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 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)

" Thankyou. I only put in the "exciting new proposals" comment to emphasise to Rosoft that my bias could be almost as bad as his. Rosoft has never written anything on the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 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)

Thanks! I asked the same question elsewhere, and I'm at exactly the same point of nearing an understanding. The Wikipedia:Edit warring description links revert to Help:Reverting, where it says, "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version." So when you say there may be judgement calls, does that mean that edits that change existing text but do not literally result in restoring a previous version (unlike cut-and-paste reversion, undo, rollback, or re-saving an archived page) may still be considered a revert in some situations? --Tsavage (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking at a change someone makes and then doing something that makes some or all of the page substantively like it was before the change, even if the wording is slightly different? That's a revert (and one revert is fine -- see WP:BRD). Are you you looking at a change someone makes and then making another change that you honestly think might be an acceptable compromise that you both will find acceptable? That's not a revert. Did you discover that your attempt at finding something you both like didn't work? Stop editing the page (see WP:TALKDONTREVERT) and start discussing it on the article talk page. It really is OK to leave it in a state that you don't like while you discuss things, even though this kind of goes against human nature. When in doubt as to whether what you are about to do is a revert, assume that it is and follow WP:BRD (not BRRD or BRRRD...). When in doubt as to whether what the other fellow did was a revert, assume whatever stops you from editing and makes you start discussing. The key is that whoever gets away from editing the page again and again and starts discussing things on the article talk page is doing the right thing. And if all else fails, go to dispute resolution, starting at WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Very clear and useful and answers my question completely. --Tsavage (talk) 05:31, 13 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.[1] 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)

See Wikipedia:Child protection. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:54, 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)

Referencing your site

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.59.136 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't use Wikipedia as a reference. Use the sources the articles link to, but not Wikipedia itself unless your tutor has told you its OK to do so. - X201 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia or click "Cite this page" in the left pane of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

February 13

Preserving history with pagemove

When page A needs to be moved to page B, and page B has significant history, what do we generally do? Do we generally prefer to trash the history and just move A to B after deleting B, or do we generally move B to Talk:B/old and then move A to B? Someone's requested that {{Section OR}} be moved to {{Original research section}} for consistent naming (most section-level maintenance templates are "PROBLEM section"), and I was going to move it until I saw non-trivial edits in the history of the latter template that I'm hesitant to delete. It has three deleted edits already, but they're not significant; someone created the page and pretty quickly requested its deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Generally we do a history swap. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Moving procedures; click [show] next to "Procedure for redirects with major histories". See also WP:SWAP. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There are WP:HISTMERGE and Special:MergeHistory (for admins), is that what you mean? –Be..anyone (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

History merges are normally only done if the pages have the same origin, that is: we may merge the content from one page to another, but we only perform a history merge (which is something different than a merge) when the page histories are actually direct continuations of each other, usually arising as a result of a cut and paste move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A history merge would be a horrid idea here, as the two overlap chronologically. We'd end up with diffs like this one. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Question by WilliamPollock

I find Wikipedia impossible to decipher and need someone to write a page for me.

A real person whom I can talk to.

If you can help, <email address redacted again>

Colin Fine - Nonsense. History is written by victors, I'm only poor soldier.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamPollock (talk • contribs) 03:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, WilliamPollock. That's not how we usually work, because it is so often helpful for others to be able to see what help people are asking for, and how they are helped. However, you and I (and many other users) have enabled email in our Wikipedia accounts, so it is possible for us to send each other emails from within Wikipedia. If you send me one, I will endeavour to answer you; however, unless you give me a strong reason to keep it private, I will probably reply to you here or on your user talk page rather than email. Alternatively, there is a "chat room" which may help (I've never used it myself): see WP:IRC/Tutorial.

If you want an article written, you can submit it at WP:requested articles; be aware, though, that there is quite a backlog, and how quickly it is picked up depends on whether it grabs anybody's interest. I see that you have twice requested the undeletion of an draft article (hoccomocco pictures) but I have failed to find a log of its having been deleted (this might be a limitation on my understanding of Wikipedia!) If it is Hoccomocco pictures that you are wanting to create, it doesn't look to me (on a very quick look) that it meets our criteria for notability - that multiple reliable sources unconnected with the company have written at length about it; so if you want an article to be written about it, the onus is on you to demonstrate that these sources do exist. --ColinFine (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hoccomocco pictures has been deleted twice. It was restored but remained abandoned so was deleted again. See Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hoccomocco pictures. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong date on the NCR Corporation article

Just to let you know on the NCR Corporation article you put the date as 1884, but you probably meant 1984. No worries, having a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.67.100 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

If you scroll down the article you will see pictures of the latest technology from the 1880s. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I have been unsuccessfully trying to correct some reported date errors in citations on List_of_UK_caving_fatalities. In particular, it is objecting to the format "year=Dec–Jan 1996–1997". Any help would be welcomed. Langcliffe (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is an ambiguous date. Format it as:

• "Quaking fatality". Descent (133): 17. December 1996 – January 1997.

--  Gadget850 ^talk 10:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gadget850 - that's cracked it. Langcliffe (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref too many keys

≤

Hello @Jilipama:, I am not sure, if you are still trying to fix that reference in The Andrews Sisters yourself. Help:Referencing for beginners is a good first read about basic referencing in Wikipedia. See especially the sections about the syntax of reference tags (every ref tag needs to be closed after the reference is finished) and using one reference more than once (a "ref name" must be defined in full detail once, then it can be used as short version later). If you have a specific question, please post here again for more information. GermanJoe (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hindu Rashtra Dal

Please can you put it across the way it was ....rather than the way it wanted to be portrayed by a few non state actors.......In your article for NathuRam Godse...the Hindu Rashtra Dal has been termed as a hindu militan organistion...which is not true..so kinldy get the facts right and re-write them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.106.36 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is about the article Nathuram Godse, which describes the Hindu Rashtra Dal as a militant organization, giving two references which say "Godse abandoned the RSS after some years, claiming that it lacked proper levels of militancy, and co-founded the Hindu Rashtra Dal", and "In the early 1940s Godse left the RSS to form a militant organization, Hindu Rashtra Dal, aimed at militarizing the mind and conduct of Hindus". Unless you can produce more convincing references stating that the Hindu Rashtra Dal was not a Hindu militant organisation, the statement that it was one will remain in the article. Maproom (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion noticeboard?

Is there a block evasion noticeboard? Would that fall under the auspices of the sock puppet investigation noticeboard? Dismas|^(talk) 14:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If there evadng a block then WP:ANI is the best place, Sock puppetry is normally for editors using multiple accounts rather than block evasion. If theres many accounts its best to start an SPi and report the accounts to ANI for remedy while their socking stsuts is investigated. Amortias (T)(C) 16:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take it to ANI. Dismas|^(talk) 16:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

How to upload an article

Hi-

I am a Professor and we were told it was a good idea to upload our research on Wikkipedia- can you tell me how to do this?-

Thanks so much- Dr. Levinstein (email address redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlevinstein (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Drlevinstein. I'm afraid you have been misinformed. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and does not host WP:original research, ever. Unless your research is purely a review of literature on some subject and does not contain any kind of argumentation or conclusions, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you are able to use your expertise to write a new article which is suitable, or to improve existing Wikipedia articles in your area of study, that would be very welcome. Please see your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Levinstein, you might want to publish your research on our sister project. Wikibooks. See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Help:Contributing for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Lord Toby Jug - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Toby_Jug

I really am angry and upset that every time I edit my page with info and references, within in 10 seconds someone called Mcgeddion re-edits my page every time, it's been going on for nearly over two years now and I'm sick of it.. What he writes about me is incorrect every time. I want him barred from editing my page please ASAP thank you, if he cannot be banned from editing my page I'd like my page deleted.

Lord Toby Jug AKA Flingel Bunt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Toby_Jug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.66.118 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all it's not your page and if you are the subject of the article and have been editing the page, you are in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Are they really, though? I thought it was highly discouraged, but not actually against the rules. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that several of your edit summaries are misleading. Particularly this one where you are removing sourced info rather than "fixing a typo". McGeddon has been following WikiP procedure in their actions. MarnetteD|Talk 17:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

We do, however, have procedures that allow you to deal with error on pages about yourself. See Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. As you can imagine, an encyclopedia cannot just allow anyone to put what they want in the article about them. (They keep deleting my attempts to create a page showing that I am Dalek Supreme just because it isn't "true". How rude!) but we really do want any legitimate errors to be fixed, and the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide explains exactly how you can help us to do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The article in question, for readers not using the mobile feature, is Lord Toby Jug. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is inaccurate information on the page, then, regardless of whether you are Brian Borthwick, you can request edits at Talk: Lord Toby Jug, or can request corrections, or deletion of inaccurate information, at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. However, as previous editors have tried to advise, it is not "your page", even if you are Brian Borthwick. You can request that the page be deleted, but, since it appears that the subject of the page is notable as a British politician in the specific Wikipedia sense, it is unlikely that the page will in fact be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Need account help

I forgot my password to this account, gave up and created another account, Perrys Landing, and, you guessed it, found my password about 2 seconds later. Can I get the new account deleted or merged? I'd like to keep my edit history and this user name if possible. Dr. Mike (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no User:Perrys Landing. Let me know what the name of the new account is and I will try to get it all sorted out for you. An easy way to do this is to log on with the new account and post a comment here from that account. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Here it is. Thanks. PerrysLanding (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

PS, Guy, you could have tried Special:ListUsers. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I could have, but doing it the way I did it confirmed for me that he controls both accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, this one will be pretty simple. Not counting the above, you made two edits using the PerrysLanding account. Just undo them (doesn't matter which account you do that from) with the edit summary "Wrong account" and immediately redo them from your normal account with the edit summary "Correct account". This will put the two edits in the correct edit history.

After you do that I will clean up the PerrysLanding page with Template:retired and post an explanation on that page explaining what happened, a link to this conversation, and instructions for anyone who wishes to start using PerrysLanding as a username some time in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, okay done. Thanks for the help. Dr. Mike (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. You can forget that the second account ever existed now. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I forgot how to Wiki, what's the best way to include page numbers when using a book

I decided to start working on User:Ryan Vesey/Xerotine siccative again and I no longer remember what the best way to include page numbers if I'm including information from many areas of a book. I thought I remember a relatively effective way of including page numbers using {{rp}} Is that still considered to be the best way? I don't plan on using it if I only use one page from a book. Ryan Vesey 20:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, how what's the way of writing a template so it links to the template, rather than using the nowiki tags? Ryan Vesey 20:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See Help:References and page numbers

See {{tl}}

--  Gadget850 ^talk 21:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ryan Vesey: I will have to leave the first question for someone else to answer. I can answer the latter one though: To link a template you can use either the {{tl}} template or the {{tlx}} template which will result in slightly different formatting. So, for linking the RP template the result would be either {{rp}} or {{rp}}. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

When using <ref name=something>citation</ref>, and when I'm using different pages in different citations to it (for example, citation #2 in Sacred Heart Catholic Church (Dayton, Ohio)), I always use {{rp}}: it's easy and quick, and its meaning is easy to discern. At the same time, I don't use it when every citation goes to the same page; see citation #3 in the same article. It's the easiest way, as far as I know, to provide proper citation of individual pages while using the ref name= feature. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How does one thank the Arbitration Committee for their service?

I wanted to give thanks to the Arbitration Committee for serving the encyclopaedia and the community. I went to the talk page, but it was blank.

How would one go about thanking the Arbitration Committee?

(If this is not the right place for this, I apologise. I don't know where would be more appropriate to ask it, though.) Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:ARBCOM#LISTS. They've got a mailing list, and anyone can send mail to it; nothing is sent to the members until a moderator approves it, but that's a mechanism to prevent spam and other problematic stuff, not a way of keeping out a thank-you note. Be careful to include a good subject line; as noted at the link I gave you, Almost all incoming email is spam that we delete at moderation. Please include an informative subject line to avoid deletion.. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

First, this Help Desk is a reasonable place to ask questions, including yours. Second, you may also go to the user talk page for any arbitrator and post thanks to his or her page, or, from the user talk page, you may use the Email This User feature. You may also put a barnstar on the user talk page of an arbitrator. Thank you for wanting to express appreciation for the services of the Arbitration Committee in dealing with conflict in the English Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

February 14

Would it be possible to delete an article I gave the wrong title to?

Hello, I'm very new to the wikipedia community, and I was wondering if there is an way to delete an article. I searched for "Latin american cities by GDP", and upon finding that it didn't yet exist, I decided to translate the Spanish page. Unfortunately, the spanish page is a ranking of South American cities by GDP, so I was wondering if there would be a way to delete the improperly titled article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_american_cities_by_GDP. I have created a new one that is properly entitled "South American cities by GDP" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_cities_by_GDP . I know this was a faux pas, because after a bit of searching I found out that there is a way to rename an article, but I can't seem to find a way to delete one. Cheers, Dmerker (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SPEEDY for the criteria for speedy deletion. This case would fall under G7, "Author requests deletion". In order to request deletion, you delete all article content and place the template {{Db-g7}} on the page. — Eru·tuon 08:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Missing statistics

Hi

I am writing articles on Swan 36 and Swan 65 sailing yachts and a while ago the statistics went missing. Why is this and can it be repaired?

Sami Lehtonen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sami P. Lehtonen (talk • contribs) 11:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sami P. Lehtonen. Which statistics is it you're missing? The articles themselves don't seem to have changed recently so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Sam Walton (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Oh I see what you mean, you can't see some of the information you placed in the infobox. Infoboxes work by filling out specific fields in a template, in this case Template:Infobox Sailboat Specifications. If you click that link you'll be able to see the fields which are allowed; you can't add more by simply writing them in the article. Sam Walton (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

signature

I use four tildes, but my signature does not work correctly, what should I do? M.Sakhaie 13:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)