:: {{u|Malachq}} Although you can use copyrighted material as examples in an article, it must only make up a small amount (typically 10% max) of the text. Yours makes up most of the article. Having said that, since it's a US federal site, the text is public domain anyway. The [http://www.weather.gov/privacy privacy page] says "information presented on these pages is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." There may or may not be other problems, but the G12 was wrong, so I'll restore [[Air Stagnation Advisory]] shortly [[User:Jimfbleak|<b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b>]] - [[User talk:Jimfbleak|<span style="font-family:arial;color:green">talk to me?</span>]] 06:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
:: {{u|Malachq}} Although you can use copyrighted material as examples in an article, it must only make up a small amount (typically 10% max) of the text. Yours makes up most of the article. Having said that, since it's a US federal site, the text is public domain anyway. The [http://www.weather.gov/privacy privacy page] says "information presented on these pages is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." There may or may not be other problems, but the G12 was wrong, so I'll restore [[Air Stagnation Advisory]] shortly [[User:Jimfbleak|<b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b>]] - [[User talk:Jimfbleak|<span style="font-family:arial;color:green">talk to me?</span>]] 06:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
:::To be slightly picky, that quote does not indicate public domain or a free license. But the text is (as you say) public domain as a work of the US Federal government (as the [http://www.weather.gov/disclaimer disclaimer page] indicates). —[[User:teb728|teb728]] [[User talk:teb728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/teb728|c]] 09:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
:::To be slightly picky, that quote does not indicate public domain or a free license. But the text is (as you say) public domain as a work of the US Federal government (as the [http://www.weather.gov/disclaimer disclaimer page] indicates). —[[User:teb728|teb728]] [[User talk:teb728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/teb728|c]] 09:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Heloo,
sir/mam
mujhy ek assignmet banani hai tu woh punjabi mein krna hai.tu meine language setting par punjabi language choose ki tu hoyi nhi. tu please mujhy bata dijye ki kaise krni hai......
Jonathan Dixie Powers was a screen writer, producer, founder of CEF, developed the film catalog that was eventually sold to Coronet films and he ran the entire company for a number of years. He has not been mentioned. His leadership was as pivotal as any one who ever worked at the Lawrence, KS-based film company.[1]
Hi guys, I need some help fixing Template:Europe topic. Specifically around the UK_only option and displaying only some of the four constituent countries of the UK.
Wanting to use the List of RHPs in KY shortcut, but having only one hand available, I went to list of rhps in ky and clicked "Search", assuming that it would immediately notice the alternate capitalisation and send me to that page's target. To my surprise, [2] doesn't work properly — its first result is the target of the properly capitalised redirect, and its second is a subset of the main list, but after that, it's a bunch of Major League Baseball draft articles (apparently because of right-handed pitchers), and the page doesn't appear to know that a capitalisation variant exists. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the issue is that the search is supposed to find versions identical except for identical capitalisation, and it failed; can anyone explain that happened that way? Nyttend (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is your skin and where did you click "Search"? The box at the top right on every page in the default Vector skin should go to an exact match except capitalisation. That works for me. Your url [3] has fulltext=Search. That asks to not go to an exact match, so it gives a page of search results. Some search links work like that. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I went to the redlink and clicked search, for which there's only one possibility: I clicked the Search for "List of rhps in ky" in existing articles link displayed by MediaWiki:Noarticletext when I went to the redlink. I use Monobook, but I don't see how that's at all relevant to an oddity with the search results. Since Checkingfax created the title as a redirect, I can't repeat the error again, but when I follow the same process with other titles, it doesn't happen. Just now, I went to list of rhps in oh (again, doesn't exist, but a different capitalisation does), was given MediaWiki:Noarticletext, clicked the link, and was taken to National Register of Historic Places listings in Ohio with the correct notice of (Redirected from List of RHPs in OH), as I should have had with the Kentucky page. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you only type in the url sometimes and that caused your confusion. Url typing gives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_rhps_in_oh which displays MediaWiki:Noarticletext and has an upper case "Search" link in a message consistent with your quote. The link doesn't use the fulltext parameter so it discovers the matching List of RHPs in OH and goes directly there. Clicking the red link list of rhps in oh in your post goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rhps_in_oh&action=edit&redlink=1. It displays MediaWiki:Newarticletext which is namespace dependent. In mainspace it makes a lower case "search" link in "You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title." The link uses fulltext so it gives a search results page. The skin would have been important if you had clicked the "Search" button at the search box to the left in the MonoBook interface which, unlike Vector, has both a "Go" and "Search" button. "Go" will go directly to a matching page name. "Search" will always give a search results page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, I said "Maybe". You said "I went to list of rhps in ky" which would usually mean clicking a link like you posted, but you didn't. Later you said "I went to the redlink" which would nearly always mean clicking a red link, but you didn't. It's called a red link or redlink because it's a link with red text. Typing in the url doesn't use a link but only an address. One of the times you said you clicked search but it was upper case "Search". The link I thought you maybe clicked says "search". If you cannot reproduce the issue with the link saying Search for "..." in existing articles then just write it off as a glitch. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I write a lot of church/chapel articles. These are my personal criteria for deciding what is notable based on British churches: for the US or other countries, hopefully there are equivalent resources such as local architectural guides and the National Register of Historic Places.
Is it a listed building? If so, it is almost certainly notable.
If not, has it been covered (and not just a passing mention) in the Pevsner Architectural Guides? (For British churches this is more likely to apply to Anglican churches and older chapels).
If not, is there a comprehensive guidebook, gazetteer etc. to e.g. "The Churches of X County"? Does it feature in there? I would want in-depth coverage in such a book if it's not a listed building.
If not, is there a comprehensive, preferably non-self-published, and preferably not too ancient book covering the history of the church?
In my view (and I would welcome other editors' thoughts), a listed building report by Historic England plus a mention in Pevsner easily meets the notability criterion, even if only a stub can be produced from this info. To write a church article using only the listed building report would be marginal, but it would be unusual to find no other sources. To use only a "history of the church"-type book would also be iffy; to use only a history page from the church's website, more so.
I must stress I am not familiar with other countries' equivalent sources, so please consider these suggestions only in respect of Britain. Also I have approached the question mainly from the architecture/history angle. In relation to the US, I think NHRP listings are quite comprehensive, so an article just using that as a source might be OK (there might be guidance at WP:ARCH?).
If it's in the US, you could ask at WT:NRHP; we project members tend to be familiar with sources aside from NR-listing documentation, so we might be able to help with evaluating the stuff in front of you even if the church isn't listed on the NR. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Very helpful. But I am a bit confused. Basically, we can't create an article for just "any local church" (that really has no notability beyond the local town). Correct? If that's the case, why do we have articles for basically every high school in the USA? Surely, very few of those are "notable". I am a little confused. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be confusion about what you mean by "a church". When you ask about notability for "a church" do you mean a church building or structrue, or do you mean "a church" as a congregation, an organization? Or are you talking about some combination of the two? At any rate, if you are talking about a building, you would use the notability critera for buildings, and if you are talking about the church as an organization, you would use the notability critera for organizations. Either way, whenever you can't figure out specific notability criteria, the general critera applies. Basically, if there are sufficient reliable published independent sources, it's probably notable. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving18:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A big issue is the documentation and accreditation aspect. US high schools being accredited by the state, they invariably get plenty of government documentation (even private schools, as the state wants to ensure that they be of comparable quality to public schools, lest every child get left behind who attends there), as well as coverage in non-government media, while anyone can start a group and call it a church without any sort of documentation being involved. See Pleasant Valley High School (Pennsylvania) for an example of the extensive documentation that can be found for most high schools nationwide if you know where to look for solid sources. Finally, if the church has been around for a century or more, it may well have gotten covered in one of the numerous US county histories that were published in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; at least west of the Appalachians, they typically give a lot of coverage to churches that were extant when the book was written, and in many cases, churches that had already folded by that time. Leave me a note mentioning the church's location and I'll find you the correct history (most are online for free), because A Bibliography of American County Histories lists histories for all eight Connecticut counties and for a large majority of counties throughout the rest of the country. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you for pointing this out. I've fixed the incorrect URL. Just a note though, you could have fixed this yourself by clicking on the "Edit" link of the article on Telenet. Wikipedia is editable by anyone. Thanks again, Dismas|(talk)13:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Redfoo template to the bottom of this page after I added the song article to the template. So I expected the song title to be bolded and un wikilinked in the template on the page about the song, but this is not the case, and I would appreciate some help in fixing this. Everymorning(talk)13:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is likely caused by different apostrophes. Editing {{Redfoo}} to use a typewriter apostrophe (') and moving Literally I Can’t to Literally I Can't over the redirect (also with a typewriter apostrophe) should resolve the problem.
I added a number of citations – both referenced in-line and in the reference section at the bottom – but have forgotten how to properly add these so they will not be rejected. Where can this best and most easily be achieved on the site?
I am having difficulties in making changes so that this page is more accurate. However, a few changes that I have made have caused permanent changes that can't seem to be undone. These changes are causing the page to appear disorganized. Can it go back to the original before I made changes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonatha_Brooke
Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Secularus (talk • contribs) 23:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected a couple of problems with this edit. If you do want to go back to the version before all your edits, go to the "View history" tab, select the range of changes with the appropriate before and after buttons in the list, view the difference, then if you want to undo it, use the "undo" link and add an appropriate edit summary to explain what you are doing. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference help requested.
HELP! I'm clueless on what the following message means:
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
On the Mary Catherine Lamb page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Done In citations, 'accessdate' is one word: there was an additional error message of 'missing title'...need to add the 'title' parameter and the title of the source. Eagleash (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the box at the top of the article, the words in blue are wikilinks to pages which will give you more information on the problems. The most obvious problem is "insufficient inline citations". Tackle that first. It is easier for us to give you help if you give us a link to the page in question. I have taken the liberty of editing your question to include a link. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @עמית באום:, please make sure to read and follow Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" guideline before making any further changes, in case you are connected to the topic in any way. Also, about your "We've followed ..." comment: shared accounts are not permitted. If several editors are contributing to the article, each one should log on under a uniquely identifying account name. I have posted a welcome message with some more - hopefully helpful - links on your user talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to add a link to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union archive to the Wikipedia page on the 1934 West Coast Waterfront Strike. Whenever I do so, I get the message below, even though I'm adding only one link to a relevant outside archival webpage. Can anyone help with this?
"It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession. This is often a sign of people spamming Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites. Before you continue you may wish to review Wikipedia's policies of external links and spam as these may help you decide whether these links are appropriate for Wikipedia. Please feel free to ask at the Help Desk if you have any questions.
If you want to add references to the article, please, read WP:References for an appropriate way to do this. If you're sure you still want to make this edit, go to the bottom of this page and click 'Save page' again, and it will be submitted as is. If you were not trying to add links to many pages, and you received this message in error, you may report this error." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILWUHist (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see two pages to which you have tried to add links today, but both of them are broken links (in two different ways). Check this edit and also this one, and correct the urls. IAs far as your question is concerned, it may be that whichever automated process has flagged the problem has noted that there is a similarity between your username and the url of the link. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ILWUHist: Your edits were caught by an "edit filter" designed to stop new users adding inappropriate external links. The edit filter isn't clever enough to distinguish good links from bad ones; it only saw that you were trying to add it many times. The log of your attempts is here. Your chosen user name suggests that you are associated with the website whose address you are trying to add, so it is probably best if you post the link at Talk:1934 West Coast waterfront strike instead, with a message explaining why you think it is a good link to add. There's lots of good advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I figured it out and corrected the broken url. I'm super green here, obviously, and I really appreciate the suggestions for how to address the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILWUHist (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to nake a suggestion for your article on the above topic, and I can't work out. I would rather it were not in the public domain. Some years ago I made a correction to your entry on Klaus Fuchs - you said he was Jewish, he was not. I could not log in but was told I had incorrect pass word. I tried to join but was told my user name - Norman Moss (I like to keep it simple) is already in use. I tried N.B. Moss but was told it waas too similar. Am I already a member? If not how can I make my suggestion, or become a member?
Norman Moss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.174.247 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Norman. Most of Wikipedia you don't need to be logged in to edit. (A small proportion of articles are semi-protected, so that only accounts with a certain number of edits can change them - this is usually because the pages have been subject to sustained vandalism.) Having said that, if anybody makes an edit that does not comply with Wikipedia policies, it is likely that somebody else will revert it quite quickly. Examples of relevant policies are that everything should be cited to as reliable source, the article should retain a neutral point of view, and it should not contain any original research. If you want to make a change to a semi-protected page, or any change you think might be controversial, you are encouraged to suggest the change on the article's talk page.
I don't understand what you mean by "I would rather it were not in the public domain". If you are referring to keeping some editing private until you are ready, then that is not possible in Wikipedia: every page is visible to anybody. If you are referring to copyright - the ability to copy and reuse material - then little of Wikipedia is in the public domain (in the technical meaning of the phrase), but most of it is licensed under a license that allows anybody to reuse it for any purpose as long as they give proper attribution. --ColinFine (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Fuchs in 2005 did claim a Jewish family, but User:Jack Upland removed that false claim after you (Norman Moss) pointed it out on the talk page. You could have made that edit yourself, but it was perhaps better done via the talk page because of your minor conflict of interest, being the author of a book on the subject. Dbfirs09:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
January 8
AfD for ISOBL?
The article ISOBL seems to simply be a press release with tons of unrelated citations. I'm a fairly inexperienced Wikipedia user, but I think this page should be a candidate for deletion (notability, press release, etc.). I've already flagged the page as a press release, and made some notes on the talk page. Any advice for me, or does anyone else more experienced want to review and take action? Chrisw80 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "unreviewed" tag
I asked this several days ago and the problem still is not solved:
Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 December 31 Is it my job to remove the unreviewed sign after hearing from them?Jzsj (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Which pages were you thinking were reviewed 26 KB (3,213 words) - 18:16, 3 January 2016
(I sent an answer to the respondent at the time, mentioning the articles, but got no answer to my question.)
Now "Swister Twister" just notified me that my new article "St. Xavier's School, Nevta" was reviewed, but now again the "unreviewed" tag remains. Again, may I remove the tag after getting a "reviewed" notice?Jzsj (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jzsj: this is not important; but it would be helpful to other editors if, when you refer to an article, you would provide a link to it like this St. Britto's, Goa, rather than just giving the name St. Britto's, Goa. Maproom (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, secondary level schools are almost considered de facto notable, but I have no issue with discussing it at AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with your discussing it either. I'm simply trying to give these high school and universities in India a start on a Wiki article so that they can expand if/when they are ready. I'm using most everything that seems of value off their website, which is usually the only thing available on the web for these high schools in India: it's not like the US! I have no knowledge of books published on these schools. If I find newspaper articles on achievements of the school I use them but web archives are the only possibility for these articles after the first year or so. Please advise.Jzsj (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll
Clicking on "highest estimate" and "lowest estimate" options on the templates for this page puts most of the content in the correct order, but not all of it. Does anyone know what is wrong with the templates? --Steverci (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the columns are a mix of text and numbers, the sort does a character sort, and not a numeric sort, which leads to the incorrect sort order. IOW, "123" is *numerically* before "0234", but when sorted as characters, it's *after*. The solution is to enclose all the numbers in template:nts. I've done one column, and will work on the other over the next few hours. Rwessel (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
my granddad was born in England on 30th January 1909
how come he isn't listed on here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniyahboo1 (talk • contribs)
If you're talking about List of living centenarians, or similar articles in Lists of centenarians the listing criteria is generally not just living past 100 years but being an otherwise notable individual. Most on such lists are the subject of articles, and there must be published reliable sources that confirms the age and indicate notability. Living past 100 is not so unusual. On the other hand, being a "supercentanarian" is more unusual, and age alone may deserve mention (your grandfather is 107 so would not yet be eligible). We have an article at List of British supercentenarians – though to be listed there would still require source evidence of age. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on how you define "new user". They've been making edits since 2013. Though they only made one edit in 2015 and one, so far, this year. That said, their edits are not helpful. And you are "someone". So, you could help the user out by posting a friendly note on their talk page. Dismas|(talk)15:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Translating a wikipedia article
Hey,
So far I only did really minor contribution therefore I'm not familiar with all the guidelines of Wikipedia.
My question is: There are articles of major importance available in English language but not in Arabic. And I think they have a direct link and great importance to the recent happenings in the Muslim and Arabic speaking world.
So, Provided that I find a Classic Arabic scholar to help, Does a verbatim translation of those articles to Arabic a disregard to the guidelines in anyway? and how to get a page protected?
Confusion about rules regarding submitting articles about yourself
Hello Wikipedia,
I am confused about the rules regarding submitting articles about one's own career. On some pages it says you can not write about yourself, on others it says you can if the entry is notable and accurate.
I ask because I am film maker and artist with extensive credits, and I am mentioned on existing Wikipedia pages (such as movies I have written or directed), but there is no page about me. I have many friends and colleagues who do have pages, otherwise I wouldn't even be inquiring about this.
I don't want to break any rules, so please advise what my best course of action is.
Thank you.
Papreet (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We cover this situation in our conflict of interest guideline. The short answer is that ideally you would let other people edit your article because neutrality can be difficult when you are very close to the subject. Your input will be welcome on the talk page of the article where you can point out faults and make suggestions. Anything non-controversial like spelling errors or grammar can be just done by anyone. HighInBC16:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Are you talking about an existing article about yourself, or an existing article? If you would like an article created about yourself, see WP:AfC and you can make a request there. Otherwise as HighInBC said, if the article exists then there is some very limited editing you are permitted to should do. Are you referring to Dana Gould by any chance, or is that not you? Tiggerjay (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there is no prohibition on it, just a discouragement for the reasons you stated. And perhaps twice as true for new editors unfamiliar with the policies and guidelines. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editing a Wikipedia article to add a photograph by linking to a publicly available copyrighted online photograph in the archives of a news magazine
I would like to add a photograph to a Wikipedia article on a historic public figure by linking to an online photograph which is copyrighted and is available on the public web site of the archives of an international news magazine. Is this allowed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbansban (talk • contribs)
Do you mind providing a more specific answer? The photo is of a historic figure as depicted on the cover of TIME magazine in 1938. I searched Wikimedia and it does not appear to be available there. Do I first need to buy it from TIME magazine, upload it to Wikimedia and then link to it? So linking directly to the URL of the photo on TIME magazine's site is not allowed?
If you are saying you want to display a photo on an external site (rather than just a textual link to it), it is not possible. (It is disabled by the software.) —teb728tc 20:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC) To elaborate, ordinarily a website uses an html <img/> element to display an image, but the MediaWiki software use on Wikipedia disables the <img/> element. —teb728tc21:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are saying you want to upload a magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover, that is not permitted. —teb728tc20:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be in the public domain if the copyright had not been renewed, but undoubtedly Time renews its copyrights. Works first published in the US before 1923 are in the public domain irrespective of renewal. —teb728tc21:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nope, not necessarily. Copyright laws are a bit more complex and renewals can also extend the time period. There is a universal date of the United States of works published prior 1923 being in the public domain. Presumably for this work it would be 95 years from the date of publication. You can see more at WP:PD... As such Sbansban would not be able to use that photograph without permission of the copyright holder, or otherwise prove that it is explicitly in the public domain and/or copyright has lapsed. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the explanations. But what if I bought the photo from TIME - would I then be able to upload it to Wikimedia commons with due acknowledgment that the copyright for the photo belongs to TIME magazine? Methinks not - as I do not recall seeing this on Wikipedia, and to my knowledge, Wikimedia files need to be in the public domain and non-copyrighted? Please weigh in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbansban (talk • contribs)
If you buy it from Time, you get a high-quality printed cover that you can hang on your wall, but you don't get Time's permission to upload it to Wikipedia. Most images on Wikipedia are copyrighted but licensed under a license that allows reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728tc21:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note. This could have been made a lot less complicated if you told us the article that you wanted to edit, provided a link to the image, and explained exactly what you wanted the image for. Instead, there was a lot of dancing around the issue of what article you were talking about, what you intended to do, etc. Dismas|(talk)23:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Larry Rudolph and I represent a client named Brandon Cyrus.
It looks like someone made a page for him about a year ago and it was deleted?
I am wanting to find someone to set up a page on his behalf but I was wondering
if the page would just get deleted right after because it seems as if someone made
two pages for Brandon and Wikipedia deleted one for being previously deleted.
How would I go about this as I need a page to represent my client's name, his brand,
works and such. It is very important as Wikipedia does show up under Google Knowledge Graphs.
First, you need to be aware of our conflict of interest guideline. It is very strongly discouraged to write or create an article when you are either that person or closely related to that person (such as working for them). Next, the topic of the article must meet our general notability guidelines or the one specifically for people before an article can be created. If you believe Cyrus meets those, then I suggest you gather up all the reliable sources you can find which are directly about him, and then post a request here.
When the article was deleted in 2014, there were no references to support notability. He had done bit parts in several TV episodes or movies. The only refs that experienced editors could find were not what wikipedians consider reliable sources. They were just Twitter, Facebook, his own website, and IMDB. Has he had significant coverage in reliable and independent sources since then? IMDB indicates he has had mostly bit parts: zombie, stripper, reporter, crook#3, bar patron, high school student.Has he been mentioned in substantial reviews for any of his named roles? But that is not to say he might not hit the big time any day. It happens. If he works a lot, he gets seen. See WP:BIO and particularly WP:NACTOR. Also, being related to notable people does not make him notable. Edison (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unintentional blanking of others' comments in a talk page
Several times in the past few weeks I have added a comment in a talk page, and when I saved it, someone else's comment was removed somewhere else in the talk page. Here is an example from WP:VPP. Here is an example from an article talk page, where my identifying an old unsigned comment removed someone else's comment at a different spot on the page. I am very certain that before I hit "save," the other lines in question were not selected or highlighted in such a way that they should have been removed when my lines were added. The removed text is often at some distance or in a different section from the one I am editing. It just randomly removes someone else's comment at some other place in the page. either adjacent to or distant from my new text. I have not seen this when I am editing an article page in mainspace. I've seen it in article talk pages and in AFD. Once when I noted it in AFD, I copied the whole AFD thread to my sandbox and did ten test edits, without any recurrence of the bug. The unintentional removal does not happen every time I attempt the same edit on the same page. It does not seem to have anything to do with edit conflict.. If I preview, that does not help to detect or prevent the removal. If I go to "show changes," then the lines which would get removed are shown. Going to "show changes " before each edit, and then examining history and viewing the diff after each edit is really a chore. I am using Windows 8.1 with Google Chrome Version 47.0.2526.106 m, fully updated. Would I be better off using some other browser? Is it a browser issue or a Wikipedia issue?I have 51,000 edits, dating back almost 11 years, and I've never had this problem before, but now it shows up a large proportion of the times I edit a talk page. Edison (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to happen randomly and without any warning on high traffic pages, especially ANI. Clicking "show changes" seems to be the only way to prevent it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples don't look like that issue. In [5] you were editing an old version as shown by [6]. I guess you were viewing the old diff [7] when you clicked edit. This will edit the version in the diff instead of the current version. If you were editing the current version then it's highly unlikely a glitch would have removed the eight latest posts from different parts of the page. Something else happened in [8] but I don't know why. A paragraph and the following newline was replaced by ", ". It couldn't have happened by editing an old version. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf incident was as suggested; I saw an unsigned comment, scrolled back through page history to an old dif, in order to determine who added the unsigned comment, identified the unsigned editor, and saved an edited version of the old dif, thereby removing more recent comments. But the general problem has occurred several times in recent weeks, when I am definitely adding a comment to the most recent version of the page, and not scrolling back through history. I merely add lines of text, and other lines of text, not necessarily adjacent, get deleted. Edison (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please check refs, number 20 and 21 - the quotes on 21 should be left in, but is the format OK? Please check 20 as it does not immediately go to the history section
Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.146.167 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 9 January 2016
I have updated the URL in reference 20, though it is not strictly relevant since it does not mention either of the dates in the preceding sentence. The previous URL, used in 2013, had the same problem: 2013 version at Archive.org.
So much for free speech,
I just tried to confirm that this PBS, NPR evening news spokeswoman is connected to PBS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.162.148 (talk • contribs)
Hello, IP user. You, or anybody, are welcome to add information to articles as long as you comply with our policies. Your edit to Sharon Epperson was in the wrong place in the article (right at the start, but beginning "also"), was misformatted (it had an empty <ref></ref> pair -probably not your fault: the editor tool will have put them in expecting you to give a reference to go between them), but the biggest problem was precisely that you did not give a reference. That is why Ukexpat undid your change. If you can find a reliable published source that says that she also reports for CBS, you are welcome to put it in the article, in an appropriate place, and with a citation to the source: see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I have just edited the Religion section of Lesotho. I did my edit without having signed on. But when I tried to sign on I got the message that the current page's changes would be lost if I signed on. I suggest that you enable a sign on from within the Edit page.
Most browsers can open a link in a new tab or window after right clicking it, or by holding down Ctrl or Shift while you left click it. Use that on the Log in link. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please check refs, number 20 and 21 - the quotes on 21 should be left in, but is the format OK? Please check 20 as it does not immediately go to the history section Thanks so much101.182.146.167 (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked - but my questions regarding refs. remain unanswered
I am hoping that my concerns regarding the University of St Andrews page will be answered. That is why I reposted. Sorry if I annoyed u guys. R u able to fix up the refs on that page?101.182.146.167 (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so impatient. This is the fourth time you have started a new section on this subject on this page in less than 8 hours, and you have also asked two individual editors on their user talk pages. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers and they have other things to do apart from answering your questions. They will probably give their priority to answering questions from other people who aren't so impatient. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am the Author of "The Turk, Chess Automaton" and other books including science fiction short stories and many articles about chess history, and am a noted author (see your references under "The Turk" on your site (Levitt)). I wanted to post a short biographical article. How can I get that on Wikipedia? (I have won many awards as a writer and feel it should be included in your work.
As that policy says, the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest. If one of your readers wants to write your biography, you may request that from one of them, knowing that other Wikipedia editors will remove any peacock language. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sesame street (saskia resume role). gameo or web serie?
Hi,
I found on Saskia's Maarleveld's resume the role's: Kiwi and super computer. for super force 2.0 but my ask is. super force is a game or a web serie?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Maxie1hoi. This is a page for help with editing Wikipedia, not for discussing information in articles: somebody may be able to advise you at the Reference Desk. If you do not know what something means, you certainly should not be adding it to a Wikipedia article. In fact, none of the information you have added to Saskia Maarleveld is referenced: please do not add unsourced material, especially to an article about a living person: unsourced information is of very little value, because a reader has no way of knowing whether it is valid or not. Please read references for beginners.
Robert Aloysius McMahon Jr
The page in the subject line is being proposed for deletion. It says that it isn't cited correctly. This is my first time and I have added links to the media borough website to cite his being mayor. I also cited one of his projects website to cite that he is the cofounder. What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark ailer mcmahon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help.
If the article in question is Robert Aloysius McMahon, Jr., then it is tagged for speedy deletion as copyright violation. Read the copyright violation policy. The fact that you have the copyright isn't important, unless you release the copyright under an appropriate license, and corporations will almost never release their copyrights under licenses that Wikipedia will accept. If the issue is something else, what? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
January 10
Ulysses S. Grant High School, Valley View, California
I attempted to add that Grant High School won LA City Championships for swimming in 1964 and 1965 and Cluebot deleted the edits the next day. Somehow Cluebot knows more about the subject than I do even though I was on the swimming team at the time and have copies of newspaper articles and certificates and trophies as evidence. So Cluebot is, in this regard, clueless. What special magic power to I have to obtain from Wikipedia to defeat Cluebot?
It should, but it still seems curious that ClueBot would consider it vandalism. A few lines of text being added seems an odd thing to flag; there's certainly no shortage of un-referenced lines there already. Matt Deres (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opisgroup My concern above was not the bot, but helping you to include your edit. Wikipedia does not accept personal knowledge of an event, subject or item. THe link I left abouve will explain why and may help you find other references to use. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel)02:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about names
I was helping out with some DAB links and noticed something which I hadn't before. We have many articles devoted to specific names. Some, such as Ellie are simply disambiguation pages, while some, such as Matt and Victor are DABs (though note the difference in style between the two) that also have articles that talk specifically about the names (in this case, Victor (name) and Matt (name)). Is there a standing rule about how these are supposed to work? For example, should Ellie remain as a DAB page and/or get moved to Ellie (name) (currently a redirect)? Articles that link to Ellie are flagged as having links in need of disambiguation, but that's not really always going to be the case. Articles like List of most popular given names (which is what started me on this) just want a link to an article about the name. Thoughts? Matt Deres (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At Articles for Creation, I requested a random article, and got Draft:Maryse Warda. I reviewed it, and found it to be ready for acceptance. However, Accept was not one of the options from the AFCH tab. I had to Submit it. I then apparently made the mistake of submitting as myself rather than as the page creator. I then accepted it. I was then notified of its acceptance, but now I can't identify the page creator to notify them of acceptance. Can an administrator please help me? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the previous history has been destroyed, and I can't retrieve it. This seems to be to be a bug (or misfeature). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Purging needs to be done on each article where the updated template is not displaying properly. It doesn't involve making changes to the articles. It can be time consuming, but you can also just wait for the pages to be updated automatically. -- zzuuzz(talk)06:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Malachq Although you can use copyrighted material as examples in an article, it must only make up a small amount (typically 10% max) of the text. Yours makes up most of the article. Having said that, since it's a US federal site, the text is public domain anyway. The privacy page says "information presented on these pages is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." There may or may not be other problems, but the G12 was wrong, so I'll restore Air Stagnation Advisory shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be slightly picky, that quote does not indicate public domain or a free license. But the text is (as you say) public domain as a work of the US Federal government (as the disclaimer page indicates). —teb728tc09:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heloo,
sir/mam
mujhy ek assignmet banani hai tu woh punjabi mein krna hai.tu meine language setting par punjabi language choose ki tu hoyi nhi. tu please mujhy bata dijye ki kaise krni hai......
It's Verry-Verry urgent..
When I wrote about this local Church I went on a similar basis of notability to yourself - namely the fact it was a listed building and quite heavily mentioned by Historic England -- samtar whisper 12:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Thank you for pointing this out. I've fixed the incorrect URL. Just a note though, you could have fixed this yourself by clicking on the "Edit" link of the article on Telenet. Wikipedia is editable by anyone. Thanks again, Dismas|(talk) 13:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
