luther King" Obviously that is incorrect--should only be ". . . of Martin Luther." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.197.81 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed at Commons in [2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

February 11

Page View Statistics

This feature seems to have stopped working on 2/5/15. What's the problem? Pkeets (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pkeets: The main discussion about this seems to be at Village Pump (technical). -- John of Reading (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Telfaz11

Greeting,

Why Telfaz11 page is still marked for deletion ? can you tell me exactly what is missing?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postdepartum (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Postdepartum, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telfaz11. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has standards for notability. Things need to be well know before they can be included in Wikipedia. Whether or not something is well known, can be proven by using neutral secundary sources. At least some sources need to be about the topic directly and go into great detail. The article Telfaz11 is nominated for deletion because some people believe it does not give enough neutral sources that are about the topic. You can improve the article by adding such sources. After a while an admin will review the article and the opinions and indicate whether consensus is to delete or to keep the article. If the article is kept, the deletion marking will be removed by the admin. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with what Taketa has said, I want to caution against using paraphrases like "well known" when talking about Notability. Even using "notable" itself can confuse people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, who tend to read it as meaning "important" (see User Talk:ColinFine/Archive 1#Your comment, particularly the comment by Jebus989 at 07:03, 23 May 2011). While notability on Wikipedia has some connection with being well known, they are not synonymous: huge numbers of notable subjects are not well-known (for example, they have been written about extensively but only in specialist journals), while there are quite a few well-known topics that are not notable, because while everybody knows about them (or at least everybody of a certain age-group or nationality) they have not yet been written about and so are not yet notable. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You are ofcourse correct. Taketa (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just about anything linked from the primary tables in Uniform 4-polytope falls into that categoryNaraht (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Using talk pages

Dear colleagues, please tell me, how much time additional information to a certain article must be in talk page before it can be added to a certain article?--Yury2015 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no set amount of time. If the information is basic and uncontroversial, then it can be added right away. If it requires some discussion, then it's best to wait until a consensus has been reached.

That said, often things on talk pages get overlooked. So, it might be best to alert some of the more recent/regular contributors to the article of the presence of new information on the talk page. Dismas|^(talk) 10:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The talk page for thought is not busy. I suggest that you state more precisely what it is that you want to add to the article and where you propose adding it, and then leave it for two weeks to wait for responses. I note with amusement that, two sections above yours on that talk page, there is a long advertisement for gazebos, the only Wikipedia contribution of a registered editor. Maproom (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the spam.―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I added that section to the article "Thought"

"We do not produce thoughts" approach

According to a number of famous philosophers - thoughts aren't produced, aren't formed by the person. Thoughts are timelessly true and are only apprehended by the person. In his work “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry” famous German mathematician, logician and philosopher Gottlob Frege writes that we don't produce thoughts, we apprehend (formulate) them. The apprehension of a thought presupposes someone who apprehends it, who thinks. A person is the bearer of the thinking but not of the thought.

"Thus the thought, for example, which we expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no bearer. It is not true for the first time when it is discovered, but is like a planet which, already before anyone has seen it, has been in interaction with other planets. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry, Gottlob Frege. Mind, New Series, Vol.65, No.259 (Jul., 1956), p.302 "

'That's the result

(cur | prev) 09:23, 11 February 2015‎ U3964057 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,915 bytes) (-1,007)‎ . . (Undid good faith revision 646621159 by Yury2015 (talk). Please do not simply reapply your edits if reverted. As per wiki-best practice, take it to the talk page.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 08:43, 11 February 2015‎ Yury2015 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,922 bytes) (+1,007)‎ . . (See Wikipedia:Five pillars In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:32, 11 February 2015‎ U3964057 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,915 bytes) (-201)‎ . . (Actually this should be removed altogether. It is apparently self-published original research, and added in the face of conflict of interest issues.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 23:45, 10 February 2015‎ U3964057 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,116 bytes) (-1,007)‎ . . (Undid good faith revision 646546256 by Yury2015 (talk). Uncited claims, clarity issues, and likely undue weight.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:26, 10 February 2015‎ Yury2015 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,123 bytes) (+1,007)‎ . . (Adding information) (undo)

--Yury2015 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your addition to the article was apparently supported by a 1956 paper by Gottlob Frege. Frege died in 1925. I suggest to try to come up with a better source. Maproom (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you) Dear colleague, tell me please where can I read that kind of rule?

Thank you dear colleagues for your comments. --Yury2015 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What kind of rule? The rule that we don't allow references that have highly questionable dates, or something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! What dates are questionable? 10, 20, 30 - 100 years? May be than I should make the section "From the history of study of thought"? Aristotle did study thought and thinking.178.120.87.219 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Yury2015 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yury2015, the problem is not the date that it was written, but that it was supposedly written by a dead person. If he died in 1925, he can't have written an article in 1956, you know? The guidelines about reliable sources can be found at WP:RS. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 03:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Year in United Kingdom infobox

The "Year in United Kingdom" infobox is not displaying correctly on any page - see for example 1890 in the United Kingdom (and every other "<year> in the United Kingdom" page). It's beyond my editing competence to know how to correct it across all the pages. Camboxer (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted it to the previous version for now - and notified User:Jackninja5 who changed the template on 8 February. It seems to be working OK for me - Arjayay (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Advantages of becoming an editor

I am interested in convincing an IP editor to become a full-fledged member of WP. In order to "sell" the advantages of editor over IP, I need to know what they are. I know a watchlist is one but what are the others? Thanks. . Buster Seven Talk 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Why create an account? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be more interested in asking why the unregistered editor does not want to register an account. It is my opinion that there are various misconceptions as to disadvantages to registering an account, and we would like to identify and refute those myths. However, other than a watchlist, there is the simple matter of a talk page. Many IP editors have dynamic IP addresses that change approximately once a week. They don't notice the change, because they edit over a period of hours and days and think that their address is static, but many unregistered editors who think that they have static IP addresses have "slow dynamic" IP addresses, and they lose a record of editing when the address changes. Back to the original question: Is there a reason why the IP thinks that it is better not to register an account? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:IPs are human too. —Cryptic 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The wording at WP:HOW#Creating an account is a good start. -- Moxy (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon. I have yet to contact the IP editor other than thanking him/her for the editing at Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2015). I have been monitoring and editing the previous Timelines and the IP showed up at the perfect time. So....I don't know that they don't want to. I just want to present them with the possibility. . Buster Seven Talk 15:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Why create an account" goes into detail about the advantages, and is linked direct from the standard welcome template {{welcome-anon}}: Noyster (talk), 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

While we all agree with what "Why create an account" says, I don't think that it goes far enough, because it appears that there still are myths that commonly deter IP editors from registering. I would like to know what those myths are so that maybe we can dispel or address some of them, so I really would like to know why the IP doesn't create an account. The two reasons that are not given in that article, which should be added (but I am not sure how to add them) have to do with editing from two locations as the same editor, and with editing from the same location as the same editor. A registered editor can edit from a location other than their home computer, such as a library, and still be the same editor. It doesn't say that. Also, an unregistered editor, editing from their home computer, can become another IP address. Many IP editors do not notice that their low-order address shifts, so that they do not have a consistent history and do not have a stable user talk page. Other than that, I think it would be useful to know what myths slow the registration of accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert makes good points. I wonder how many people just have an aversion to registering anywhere, because you usually have to give at least some identifying information such as an email address. If it's not already, it needs to be stressed that we ask for very little information, and none that could begin to identify you. For that matter, we could get specific and list exactly what information is required. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If the IP editor that I am inviting to register does do so, I will ask them to view this discussion and respond if they choose. . Buster Seven Talk 22:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• See also:  Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle  —Eric, aka: 71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ernst Rudin

Resolved

 – Wishfulness (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this image I uploaded ok for WP before I use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ernst_Rudin_Wearing_Swastika.jpg? How could I verify the source/copyright of it? Wishfulness (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wishfulness. Yes, as the subject is dead and there are currently no free images of him, it meets WP:NFCC for the subject's biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. This led me to search more & I eventually found more source info, what should be added to the image summary? http://www.ihm.nlm.nih.gov/luna/servlet/detail/NLMNLM~1~1~101426689~187058:Ernst-Ru%C2%A8din Wishfulness (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wishfulness: Updated. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Posting a company on Wikipedia

Hi, I would like to set up a Wiki page describing an intellectual property company that offers software to chip designers. How do I set up the page? Thanks in advance, Jonah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C420:48F0:8882:123B:96C6:5511 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, and so the first thing would be to see if the company meets the basic requirements for being the subject of an article: that third party reliable sources have found the company worth discussing in a significant manner. (and you probably should also read our guidelines for people with conflicts of interest) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:BLPTALK

As I understand WP:BLPTALK, it permits, when discussing potentially BLP-violating sources, linking those sources on article talk pages so long as the BLP-violating content is not repeated on the talk page. This seems to be the relevant text:

For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating "this link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"

Would this be a correct understanding of the policy? —EncyclopediaBob 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

it depends upon the link and context. if the link is the NYT it would be OK to link. if it is random blogger, even linking to it would be inappropriate. If it is a claim about person A, and the link is to Person A's website where they say "People have been saying X about me and it is not true" - probably OK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, your example aligns with my understanding of policy. Can you point me to the section (or page) that addresses source quality? —EncyclopediaBob 18:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

IMHO WP:BLP & WP:BLPTALK (as it is written) does not align to that outlined by TRPoD, above. There appears to be no mention of source quality in the policy itself, and IMHO this aspect should be addressed through discussion & formation of consensus on the talk page (based on WP:V etc).

IMHO removal, reversion & revdeletion of links on talk pages based on WP:BLP is in effect a supervote to quash discussion & override consensus, and should be discouraged. That it is often backed with a threat of sanction makes it doubly egregious.

I do concur, however, that we should be absolutely clear that the contentious material should not be repeated on the talk page, or on Wikipedia anywhere, without a consensus that it is compliant with WP:BLP (and other core policies). My personal preference would be to include a short disclaimer of the type "Link X is potentially subject to BLP" or similar.

I have initiated a discussion at WT:BLP, on this aspect and would welcome input there. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I will follow the discussion there. —EncyclopediaBob 18:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe that my interpetation is quite aligned with WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

And yes, quashing the use of Wikipedia to spread inappropriate content about living people is quite appropriate outcome. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Your points regarding high-quality sources in article space seem valid (and reasonable) but my question concerned talk page links specifically. WP:BLPTALK draws a distinction between linking to unacceptable content and repeating unacceptable content. The former seems specifically permitted by example (quoted above.) Is there an overriding policy or discussion elsewhere? —EncyclopediaBob 18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pages on non-existent DVD releases

Why are these three pages (links below) up on Wikipedia? They are entries on DVD releases that DO NOT EXIST. These three volumes are purely the products of someone's imagination. I realize it's impossible to keep up with everything, but it doesn't do much for Wiki's credibility when pages devoted to bogus, nonexistent items like these are allowed to stand. That's how I found about these pages. Someone I know was citing their existence as proof that Wikipedia is unreliable and that anybody can post anything to it, whether true or completely made up.

For the record, the Warner Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies Golden Collection series got no further than Volume 6, released in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tholden28/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.26.225 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

They are not Wikipedia articles. They are on a user's own personal space. I'll tag them and do other appropriate things to them. - X201 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is bigger than it looks. I'm on a tablet so can't do the editing I need to. Can someone run with this, see if they can be speedied or listed at WP:MFD. The navbox at the bottom of these is fake too. - X201 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? It's in the userspace and it's not in any categories. Is there really a pressing need to have these pages removed? Scarce2 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

When they breach WP:FAKEARTICLE they should be deleted. - X201 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, who cares ....they are 1st hit on Google search? --CiaPan (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

apparently someone has complained before -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User pages are supposed to be non indexed so the fact that they are showing up in google is odd. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

From my reading of Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing, only userspace talk pages are automatically non-indexed. Otherwise the magic word NOINDEX or {{NOINDEX}} is needed. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Non-talk userspace is indexed by default. The pages have only been noindexed for an hour since {{user sandbox}} was added to them. It's one of several templates which automatically add __NOINDEX__. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, That seems like a weird policy choice. How did that end up coming about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Heh, as the author of said pages, I can say this is quite surprising and to an extent ammusing. I'm as surprised as anyone that they come up on Google, I'm not sure why that would be the case. If there's anything I can (or should) do, I'd be happy to do so. Tholden28 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing.

@Tholden28: The three linked pages are noindexed now and you dont have to do anything about them. There are still some indexed pages at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Tholden28/. If you want to noindex them (this is not mandatory) then WP:NOINDEX shows several methods. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to say thank you to the OP for reporting them. So, thank you.- X201 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

February 12

Anti-nuclear partisans editing out balance

There are quite a few articles written about nuclear energy that completely lack balance. I have tried to add some balance but I am concerned about 1 Mike Rosoft who wishes to only permit quotes from anti-nuclear activists and continually removes the balancing material I put in.

There are quite a few of these articles on nuclear energy and Fukushima and nuclear waste that have been written with an extraordinarily partisan bias. I have corrected some things and tried to provide balance on others. I think there is a strong case that this group of articles are irretrievably partisan and should be edited out en masse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

While you use language like "here are a large number of exciting proposals for new reactors which exemplify the great promise that nuclear fission shows", you are unlikely to convince anyone that it is your opponents who are partisan. Maproom (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The place to discuss article content is on article talk pages. If discussion on article talk pages is not successful, read the dispute resolution policy, which outlines various options (after saying to discuss on article talk pages). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice on dealing with this IP vandal?

I have noticed that an IP user has been engaged in persistent vandalism for quite some time now. They appear to enjoy targeting pages associated with So Fresh and So Random!. They have received repeated warnings from bots and users about their behaviour but have continued their disruptive editing. The biggest challenge in dealing with them is the fact that their IP address continually changes every few days or even every few hours, so they can simply resume their disruptive editing, even if they have been blocked previously.

Can anyone advise me on how to deal with this user? JayJ47 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic IP vandals are some of the hardest to guard against. The standard tools for a non-admin at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. If the IP addresses originate from a small enough geographic area, some admins will set up temporary rangeblocks but if you're dealing with a truly dedicated vandal (I have seen this before with self-identified autistic vandals for whom the vandalism seems to represent compulsive ritual behavior) then the only recourse is endless vigilance against the vandalism and simple reversions per WP:DENY. If it's one thing this will teach you it's patience.... Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What is considered "reverting"?

Regarding reverting, edit wars and the 3RR, is making changes to someone else's edit considered reverting? That is, is reverting strictly mean returning an edit to a previous state, or does editing the edit, like, rewriting a sentence, count as reversion as well? --Tsavage (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

To find out what is considered as reverting, please read WP:Reverting. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess this section answers my specific question, editing an edit is not considered reverting. --Tsavage (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version." - WP:Reverting

Wikipedia:Reverting is an essay. Wikipedia:Edit warring is a policy and also more relevant to the stated question. It says: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

There will sometimes be judgment calls. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

319th Artillery regiment Wikipedia page

To whom it may concern, I am the Regimental historian for the 319th Airborne field artillery regiment and would like to update and add info to the page. how can I gain access to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.76.26 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The page is at 319th Field Artillery Regiment. It is good that you have declared your conflict of interest and not tried to edit the page yourself, but Wikipedia will welcome your contributions, provided that that the information can be verified by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. Information which is available only to you, and which has not been published, is unfortunately not acceptable for Wikipedia as it is classed as original research. If you have suggestions for improvements to the article, please add them to the article talk page, together with appropriate references. Thank you for your interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, please note the message at the top of your IP's talk page explaining that your IP may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility (and has been flagged for multiple instances of vandalism); therefore, you should create an account. See also: Wikipedia: Why create an account?  —71.20.250.51 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Biography

Hello, I was just told that there is a bio of me in Wikipedia, so I checked it. It was basically nicely done. Thank you! There are, however, some errors (e.g., place of birth, etc), and to be fair, some omissions of things that should be put in (e.g., current important awards) that are important to various people, organizations, and technical societies. Is it possible for me to just list these and send them to whoever compiled this article? There are not that many. I do not want to get editing something like this myself. Thank you! Best wishes, Elaine Oran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.181.166 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is pretty much the same as the one given for the 319th Artillery regiment above (which saves a lot of typing) The talk page for the article is here Talk:Elaine Surick Oran (assuming you're that Elaine Oran). You can list the errors and omissions on that page. If you get no answer within a week or two, come back here and ask for someone to look at it. - X201 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that you made reasonable comments on the user talk page of the primary editor of the article. There is nothing wrong with that, but it would be better to make similar comments on the article talk page, Talk: Elaine Surick Oran. Also, as mentioned above, it would be useful to create an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see a need for the professor's middle name to disambiguate the article title, and moved it to Elaine Oran. The longer form of her name is a valid redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Cant find article I created

Hello, my username is FanDangoMan82. I have recently created a page with the title 'Professor Mark Coeckelbergh'. When I submitted it for consideration I was told it could take up to 3 weeks but that I could edit the article at anytime. However, when I login to my account I can't find the article listed anywhere? why would this be the case? I have no reference to the article being submitted so I am wondering now if it has been submitted at all. Is there anyway I can check if the article has been received?

Kind Regards

Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanDangoMan82 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are presumably referring to Draft:Professor Mark Coeckelbergh. You obviously created this not while logged in to your FanDangoMan82 account, but while logged out, and the contributions are shown under the IP address 86.168.166.104. Your draft was submitted, some 3 days ago, and it is sitting in the queue of over 1500 drafts awaiting review. I would suggest that you add the draft to your WP:watchlist, as the eventual notification of the results of the review will go not to your named account's user talk page but to the user talk page for the IP which submitted it. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have set User:FanDangoMan82 as the submitter.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect company listing for Exterion Media

CBS Outdoor was sold last year and we rebranded to Exterion Media. Can you please create a page solely for Exterion Media as we are in no way affiliated with Outfront Media.

We are happy submit content towards this but ultimately it is damaging our ranking as people confuse us with this US based company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.156.66 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear madam/sir, it is not clear which of our 4 million pages you are referring to. Could you please provide us with the name or website of the Wikipedia page you wish to see reviewed? I have done a search for Exterion Media and Outfront Media on the same page on Wikipedia and did not find any results that would be confusing to the reader. More information is needed to help answer your question. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Outfront Media seem to think that they are/were CBS Outdoor. So someone is wrong. - X201 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've got to the bottom of it. CBS Outdoor Americas IS Outfront Media. No changes should be made to this. CBS Outdoor International is a separate company that was rebranded as Exterion Media. Platinum Equity is the owner of Exterion Media so I'll add a redirect to that. As regard having it's own article, build something inside the Platinum Equity article and then fork it out when its big enough and notable enough. - X201 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just noting my edits for others: I've turned CBS Outdoor into a disambiguation page (it used to direct to CBS Outdoors Americas) and I've created a redirect from Exterion Media to Platinum Equity - X201 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.0.66 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your contribution record shows no edits before this empty question, so we can't guess which page you were talking about. Can you give us a wikilink please? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please help with my questions

Hello, I am doing a project for my high school business course and would like some help.

1. Describe the leadership and collaboration model that Wikipedia embodies. 2. Describe the supply chain and operations of Wikipedia. What are the quality issues? What are the efficiency and effectiveness issues? Who is and how is the customer effected?

Thank you.

Tori2000 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Wikipedia Help desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do others' homework, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We cannot do your homework for you, but some places that might help you answer your questions for 1) are at WP:5P , WP:CON and WP:MOP and for 2) at WP:V and WP:RS and Criticism of Wikipedia . You might also look at WP:CIRCULAR. You might also ask if editors here would be interested in doing an interview with you to help you understand any questions that you have about the pages.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, on the left hand side of every page in the bottom box is a list of other languages. if you scroll down and see a "Simple English" link, you will see the equivalent page with the material presented in a less complicated/nuanced manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Policy

Does Wikipedia have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about paedophiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.73.216 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Kennel cough

Kennel cough is now thought to be zoonoses which means it can be passed on to humans. The article states it can not be passed on to humans.

Many thanks

Izzi82.12.198.102 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Thought to be"? Have you got any reliable sources that back up the theory? Wikipedia's policy of verifiability WP:V means we need reliable sources for exceptional claims so that readers can check them. - X201 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Im trying to write my reference page for a paper and I used your site. How and where do I go about finding that information? I used crazy stupid love, the movie