Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

Why an empty category?

The redirect United States Senate election in Arizona, 2018 is a redirect to the article United States Senate elections, 2018 (as for other states) and has the category Category:Arizona elections, 2018. But for some reason this category appears as empty: Why? I asked this question before and got a non-answer, but what is needed to remove the problem (which only affects only this state). Hugo999 (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The article has not been placed in the category you refer to. (See categories at the bottom of the page). It is however, in Category:United States Senate elections, 2018 which does not appear to have any sub-categories. As Arizona Elections 2018 refers to all elections not just Senate it would appear that it could be a valid category for the page. However, I'm not certain whether it is appropriate to have a re-direct in more than one category, and it is arguable as to which could be considered the more specific. Eagleash (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hugo999: You didn't say where you asked it before so I don't know what you consider a non-answer. When I visited United States Senate election in Arizona, 2018, it had Category:Arizona elections, 2018 at the bottom but was not listed on the category page. A null edit of the redirect updated the category page. I guess the problem was caused by the category being created after the redirect was last edited. I haven't seen this variation of needing a null edit before but it often solves similar problems so it was my first thought. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

July 11

Aspendale

Please fix up ref number 3 - the publication name is wrong I think. SorrySrbernadette (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

(The page name is Aspendale, Victoria). Eagleash (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion request on page titled "Joe Eszterhas"

Edit request

On the page titled "Joe Eszterhas" Joe Eszterhas, there is a bit in the second paragraph referring to his parents Maria nee Brio and Istvan Eszterhas. It currently states that his father's name was "Count István Esterházy" which is incorrect. His name was Istvan Eszterhas. Joe Eszterhas and his family are of no relation to the Esterhazy family.

I am working alongside Mr. Eszterhas and would like to have his page updated with the most accurate information.

Thank you for your time!

Maryjanekathryn (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Maryjanekathryn, I've edited the article to match what the references state. As for your concerns with the article in general, please see WP:AUTOBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 02:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I delete a profile? I have two.

How do I delete a profile? I have two. Where will I receive the answer to this? Norm Tered 01:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm Tered (talk • contribs)

Actually, you have zero, because we have nothing by that name. Perhaps you could provide links to the two things you have in mind, and then when volunteers get a chance, they can help you with an answer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Norm Tered, what "profile" are you referring to? Wikipedia doesn't have anything called "profiles", so we're not clear on what you mean. There is nothing on your userpage at User:Norm Tered if that's what you're referring to. Dismas|^(talk) 02:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think probable that Norm Tered refers to user accounts. The bad news is that having two without having clearly disclosed it is bad, and grounds for blocking. The good news is that no sane admin will block someone asking to delete their own sockpuppet.

The other bad news is that the only situation I can imagine where someone ends up with two accounts and asks for deletion of one is if they forgot the password. In which case it is likely that the password of "Norm Tered" will be forgotten as well, and they will never get the notifications of replies on their third account. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

reliable source

I want to use this link but I am hesitant. Is insing.com a reliable source for a GA or not??? Phamthuathienvan (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi there. While there are many articles on Wikipedia which use the said website's articles, the best place to ask this question is the reliable sources noticeboard. Lourdes 06:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hans von Blixen-Finecke

Ref number 3 is not correctly done. Please fix 58.108.249.112 (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have fixed the title and clarified it a bit as well. Thank you for pointing this out. GermanJoe (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Harv Error detection tool

Hello, I would like to know how to install the "Harv Error" detection tool. Markhole (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Markhole: I haven't tried it but see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks! Markhole (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How to upload word documents to Wikipedia

How am I able to upload word documents to Wikipedia talk pages? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gordon410: to talk pages? Why would you need to do that? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I need to include footnotes for a post. This is only possible in a document.

Hello, Gordon410. There is no way to upload a file of any kind to a page: files are uploaded into File space, and can then be linked from a page. But WP:Creation and usage of media files#Text files says: "Please do not upload plain text (.txt), Microsoft Word (.doc), or text files in other formats. Instead, please start a new page and input the text using standard wiki formatting". You can put footnotes in using the referencing mechanism, see WP:REFB. If you use the template {{reflist talk}} at the bottom of the section, it will collect the footnotes there rather than put them at the bottom of the page. --ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thank you for your comment. How can I upload my file to "File space"? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Gordon410. I have quoted the section that asks you not to do so. --ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gordon410: I am puzzled at your suggestion that you need to upload a Word document to include footnotes. Wikipedia has tens of millions of footnotes none of which are or documents. Do you need help with how to include footnotes? See Help:Referencing for beginners--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Yes, please, I do need help with footnotes. Gordon410 (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Two different editors have now provided a link to useful help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine: not to do what? Gordon410 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You should not upload your document. There are better ways to accomplish your goal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI, you asked this question at the Teahouse. It is not a best practice to ask the same question at different locations in general, but if it is warranted, you should link to the other location. I realize you are new, and probably didn't know that, but now you do.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Global 'Latest_stable_software_release'

Is there any way to set the 'latest release version' in the infobox of a software project for all the languages at once? I have created a template Template:Latest_stable_software_release/lzip, but I can't see any way to update the version in other languages except by editing every page individually. Thanks. Ant diaz (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ant diaz. Interesting question. I don't know the answer, but if there is, it will be by using Wikidata: the Wikidata entry on the software will have to have a property giving the latest version, and the articles in each language will need to pick that up using a parser function. Alternatively, there is a project to generate infoboxes directly out of Wikidata, but I'm not sure where that's got to. Please see WP:Wikidata for more information, especially the sections "Infoxobes" and "Inserting Wikidata values into Wikipedia articles". --ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine. I have finally figured out that I must add an statement for property P348, but it seems that this can't be done with my browser because the add link mentioned in the help does not appear. I hope this does not require a "supported" browser. Ant diaz (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ant diaz. That sounds rather unlikely to me. Are you saying that on d:Q1143890 you don't see a +add at the end of the Statements section? (it looks a bit different from the Help page). If not, why do you think it is a browser issue?

Note, by the way, that if you are going to use this in a Template, you will have to make sure you code it in such a way that it can cope if the particular software hasn't a Wikidata entry, or hasn't a P348. (Also note that you can make Wikilinks to Wikidata pages by starting with d:) --ColinFine (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. It may sound unlikely, but the only "add" I can see on d:Q1143890 is the one in "additional terms may apply". The page does not contain neither the add at the end of the Statements section nor the edit and add links inside each statement box. I can't modify about anything in Q1143890. I suspect that the server is programmed to serve the full version of Q1143890 only to recent browsers with javascript enabled, because the html source says class="client-nojs" even if I enable javascript on Firefox 2.0.0.4, Seamonkey 1.1.2 and Konqueror 3.5.7. (BTW, IMHO javascript does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is too perishable).

Just now I do not plan to use this in a template. I just hope it appears in the infobox, as it seems to be the case in fr:7-Zip. (Thanks for the hint about Wikidata). Ant diaz (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right, Ant diaz. It's a dynamic feature, so it may well not work if your browser is that old. I see your point about Javascript in an encyclpaedia, but I think it only applies to readers: supporting ancient technology for editors is an unreasonable demand in my view. If you want to make a proposal for a change in how Wikipedia works, WP:VPR is the place, but I don't honestly think you'll get much traction with that one (and in this case it's Wikidata, which is a separate project, and not primarily intended to be read by humans anyway). --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

3rr

why isn't there just a 1rr? someone adds something...another person reverts it, the first person reverts the revert...why should it be allowed to continue beyond this without talkpage discussion?68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

IP, the 3RR is a hard-line "rule", not nessesarily a guide to dealing with disputes - it's almost always better to BRD - be Bold (make a change), maybe you get Reverted, so you then Discuss the issue on the talk page -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC).

I saw a reference on ANI about imposing a 1rr restriction on someone and thought 'why not everyone be restricted to this?' perhaps it's a matter of it simply be violated far too much if that was the rule, even though it's better..??68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you (and Samtar) are under a misapprehension as to what 3RR is. The situation you're describing is edit-warring and is dealt with accordingly; 3RR means one person can't make more than three reverts to the same page in 24 hours (except for a few exceptions like obvious vandalism) even if they revert something different each time, not that they can't revert the same material three times. A strict 1RR (nobody can revert anything a second time) is used in a few edit-war hotspots like Israel/Palestine, but if it were rolled out across Wikipedia would make things much more bureaucratic that they ought to be; the simple fact is that most reverts are legitimate removal of inappropriate or unsourced content, and forcing people to run to a noticeboard every time someone editwarred to include a link to their blog or a photo of their cat would make Wikipedia virtually unworkable. ‑ Iridescent 15:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Iridescent: I'd hope I don't have any misapprehensions at this stage! :/ -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

but they also can't revert the same material three times either according to 3rr, correct? it's just that reverting the same material would likely be considered warring before a technical violation of 3rr..??68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And also, you're saying that, for example a person can't make more than 3 reverts to a particular article in 24 hours involving different material in different sections of the article even if all reverts are uncontested and valid?? that seems odd...why?68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Admins will use their common sense when looking at reverts of different material. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, since it would by definition constitute four reverts to the same page (3RR means no more than three), but from the initial question it seems that the OP thinks it only refers to reverting the same material three times. In practice, despite the "bright line rule" claim, 3RR is more subtle than that. If someone has made a long string of edits to an article, some of which are valid and some of which aren't, one could easily rack up a dozen technical reversions to an article in a few minutes as they went through and removed the non-compliant part bit-by-bit, but despite this crossing a supposed "bright line" no admin is going to block for it. The interaction of IAR and Wikipedia's supposed bright line rules is subtle and not easily explained at a help desk; a better way to look at edit-warring is to largely disregard WP:3RR and look at every edit through the prisms of "would any reasonable observer consider this edit-warring?" and "would any reasonable observer consider this change an improvement?". ‑ Iridescent 16:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

okay, makes sense..in other words common sense always applies and a technical violation of 3rr wouldn't always involve a sanction in a 'bright line rule' kind of way (and warring can also come before 3rr etc)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you got it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Help needed at Glendale, Arizona

Yes, it would be nice if you could cool the place down from its 110º, but that’s not what I am looking for here. The "Geography" section consists of coordinates and then a box showing who the neighbors are to the N,S,E & W. If that box were a bit smaller it would fit in the space next to the info box to the right, rather than beneath it. Make the whole page a lot nicer. Take a look, you’ll see what I mean and perhaps you will be able to fix it? I looked at the code and did not see a size option but I know that some of you are pretty smart and can likely figure something out. thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Everyone's screen is a different size. Unless you shrink them to the size of a postage stamp, you're never going to be able to guarantee that two design elements will be able to fit side-by-side. Remember, most of Wikipedia's readers (the usual estimate is 60%) are viewing on phone screens. ‑ Iridescent 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And if you force the size, it will look silly on my 60" plasma screen - don't waste your time making a page look "right" on your screen, as it will look totally different on someone else's. Elements side by side, or text sandwiched between images left and right, cause the most problems. - Arjayay (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well thank-you, even though it was not what I wanted to hear. Anyone else able to fix it for my screen? Carptrash (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Carptrash. While that discussion was going on, I moved the template {{Geographic location}} to the place in the article where WP:LAYOUTNAV says it should be: down the bottom, after External Links. I wasn't sure whether to include it into the collapsed set of navigation templates ("Files relating to Glendale") but I decided not to. --ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Page regarding myself

Hello, I want to be able to change my image on a page about me, but receive a message stating I don't have permission. I should be the only person with permission if it is about me? The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Royal. Thank you. Jgroyal44 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OWN and WP:COI: you do not own the page about you and you should not edit any page you have a conflict of interest with. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

COI editing is not strictly prohibited (I've learned about this in the past)....and this person would simply have to meet notability:academics or whatever (a standard I disagree with..I think the should meet the same standards as anyone)...but question about the tag placed on his article just now...part of the point of the academics guidelines is that they are not notable via secondary/third party sources...so most assertions made in the articles would have to come from the horse's mouth anyway (or their grad students etc)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Jgroyal44, (partly) disregard the above as they are not notable via secondary/third party sources is the opposite of Wikipedia policy. The actual policy is at Wikipedia:Notability (academics); there are a set of criteria which if met confer the presumption that an academic is significant enough to warrant coverage on Wikipedia, but you (or any one else) will still need to provide independent sources to demonstrate that the academic meets one or more of the criteria. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

check out the page in the nutshell thing at the top of those guidelines, specifically mentions how they often don't have any secondary/third party sourcing...this is why I don't get articles for academics...but it appears that tag only requires one assertion to be sourced...everything else wouldn't need to be sourced then?? is a link to google scholar publications a source if they qualify via just this?? it's complicated and weird imo..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Jgroyal, I'm sorry that the other editors are having an argument between themselves and not answering your question. As Ian.thomson says, it is not your page, and in general you are discouraged from editing it (see the links he gave). But updating the image is one thing that you are all right to do (unless there is a consensus that the image you introduce is less appropriate to a Wikipedia article than the one that was there before). Using images is a little complicated: you need to get the copyright right, and then you need to upload them before you can use them in an article. In general Wikipedia requires that images used are free for anybody to reuse: either in the public domain, or licensed under a licence such as CC-BY-SA. If the copyright holder (likely to be the photographer, but might be you if you have an agreement with the photographer to that effect) is willing to release it, there is no problem. Either they can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and make the licence declaration as they do it; or they should mail Wikipedia as described at donating copyright materials. They or you can upload the image using the Upload wizard, and can then insert a reference to the image into the article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Jgroyal: Wikipedia's guidelines say that, in an article about a person, we should prefer a picture that shows them looking at the camera. If you can upload a better picture of yourself, as ColinFine has described, then the Jeffrey Royal article can be edited to use it in place of the current one. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Why aren't my sfn references working?

My sfn references on User:Newbiepedian/WIP/Salmon argument show up blank and put the page in the cite errors category. Why? I've followed the instructions on the Template:sfn documentation to the letter.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 19:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it for you—if you're using {{sfn}}, you don't need to include the <ref> syntax as well, as it creates those for you. ‑ Iridescent 19:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 19:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Determine if a topic is noteworthy enough for its own article?

Earlier today I asked a question on WikiProject Alberta on whether or not a topic I had in mind was noteworthy enough for its own article. However, it seems that many of the "active" participants on that project have not made recent edits in the past few months so I'm not sure if I'll even get an answer... for future reference, is there a place where you can ask this question about articles you're thinking about starting in general, regardless of what WikiProject they might fall under? GSMR (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

GSMR, someone's answered there now, seems sound advice. If there is some national coverage it would help, and creating as a draft is always a good idea rather than throwing straight to the wolves Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Why does this url break and how can I fix it?

I'm trying to help a new editor, my post to them includes a url for a Google search, but as you can see it breaks after the first "=" character - https://www.google.com/search?q="Hedy+Habra"&tbm=nws How do I fix it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

remove the quote marks?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hedy+Habra&tbm=nws

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You can also percent-encode them: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hedy+Habra%22&tbm=nws. See Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

July 12

Offer to create a BLP for pay

Dear editors: I would like to report an incident of someone contacting the subject of a declined AfC article by e-mail and offering to improve it, using the same language as in e-mails last year when someone was pretending to be me. I can no longer remember where I was supposed to report this. Any advice?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you to report this to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Ayub407^talk 08:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ayub407; I've done that.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Karen Blixen

The warning template has been removed from this page- there are enough refs. now I think - I added three. Please let me know. Plus, I have "trippled up" with the same ref. Please do what is necessary so that the same ref. Is not "repeated", if you know what I mean. Cheers Srbernadette (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Although you are far from a beginner, you need to read Help:Referencing for beginners, and particularly WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once. You also need to read Template:cite web to remind you about the things you have been told countless times, such as what goes in the |publisher parameter and what goes in the parameter |date, and also read Template:cite book to remind yourself about the parameter |isbn. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer) NEEDS TO BE DELETED

Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer) NEEDS TO BE DELETED

A hater has set this page up about me and needs to be removed immediately.

I am NOT an adult entertainer. I am not a stripper.

I am Lisa Lewis

Who ever set this page up has used tabloid journalism,

An investigation needs to be investigated as into who set this defamatory wikipedia page up about me = Lisa Lewis

There is MANY wrong facts on this wikipedia.

How do we shut it down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Lewis_(adult_entertainer)

Please somebody do something, I am getting to the point where I'd rather see the article deleted rather than spend my days doing damage control instead of working on constructive editing. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzealander838 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Newzealander838: There is already a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you're of course welcome to ask for help here, but you may find it easier just having the one conversation -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

New page patrolling help

While I patrolling, I came across one user who keeps moving articles which are tagged for CSD deletion from mainspace to draft without any discussion. I want to know that is this allowed? Here an article which I tagged for CSD A7 for example. Thanks Ayub407^talk 07:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ayub407, In general, of course, we encourage drafts so articles can be improved. Draft articles are not immune from deletion, however, particularly for spam or copyright, and in this case I felt that the promotional tone an total lack of verifiable notability justified deletion even as a draft Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ayub407, We generally reserve moves to Draft space only for article that have real potential for development and meeting inclusuin criteria. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Tiger Gang is a confused new editor and has been told a number of times not to make such moves. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak & Kudpung, I am aware of that but I became confused after seeing Tiger Gang moving multiple articles nominated for speedy deletion from mainspace to draftspace and I wanted to know what he was doing was right or wrong. The issue was resolved shortly after it was reported at ANI. Ayub407^talk 11:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Karen Blixen

Please help me with my 2 queries as we have listed above. Thanks101.182.141.11 (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No. But I'll tell you what you did wrong with the citation templates so that you can fix it youself:

{{cite web|last1=Wilson|first1=Katharina M.|title=An Encyclopedia of Continental Women Writers, Volume 1|url=https://books.google.com.au/books?id=2Wf1SVbGFg8C&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=out+of+africa++karen+married+1913&source=bl&ots=QWmDyTFCkB&sig=G6GCMoS81VHcyOlAPD51ktvVsrk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihi4Xflu3NAhWCE5QKHe8CC3QQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=out%20of%20africa%20%20karen%20married%201913&f=false|publisher=Taylor & Francis, 1991 (pages 318-320)|accessdate=12 July 2016}}

1. An Encyclopedia of Continental Women Writers is a book so you should use {{cite book}}
2. The volume information, if it is required, belongs in |volume=
3. page numbers belong in |pages=, not in |publisher=
4. |access-date= is not appropriate for book cites
5. the book has a publication date; that goes in |date=

When reusing a citation, the first instance is named and is the definition for later use:

1. first <ref name="Wilson">{{cite book |title=An Encyclopedia ...}}</ref>
2. for every use after that: <ref name="Wilson" />

Go now and fix your citations.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

few questions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

say someone has a 1rr restriction..A. how is this imposed? can any admin just impose it somehow or is there some formal place/process for imposing such? B. does the WP software/code prevent the person from editing beyond 1rr or is the person just watched for this? C. if they are just watched how do people know they have this restriction?

Also, could there be more unique restrictions placed on someone..like only allowed to edit talk pages in article space? and how would this be imposed/maintained?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A. There are multiple ways it could be imposed. It could be the result of a discusison at WP:ANI, the result of an WP:ARBCOM case, or as arbitration enforcement. This isn't normally imposed by a single administrator. A 1rr can be applied to an editor or to an article or even a subject area.

B. No, the software does not do this, someone has to know there is the restriction and monitor the situation.

C. It depends on the exact restriction. If it is on an article, then it is usually annotated on the talk page. If it is on an editor, then it will be annotated on their talk page what the restriction entails.

Also. There are other types of restrictions where someone is restricted from editing an article but can edit the article talk page. Someone can be topic banned from an article or a subject area, this may include no discussion of that topic anywhere. Other editors just monitor the situation and raise concerns at ANI or with an administrator. -- GB fan 12:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no software preventing or watching for breaches of restrictions. Editing has to be watched manually. Admins have broad latitude to impose any form of restriction necessary (within reason) for topics arbcom has placed under discretionary sanctions. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions. Admins can also sanction disruptive editors editing articles under general sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

okay, and if a person has a 1rr or uniquely designed restriction this is noted on their talk page in a way they can't erase?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not placed there in a way they can't erase. -- GB fan 12:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

that's probably a deficiency in the system, no?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You have to understand that every single page on Wikipedia is a "wiki page" - that is, editable in any way. There have been attempts to introduce more structured editing via software to certain subsets of pages - all have spectacularly failed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

but if an editor has a current restriction shouldn't that at least be permenately noted on their talk page/contribution page...so people 'know' it exists..??68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, the editors involved in getting the restriction imposed and/or editing in the same area will know the restriction exists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

looking at my final post in this ANI thread...is my suggestion possible/practical?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting_user_Vvven.27s_disruptive_editing68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would need community consensus however. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

is it correct then that an admin can't unilaterally take that step of imposing the unique restriction (which is less harsh than being blocked) but can unilaterally block someone (for disruptive editing, for example)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The community has allowed admins to block for disruptive editing, vandalism, etc. It has allowed admins to place restrictions on editors editing in certain areas. It has not allowed "do whatever you think best" across the project. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think ideally in the case above ad admin could unilaterally impose the restriction (as the case is pretty obvious) and place a permenant note about it...this could then be challenged and overturned by consensus...currently they can just block the person for disruptive editing and then that can only be overturned by another admin (so consensus doesn't really apply)..is this correct?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of what you say is incorrect - unilaterally imposing, permanent note, blocks only being overturned by another admin... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm stating that ideally they should be able to unilaterally impose/place perm note, but they can't...they can only unilataterally block for "disruptive editing" and then the person can only appeal to another admin (so there's no consensus process for that)..In any event, this is probably getting beyond the scope of this desk and I think my questions have been answered...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just realised who this IP is. I believe all of the above is regarding the fact that I took away his talkpage access last month in an effort to prevent him digging himself an even deeper hole than he was already in, and a (vain) attempt to find a policy I violated in so doing. ‑ Iridescent 14:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

why would you believe that? It's obviously rooted in my suggestion regarding that ANI thread I linked to? how could this possibly be construed to have anything to do with you? don't be so self-centered and try to assume good faith..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Karen Blixen

I am not able to fix up this page. I will ask my students to do it for me. I am sorry to be a bother to both David biddulph and also Trappist the monk. Please see their responses above. Sorry again. 101.182.141.11 (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(Changed to capital B in Blixen to fix the link.) RJFJR (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

editor refuses to go to to dispute resolution

What to do when an editor refuses to go to dispute resolution over an edit and writes he will no longer discuss the issue? The dispute involves this editor on one side, with another editor and myself on the other side. Formulairis990 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest you to report this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard if there's a dispute over an edit. Volunteers there will help you to sort things out. Be sure to give every details about what dispute you're facing. Ayub407^talk 15:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try this as the next step.Formulairis990 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The editor has explained why he doesn't want to go to dispute resolution at this time. He only said he would stop contributing to the conversation if you don't address his points and continue discussing him. Stop talking about editors/bringing up block logs and discuss the content. -- GB fan 15:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

the OP is dealing with a very aggressive editor, I assure you...so it's a little understandable that he began looking into him a bit...but, yes, try to keep it substantive...I just weighed-in over there at the talk and asked a question...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

To GB fan, the question was a to the point procedural question, instead you answered with your opinion on a misrepresentation of my behavior; not unlike the editor in question. If you read the very lengthy discussion starting where I came in [1] and at the very top with the original editor [2] you will see that editor immediately responds with personal attacks, and in my case also brings up my past edits on other articles, and continuously focuses on me. After several responses, and prodded by a particularly egregious response by him to my asking him to explain his apparent double standard, I brought up his repeated blocks history which describe the very behavior he appears to be engaged in. To call attention to an editor's current behavior by pointing out his past blocks for the same behavior seems warranted. His repeated blocks do show he has fans that excuse his behavior because they find him entertaining.Formulairis990 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

consider doing a RfC and clearly and concisely explain the issue in the RfC...and, yes, that editor is often abrasive and profane and proud of it..but he's only one editor and ultimately only has one 'vote' as far as consensus in regards to article content...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting this. But the system is surely broken if this is the only remedy.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

if you've got two editors at a standstill you have to find a way to get more editors to come to reach some kind of consensus; that is the system..as far as the content dispute, I probably agree with you but would have to look at it a little closer first..i'll perhaps continue to participate at that talk page...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate your input, and the question you asked made a good point. My concern is that this will appear as canvasing.Formulairis990 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

no, it can't...you haven't sought anybody out here with an expectation they would side with you in the content dispute over there...I just decided to go check it out on my own initiative after seeing this post, which I'm perfectly free to do...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussing other editors is never OK in a content discussion. Discuss the content not the editors. Trying to insert discussion about an editor into a conversation about content will always derail that conversation. It doesn't matter if he did it first. I tried to explain how you might get the conversation back on track and work towards a resolution of the problem. Dispute resolution is not a mandatory process and he does not need to go there if he doesn't want to nor does he need to engage in a discussion if he doesn't want to. No one can force him to do either. -- GB fan 17:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with User:GB fan not to discuss another editor. The only time to "discuss another editor" is if all else has failed and it is necessary to report the abusive editor to WP:ANI. In fact, in mediated dispute resolution at DRN, if an editor tries to "discuss another editor" rather than discussing content, the volunteer moderator is likely to collapse the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have modified my comment above. I was specifically talking about content discussion and have added that to my post above. -- GB fan 18:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement. You can't discuss content and conduct in the same discussion. By "discussing the other editor" in a content dispute, you sink to the other editor's level (if you weren't already down there). Only discuss the other editor if all else fails, and it is better to try to discuss content than to discuss conduct. GB Fan and I are in agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

GB fan, for whatever reason you took the position that the user's refusal to go to dispute resolution were honest, and your comments falsely claimed that I refused to discuss his points, and that my mere mention of the user's history of blocks was the cause of the user's approach and refusal to continue, when in fact from the start the user has refused to have a simple honest discussion and the user's constant antics appear aimed at ever keeping the discussion from remaining on track. The observations from the other commentators here about his profane and abusive style which the user takes pride in, suggest what I've described.

And note, I haven't brought up the user's style here, and in my talk with the user I only referred to it by telling him to focus on the discussion and not on attacking his projection of me.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Formulairis990, I guess we will need to agree to disagree. I said nothing about you and did not say you were the cause of this. You asked what to do, I tried to explain a way forward, discuss the content not the editor. You were discussing the content but you were also discussing the editor. -- GB fan 20:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Comments

There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion about dispute resolution, if this is about the discussion at Talk:Harvard University. I first suggest that all editors re-read the dispute resolution policy. Ayub407 is right in saying that the dispute resolution noticeboard has volunteers who will help to discuss a content issue. However, I wouldn't use the phrase to "report" a conflict there, but to "request assistance", because mediation (and DRN is a form of lightweight mediation) is voluntary. Other methods of dealing with a content dispute are third opinion, for disputes between two editors only, which is also voluntary and even lighter-weight; formal mediation, which is also voluntary but is more formal and may take longer; and Request for Comments, which is binding and is the only content forum available if an editor refuses to discuss. None of Third Opinion, DRN, or RFM are arbitration; DRN and RFM are mediation. There are also a variety of specialized noticeboards listed in the dispute resolution policy, such as WP:RSN, WP:BLPN, WP:COIN. They have varying degrees of voluntary or binding nature, but are only for particular types of disputes. RFC is the most feasible content forum if a single editor refuses to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been mentioned that a particular editor is abrasive and profane. That can either be dealt with as a content issue, by ignoring the profanity and discussing content, or as a conduct issue, incivility. Conduct can be reported to WP:ANI. I would recommend using ANI only as a last report; it often generates more heat than light. It can impose sanctions on an abusive editor. If other editors can ignore the profanity and deal with the content, that is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the above descriptions and comments. Though at no point did I ever threaten WP:ANI, except by mistake when I meant WP:DR.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Uploading an image

I have an image that I need to add to the Lynda Resnick wikipedia page, the image that is being used now is low quality. The image is owned by the Wonderful Company and i am making the edit on the behalf of the company. The image appears in a Google search because as the owner of the image we have used it along with various other newspaper articles and releases. Please let me know what I need to do to get this image replaced on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynda_Resnick

thanks Wonderful2016 Wonderful2016 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wonderful2016: Your company and the photographer will need to release the image under a free license, see commons:Commons:Email templates.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wonderful2016: Also note that you are discouraged from making substantial edits to pages where you have a conflict of interest, and as your conflict of interest is financial, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose it. Additionally, your current username is against our username policy as it is promotional and implies shared use. This being said, updating an image on a page is usually acceptable, and as long as it is released under a sufficiently free license (CC-BY-SA is the usual one) I would be surprised if there was opposition to addition of a good image. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 17:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References for the same material on two separate pages

If the same information is being mentioned on two different pages, do we use different references to justify the material on both pages or do we use the same reference on both pages? Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. There is no straightforward answer to this. The requirement is that information in an article is verified by a reliable source. There is no requirement that the same source is used in different places, if they agree. Perhaps both sources should be cited, if they are independent of each other. --ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

July 13

Lady Susan

Ref. number 1 - I have done as a book - but I have failed. Please fix and leave in quote. Srbernadette (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Srbernadette: Consider using the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books, which will automatically fill in all the required fields for you and help you avoid such mistakes. - NQ (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles based on a fallacious premise - relevant policies?

Hi, I nominated the article Irregular chess opening for deletion because (1) I believe it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK containing material already covered by List of chess openings and (2) I believe the entire basis for the article is fallacious.

By way of explanation, in chess openings classified as ECO code "A00" are often described as "irregular", however not all openings described as "irregular" are classified as ECO code "A00". Don't worry about the precise meaning of these terms unless you're really interested in chess, the point is that "all A are B" does not imply that "all B are A", this is affirming the consequent. The opening sentence of the article "Irregular openings or uncommon openings are chess openings that are categorized under the ECO code A00." is a clear example of this.

I seem to be having difficult getting this point across at the deletion discussion (maybe I'm just not good at explaining things), but I'm wondering if there is a relevant policy that can be cited? Any policy concerning articles based on a false premise? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• The !voters at an Afd would not necessarily focus on the contents of the article, but rather at the notability worthiness of the article title. By arguing on the article contents primarily, you would not be able to convince the Afd regulars. The Afd is a lost cause as of right now; I would !vote keep, for information, because of the article title and the references supporting the same. The appropriate method for you would have been to directly raise a proposal to merge the article rather than taking it to Afd. Let the Afd go through. Subsequently, after the Afd has closed, on the talk page of this contested article, raise a proposal to merge (keeping the redirect) the contents of the said page into the existing page that you quote. You'll get a better response then. While merging, you can delete OR while ensuring referenced details are not missed out. Lourdes 03:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Barrister

Ref 21 may not be correctly done. Please check - it is from a "free dictionary". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 04:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Srbernadette: It was almost good. I just corrected a minor point: the website's title goes in the "website" field, not "publisher". ("title" is for the specific page on the website).

Also, please remember to sign you posts by typing four tildes (like this: ~~~~) at the end of them.Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

I am sorry, but ref 17 on this page is OK but a new edit has seen ref/citation number 18 vanish. I have done something wrong when copying and pasting. I am sorry. I will not be able to do this by myself. Please help. Please fix and leave in the quote. Thanks so much 123.2.36.6 (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read Help:Referencing for beginners, though I suspect that you are not a beginner. This tells you some of the basics, such as the fact that a reference starts with the tag <ref>. If you honestly feel that you are not capable of editing Wikipedia competently, nor of learning the basics when you are repeatedly advised by numerous users, then please leave it to those who can. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Laura Bingham Page

There appears to be errors on Laura Bingham's Wikipedia page which I am trying to sort but I don't understand the problems?

Please can you advise on what is wrong with the page and how this can be fixed?

37.77.179.15 (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have changed what you unsuccessfully formatted as a reference in your question to a wikilink, and removed the stray reference tags. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If you mean the problems identified in the box at the top of the article, the words in blue are wikilinks, leading you to specific advice in each case. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

A message to David Biddulph

Please help.

The editor called "maproom" also failed to fix up the bad edit on the page Family of Catherin, Duchess of Cambridge" please Fix up the accent sign after citation number 17, it is all wrong. There are accents that should not be there. It looks like a quote that should be in citation number 18 which has vanished - section is there too, when it shouldn't be. Please fix. Maproom and I cannot do it. also, I hope my new citation on the Barrister page is acceptable. I get very nervous about getting it all wrong. Thanks again— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 09:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Did this fix the problem that you saw on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 11:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest to User:Crh23 that a citation ought to be surrounded by ref tags, as reinstated in this edit; all that was previously missing was the < of the opening <ref> tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, that's what was up. I was confused as I don't often see quotes in citations (mainly reading technical articles), and was using visual editor, cheers. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 11:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just being stupid, ignore me. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 11:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge - one tiny thing more please

I see now that the quote in citation number 17 on this page is not needed -the quote is certainly needed in citation number 18. Please remove the quote from citation number 17 - but do not remove the citation itself. Thanks so much. I cannot do this as I will stuff it up. I need to go to bed now.101.182.141.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions for further requests for help with editing and references. - NQ (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

NQ, this IP is a long-term user who frequently forgets to sign in before posting (See the previous section here). The Teahouse is designed as a friendly place for new users to seek advice. SrBernadette's problems are better addressed here. Rojomoke (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of who they are. I feel they have exhausted everyones patience here at the help desk (judging by the latest revert) and perhaps the friendly people over at the Teahouse might be more inclined to help. - NQ (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps some friendly encouragement that we are happy to help clean up a citation or two, but at some point it is time for the editor to learn how to do it (or find a different hobby).--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Cyrus Warner

Arthur Cyrus Warner ( February 14,1918-July 22,2007) was arguably the most significant figure in Mattachine East before Frank Kaminy upstaged him in 1967 with "Gay is Good". With an AB from Princeton and a law degree from Harvard as well as PhD from Princeton. He fought for decades to remove the sodomy laws. Unlike Frank Arthur kept his Jewishness secret until shortly before his death. Unlike Frank Arthur hid his life under a bushal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C703:81D0:D180:6B48:DCC8:AE00 (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The Mattachine Society has an article as do the following of its members: Hal Call, Rudi Gernreich, James Gruber, Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, Frank Kameny, Jack Nichols (taken from the list at Template:Early U.S. gay rights movement. So notable members of the Mattachine Society certainly would be appropriate for articles. I would suggest that the LGBT Wiki Project might be the place to look for others who might have suggestions on getting referenced information to establish the notability of individual members.Naraht (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"Official" fan site

Hello. I recently added an official fan site for an old and influential TV show to the 'External links' section of The Wallace and Ladmo Show. The site is maintained by folks associated with the original show and is considered to be the most authoritative source for historical information about the subject. It contains no advertisements and bills itself as "the official website for the Wallace and Ladmo Show". My addition was reverted with comment: removed fansite. Would it be okay to undo the revert? I am not affiliated with either the site or the show and am seeking a third party opinion and/or policy clarification. (Site:[3]) --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A073:98E5:BA6B:E905 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Don't undo it. Take the discussion to the talk page of the article and follow consensus (with the non-inclusion of the fan site being the stable state, not vice versa). Lourdes 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion should be on the Talk page, as Lourdes says. But I will point out that WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, no 11, says "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority.". --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added sources to my deleted/unposted page and I've personally deleted info that cannot be sourced. How can I make this page live?

Hello, Today I sent several links to verify my professional sources. I began over a month or more ago, but had very bad family health issues, so I forgot to follow up. I looked today and saw that the info was still there but deleted/not posted. I want to know if my today's links are sufficient to verify my professional history. My page is titled Drew GeraciDrew Geraci (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Best, Drew Geraci

Hello, Drew. What you've created is a user page; those do not "go live" in the sense that they become part of the mainspace. They are optional and intended to provide other editors some basic background about you, your interests, what sort of articles you've been editing, etc. I am sure there will be additional replies, below. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A073:98E5:BA6B:E905 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mr. Geraci, while the links you've given are not enough to develop your biography, I've done some preliminary research on you and am wondering why you did not have an article here till date. I'll churn something up next week and work it up over time. Check here in around ten days or so. Thanks. Lourdes 16:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

False copyright claim

Someone claimed that 1995 elections South Korea directly copied Encyclopedia Britannica while it had been worded completely differently. How would I make an appeal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewvader1009 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Drewvader1009. It's not a matter of an appeal: you should discuss the matter with Diannaa on the article's talk page. It looks as if DGG might be in agreement with you, so I've pinged that user as well. If you can't agree, Copyright problems might be a place to go. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drewvader1009: DGG declined to delete the article on copyright grounds, but I thought there was enough of an overlap that the content shouldn't be here as first posted, so I paraphrased it. I will send you a comparison of the two via email if you like. You will have to activate your Wikipedia email if you want me to do this. — Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a good idea to be safe, so I endorse Diannaa's rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of "Flourished"

Someone just alerted me to the fact that on the "Kors" disambiguation page that distinguishes me (Alan Charles Kors) from Michael Kors, I am indentified as having "fl." [flourished] in the 1990s. Since I have published four books (two this year) since then, co-founded and led a major non-profit, and won national awards, I do not think of myself as having "fl." over 20 years ago and not since, in the minor sense of "flourished," let alone not today. Can someone help?

<https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/190-9697558-6452846?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Alan+Charles+Kors%22> <http://www.history.upenn.edu/people/faculty/alan-charles-kors>

98.115.14.78 (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Alan Charles Kors

See Floruit—it doesn't mean "this is when you were active", it means "we don't have a source for your birthdate and this is the earliest time we can find sources to prove you were around". ‑ Iridescent 18:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Professor Kors, I've replaced it with "Alan Charles Kors (born 1943)" - NQ (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

KLRD (KLoRD) or Shepherd Communications page gone

There used to be a page on this radio station/broadcast company that I worked for that was a pioneer in contemporary Christian format music. But now I can only find reference to the call letters as they are now owned by EMF. Were these pages deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.13.122 (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@64.132.13.122: Is KLRD or Air 1 the page you're looking for? CaptRik (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirect and/or name change?

Resolved

 – 19:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a redirect for Simeon Charles Lee → S. Charles Lee -- or, perhaps an article name change, with back-redirect? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A073:98E5:BA6B:E905 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirect created. -- GB fan 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A073:98E5:BA6B:E905 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to create a page for info on the book I've written.....

Hello,

I'd like to create

a) a page for myself (Dan Santoro) as an author and be able to link/be linked to

b) a page for Where the Boys (and Girls) Were!Bold text

How do I get started?

thanks! dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbydan23 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If I may, I'd suggest reading over WP:AUTO and WP:COI first. Wikipedia really frowns upon autobiographies and promotional/self-referencing articles where there is a clear conflict of interest. Also, I'd recommend reading WP:NBOOK as well for what would give your book notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Going through the articles for creation process is often the easiest way to write an article about which you have a conflict of interest. This way, experienced volunteers will review the submission and hopefully offer assistance. Or, if you can provide links to coverage from professional journalists, such as book reviews at The New York Times or The Guardian, someone will likely create the articles for you. Wikipedia has grown pretty bureaucratic and complex, so you might be interested in looking at this very brief explanation of our inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

July 14

saving articles

please remind me how to save a wiki article to retrieve later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:835F:D040:85DD:A46F:EE53:FD64 (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There's not really a set way to save an article "for later". If you'd like to save an edit that you have made however, you can click the "Save page" button on the bottom left of your screen. eurodyne (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you wanting to export pages ? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:CC99:600D:3E4:4B4C (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

To retrieve past edited versions of any article, click on the "View history" tab that you would see on top of the article page. Help:Page history will give you considerable inputs on the same. Lourdes 12:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RabihChafi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Resolved

(By MarchJuly). Eagleash (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Article topic question

there's currently a talk discussion which is all confusing at Harvard University article about including info about sexual assault issues there...Question: could a stand-alone article be created "Sexual Assault Issues at Harvard University" (bad title/but along these lines)...?? the topic is certainly notable and hugely sourceable...or is it frowned upon to create articles on just any topic no matter how notable/sourceable it is??68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)