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

July 22

The Three Stooges

In the movie credits you left out they had a cameo role in the western North To Alaska with John Wayne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.47.40 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, fellow editor! I see that we have an article about John Wayne's movie North to Alaska to refer to. According to that article, filming began in May 1960, and the movie was released to theaters the following November. Based on that timing, it seems any mention of this in our article about The Three Stooges would need to be placed in the section entitled "The comeback: Moe, Larry and Curly Joe". Before being added to the article, though, you will need to find a third-party reliable source to document that the Stooges did in fact have a cameo in North to Alaska. Once you do, you will be able to add this information, along with a citation to the reliable source so that other editors who may wish to verify the claim will be able to do so. Alternatively, you can visit the talk page for the Three Stooges article—which you can find here: [Talk:The Three Stooges]—and create a new section at the bottom of that page, much like you did here. Talk about the John Wayne movie, the cameo, and the reliable source you have to document the cameo, and ask for help in integrating this into the article. (And don't forget to "sign" your comment by typing four "tilde" characters at the end, like this: ~~~~ ) I'm sure someone who watches that page will help you, but if you don't get a response within a couple of days, feel free to ping us here at the Help desk. Happy editing! Cheers, — Jaydiem (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Live Chat No Help With This Question

Hi. I tried to get on to live chat for over two hours and no one gave me a response. Perhaps this will be better. Regarding the following page - Liam Burrows - You'll notice on the page the second image is the album cover. For some reason, no matter what I do, this coding still shows up - [[File: |frameless|upright=1|alt=|]] - I would like that coding to disappear. What do I do, or can you help, please? I would really like to get this resolved. Sincerely, The Brain Coach. The Brain Coach (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed - because it's in the infobox template, you don't need the square brackets or the File prefix. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And further fixed in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

An article that is not an article it is actually an avertisement

The article Orthotropics® is not actually an article it is an ad prteneding to be an article , not meet wikipedias guidelines, could you please nominate it for the articles for deletion (afd), thank you ,83.78.25.182 (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, I've sent the article to AfD. Sam Walton (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why bother with AfD? Looks like a clear G11 speedy to me, and so tagged.--ukexpat (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Change Redirect to BLP Stub

In P versus NP problem, an unsolved problem in mathematics and computer science, there is a mention that Vinay Deolilakar published a supposed proof, and that his proof is not widely accepted. There is a redirect from his name to P versus NP problem. I have written a short BLP, containing what information I could obtain from reliable sources, in User:Robert McClenon/Vinay Deolilakar. I tried to move it to replace the redirect, but of course the redirect prevents me from moving it. I tried using the Requested Move template, and found it to be confusing. Is there a simple explanation for the Requested Move template, or some less confusing way to replace a redirect with a short article? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Go to the article, it will redirect you. At the page you are redirected to look at the top left for a blue link saying it was redirected. Click that link. You will go to the page you were redirected from (and it won't redirect you again because that link has a special code that means don't follow redirects.) Edit it as normal. That is the easiest way to handle this. RJFJR (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean to overwrite the redirect with the article? I thought that overwrite was discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving by copy and paste causes attribution problems but in the case of a draft from userspace it makes no difference since the author who created the draft is the same as the author who copied it across. Preserving the previous redirect in the history is also not a problem. Pasting your draft over a redirect is fine and normal, or rather it would be if there was not the inexplicable incident of user:Tchaliburton prematurely moving it into mainspace in order to prod it. I'll ask them what that was about shortly, but in the meantime I have moved the article for you in order to preserve the history of Tchaliburton's action. SpinningSpark 15:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. If this situation comes up in the future, you can place a {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}} template on the redirect page, and a helpful admin will come along and do whatever is appropriate, as Spinningspark did here. While copy-pasting your own text from one page to another doesn't cause attribution problems, it may cause other minor complications such as the need for deletion of the extra copy, loss of the edit summaries, and distortion of the edit history, making it appear that the text was all composed in one edit. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archived but archives disappeared

Another editor has asked me a question I don't know the answer to so I hope someone can help them here. Yesterday the talk page for the article Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia had old discussions archived [1] but there is no link to the archive on the page. MICHAVP has asked me where they went, I can see that there was a new page created [2] but have no idea why the talk page doesn't show it or why it says "Archive 20" when it is the only one. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone set the counter to 20, which caused it to start at archive 20. I'm also working on fixing the display issue. Monty₈₄₅ 15:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok should be fully resolved, I fixed the counter, and moved archive 20 to archive 1, which now appears in the talk page header. Let me know if there are any lingering issues. Monty₈₄₅ 15:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!Smeat75 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

sa.wikipedia.org problem

Hi ! I want to share some problems with you, because you are connected with sa.wikipedia.org. Our admin is neglecting us. Admin is not involving us in policy making process and when we are propose some requests, then also he don't even reply us. I and many other users of sa.wikipedia.org are felt helpless against our Admin. Please guide us in this problem. if you will not take it seriously, then in future it may be a big problem of sa.wikipedia.org.NehalDaveND (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(For the benefit of readers, sa.wikipedia.org is the Sanskrit-language Wikipedia)

Sorry, but this is the help page for the English-language Wikipedia. Wikipedia's for each language are autonomous, and we have no control over sa.wikipedia.org. If the problem cannot be dealt with internally, your best option may be to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There are very few administrators on sa.wp and only two or three of them have edited recently. Nevertheless, you may still be able to take the issue to another administrator or bureauocrat to deal with the issue locally. In an emergency meta:Stewards can act as administrators or bureaucrats on any Wikimedia wiki. However, you will probably need to convincingly demonstrate that there is community consensus for some action (for instance, by pointing to a community discussion) that cannot be achieved locally for whatever reason. SpinningSpark 16:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

archiving... sorta...

I wanted to copy a discussion that took place between another editor and myself to the relevant talk page. this edit mostly did what I wanted, but the language seems kinda.... imperative. What is a better way to do this? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could use {{divbox}} which allows you to set your own headings and colours. SpinningSpark 16:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

unfortunately, this template does not seem to like signatures and/or indenting. [3] 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you did in that edit, but whatever it was, it wasn't using the divbox template. SpinningSpark 21:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It works fine in my sandbox. The only problem I had with indenting is if the very first line is indented, but the first line of a talk page thread is not usually indented. SpinningSpark 21:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I copied your sandbox markup, and that worked. I'm feeling a little less educated than I'd hope regarding what I did wrong, but reading the divbox instructions further, I think it has something to do with unnamed parameters. Thanks for the assistance! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating an article page for my company

Hello,

I would like to know how can I create an article page for my company. Global Accounting Group, Corp.

It will have some basic subjects as who we are, what we do, mission and vision. www.globalaccountinggroup.com

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Global313 (talk • contribs) 16:45 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Global313: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We generally prohibit editors from creating articles about themselves or for a company they work for, as they have a high conflict of interest in the subject. As well, we prohibit usernames from being of the name of a company, as it implies shared usage, and on Wikipedia accounts belong to one person, and one person only. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't - this is an encyclopaedia, not a provider of free advertising space, and your company clearly doesn't even remotely meet the Wikipedia notability criteria to justify an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Arts Alliance Media

What has happened at Arts Alliance Media? It has no history before today, but includes tags dated April, which today's creator is complaining of at the talk page: Noyster (talk), 17:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Noyster: The article has now been deleted. I don't know what was up before. Piguy101 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It was created with {{Multiple issues|{{advert|date=April 2014}}{{notability|Companies|date=April 2014}}}} at the top and better infobox code and other formatting than we usually see from one hour old accounts, so the creator probably started with code copied from another article, and then thought Wikipedia had added the box. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. I have seen new editors create a articles with CSD tags in the article. Then, they contest their own deletion! Piguy101 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

struggling to upload photos

I am really struggling to upload photos. Could I please have some help?

@Ravi Sharma (Sonu): To upload photos, you need to be an autoconfirmed user. This means that you must have at least 10 edits and your account must be 4 days old. Then, try using the File Upload Wizard Piguy101 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that if you upload the image to Wikimedia Commons (which you should prefer anyway, as it will allow the images to be used in all Wikipedias, not just this English-language one), there is no ten-edit restriction. Maproom (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the border line between a new photo and a minor change to an existing one?

I was asked a question that I cannot answer. original question here

If an editor removes a watermark, does that constitute a new version of the same image and thus be uploaded over the old version, or should it be considered a new photo? I was tempted to say it is OK, but I recently saw a discussion in which an editor stated that tweaking the colors in a photo contributed a new photo and should not be uploaded over an old one, but uploaded as a new photo. I suspect there is guidance, but I'm not finding it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If an image has a watermark, or an erased watermark, I would assume that the watermark was put there to help protect someone's copyright, and the image should not have been uploaded anyway. Maproom (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

From looking at the source of the question, it looks like the copyright status was already discussed, so I presume that got acceptably sorted out. Monty₈₄₅ 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked briefly, and couldn't find any relevant policies, guidelines. My opinion is that in this case, uploading over the old image is the correct decision. We really don't like watermarked images, and if that is the only change, there is no circumstance where we would want to use the old version instead of the new in an article, or for pretty much any other purpose that wouldn't be served by the history of the image file. Monty₈₄₅ 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Watermarked images are not permitted on Wikipedia per WP:WATERMARK except in very limited circumstances. If the copyright owner wishes to supply a new version without the watermark then not only is it fine to overwrite the existing image, that is kind of required by policy (or else the original has to be deleted which pretty much amounts to the same result). What we should never be doing is removing the watermark ourselves, but I as I understand it in this case the work was done on behalf of the copyright owner. SpinningSpark 23:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point that we would normally be concerned about an editor removing a watermark from an image. As noted, in this particular case, the owner had provided a license for the image. However, I'm slightly concerned about the possibility that the permission was granted under the assumption that it would work as advertising, and the decision might be different if she knew only the excluding watermark image can be used. I'm out of town the next couple days and can't do much but I think it would be wise if the editor confirmed with the copyrightholder that removing the watermark wouldn't change the decision.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have doubts I suggest that you contact the OTRS team and ask if they are satisfied with the permissions provided. If they are, it really does not matter what the motivations of the copyright owner are, provided of course that someone has not been making misrepresentations to them in order to get the permission under false pretences. SpinningSpark 14:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Building a sentence from two or more references in a biography

I feel like I'm asking a question I already know the answer to, but I'm involved in an edit discussion/conflict in Talk:Mitch McConnell. To break it down to its basic essence, there's a sentence talking about McConnell's association with a person (linked) and what they were doing together (referenced). However, that reference didn't give a basic description of that person. But other references do provide a basic description for that person. So, I was thinking that one could give a short (objective, despite what the other party accuses) description of the person associating with McConnell and if especially contentious, apply citations that already back up the basic description in that associate's article. Essentially, this is building referenced content from two or more sources. Is there an issue herein that I'm missing? Is it really reasonable (per the other party) that for a reader to find out anything about this associate, they have to click a link? I have long thought we could build verifiable content (even one sentence) from multiple sources from since I started editing over 10 years ago. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I fully understand that there can be no synthesizing of material between two references (re WP:OR), but that wasn't my aim. My aim was simply to describe the associate, followed by what that associate and McConnell were doing together. Two separate sets of facts in one sentence. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Are there two people disagreeing, or more than two? If two, I suggest getting a third opinion. If more than two, then you might use a Request for Comments if talk page discussion does not establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of these processes, thanks. I'm not seeking any form of conflict resolution at this moment. What I'm seeking is a general clarification of guidelines with respect to this matter, which I hopefully phrased in a generic manner. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I'm not in any rush here. The content as it stands in this case isn't that unreasonable. Until I have a better understanding of the guidelines as they relate to this, I don't really want to go any further. I'll wait months if I need to.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Context matters, but it is likely to be inappropriate.

• [John Smith], a haberdasher (source identifying smith as a haberdasher), met Jane Doe at a racetrack (source talking about the meeting of Smith and Doe at a racetrack). Smith being a haberdasher is completely irrel and anyone who doesnt know can find out by clicking the Smith link.
• [John Smith], a haberdasher (source identifying smith as a haberdasher), met MP Jane Doe at a racetrack while the Parliament was discussing hat related legislation.(source talking about the meeting of Smith and Doe at a racetrack while the legislation was pending) . Clearly the inclusion of the haberdasher vocation is clearly meant to emphasize something illicit about the meeting and is inapprpriate under WP:SYN and WP:NPOV.

I cannot think of a situation where such attribution would be relevant without it being SYN/NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

well maybe

• [John Smith] , a haberdasher (source identifying smith as a haberdasher), says that Jane Doe is singlehandedly responsible for bringing hats back into fashion (source that says Smith says Doe is responsible for new Hat trend) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In looking at the McConnell article, I ha]]ve two comments. First, there is a slow-motion edit war over whether to characterize Wilbur Ross as a billionaire investor in coal. Don't edit war. Second, the characterization of Ross as a coal billionaire is not necessary because he is blue-linked. The only fact about Ross that is directly relevant in the McConnell article is the fund-raiser. I suggest that the description of Ross's business interests be left out of the McConnell article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

and the fact that the chosen sobriquet under question is "coal billionaire" rather than, oh, "American industrialist" also says a lot about how much "no SYN" is actually going on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, the statement about Ross lacks context. Why is the fact that Ross hosted a fundraiser for McConnell notable? If there's some allegation of wrong-doing, then it's notable - find a source that attests to that fact. If there's no allegations of wrong-doing, it's non-notable trivia.

The original question, whether this is SYNTH, is beside the point. If there were notable claims of wrongdoing here (notable being the key criterion) then sure, explaining who this person is might be acceptable per the idea of providing useful context for readers. In this case, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that the connection to Ross is notable. Explaining who he is, and letting readers "draw their own conclusions" is problematic, since it creates a new implication ("there's something fishy here") that isn't is either source. Guettarda (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The construction "coal billionaire" is arguably messy and that's not what I was personally trying to add. I added an objective description that was backed up by references in the Wilbur Ross article ("a billionaire investor in steel, coal and other industries"). Perhaps that could be worded better but it is referenced fact. Anyway, the context for the whole statement is the heading "Fundraising" which falls under "Tenure". So the article is talking about notable fundraising under his tenure. Perhaps its notability can be questioned but that's not the matter I have brought here. Also, I find Robert McClenon's position to be both inaccurate (there's no "edit war") and out of order as this is not a conflict resolution matter. This is only a help matter. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD's initial response speaks to my question here. I was thinking this way, that adding the blurb about Ross was about backing up the notability of the whole statement, in that this fundraiser was notable because of who Ross is. I also can see how this blurb can suggest something illicit, although that seems rather tenuous. Is it suggesting something illicit to say someone is a billionaire, or an investor, or an investor in a set of industries? Or simply descriptive? Does it violate any guideline to describe a person with the intent of establishing notability for a statement? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, I appreciate the answers to my query so far, and I hope nobody is holding back more because of accusations (including the artful, opinionated essay below). I am genuinely trying to understand nuances of writing Wikipedia that I didn't understand before. While it is possible that I could use such information to bolster an argument, it could equally make me reconsider my position in the related disagreement. I would hope that people would consider my long, constructive, mostly uneventful presence here (well over 10 years) and realize that I have no interest in anything except knowing what is expected in Wikipedia articles. That's what I thought the Help desk was for -- to clarify how to use and edit in the Wikipedia, and that's how I have been using it. I have not asked anyone here to take sides in a dispute. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetical Question

It is common for edit warriors, POV warriors, and other editors with conflicts to come to the Help Desk or the policy talk pages and pose hypothetical questions about situations that are not really hypothetical, but have to do with actual issues. The regulars at the policy talk pages and the help desk usually avoid answering the hypothetical questions and look at the actual case. You say that my answer was both incorrect and out of order, because this was not a conflict issue but only a "help" matter. No. If anything was out of order, it was your attempt to ask an abstract question. It is very common, as I said, for someone to ask an abstract question, and, too often, the objective is to get a wikilawyered answer that they will then use in defending their possibly biased edit. You said that there is no edit war. There was a slow-motion edit war. Read Edit Warring. If content is added and reverted twice, that is a slow-motion edit war. It is disingenuous to claim that you came here only for a "help" matter. You are one of three editors engaged in a content dispute as to whether to add the characterization. If you wanted us to give you abstract assurance that adding the characterization was all right, then you don't understand that Wikipedia looks at specific articles, not at abstract questions as ways to lock changes into articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your active imagination and your ginning up a conflict way more than it actually is. But really, you should WP:AGF and see that I'm here for the reason that I stated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Further, I encourage everyone to look at the edit history of Mitch McConnell to see that in this so-called "edit war", there were actually no reverts by me. Not even a partial revert. Fancy, huh? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that you asked a good-faith question. This was a content dispute, and content disputes are almost always in good faith. However, when a good-faith abstract question is asked at this Help Desk or at the policy talk pages, the regulars usually look at the specific circumstances, because often the OP, while asking the question in good faith, is looking for an abstract agreement, which could be used to do good-faith wikilawyering (and much wikilawyering is in good faith, just not the Wikipedia way). Because there are very few hard-line rules that can be stated abstractly and described abstractly, the regulars at the Help Desk and the policy pages don't give abstract answers, but specific ones. In the specific case, you did a partial revert, by adding back part of a characterization of Ross. It is true that a previous editor had added something much more extreme, a poorly sourced conspiracy theory, but you still did a partial revert. Since you asked, I was commenting. Please don't get annoyed if you ask abstract questions and get specific answers. Maybe you aren't expressing such annoyance. It seems that you are. Please don't ask abstract questions in general that are more appropriate to a bureaucracy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not annoyed by any of the answers to the actual questions I have brought here. The other stuff is a different story, but I'll leave it at that. As for the "partial revert", that did not occur in the least. What was there before was a clumsy, subjective phrase. I added an objective description of someone McConnell was associating with, all major, referenced descriptive elements of Ross. I was actually expecting the other editor would have no issue with an objective description. I had no interest in warring, and the edit history and my comment that went along with that addition proves it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As to the specific issue about Mitch McConnell, knowing that you are asking the wrong good-faith abstract question, I will answer the good-faith question that you could have been asking. What do I advise you to do about whether to include the characterization of Ross? Publish a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As soon as my personal understanding of how Wikipedia works in regards to the questions I asked here is complete, I may do that. But not until that occurs. Having a wider discussion on that particular disagreement is way less important than myself understanding fully how Wikipedia works. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

July 23

Article mis-alphabetized in category - cause and how to solve?

I am currently working on a to-do list of potato-related articles that need work. Because of this, I ended up in Category:Potato diseases and was checking those against Category:Plant disease stubs to identify Potato disease stubs (and tag obvious stubs in Potato diseases as Plant disease stubs, which has in a fair few cases not happened) and then suddenly noticed that somehow, Candidatus Phytoplasma solani is listed under the letter B in the former of the two categories, and, since stub-tagging it as plant disease stub also shows up under the letter B in the latter category.

Does anyone have a clue what causes this and how to solve it? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Black wood of grapevine}} is what is causing it. Monty₈₄₅ 03:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Not too familiar with the workings of DEFAULTSORT, so it probably would have taken me a while to figure that out myself. Also thank you to Fuhghettaboutit for removing the defaultsort template before I had even read the message here. To both of you, thanks for the fast response. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: (e/c) Hey AWNH. Articles can be categorized to not display by their actual names in a number of ways. We want to do this sometimes – for example, categorizing a person by last name. One way is to pipe the category ("|" ← is a pipe) like so: [[Category:Name|Waters, Roger]] , which will result in Roger Waters categorizing under "'W'aters". Another very common way is using the {{DEFAULTSORT:}} template: {{DEFAULTSORT:Water Rogers}} Using this will result in all the categories below it alphabetizing by what you've designated. That was what was at play in Candidatus Phytoplasma solani: if you looked to the top of the categories list in edit mode you would have seen {{DEFAULTSORT:Black wood of grapevine}}, which made it categorize by that name. I'm not sure why that was originally added, but I've removed it, so it should be categorizing by the article title now. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Wikipedia Google Search Result information

I am trying to assist a client (actor, R. Brandon Johnson - R. Brandon Johnson) with inaccuracies within his Wikipedia page. While the Birthplace/Birthdate information included within his Wikipedia page is correct, the information shown in the description of Google search results is wrong. Google Search result for search for R. Brandon Johnson shows the following INCORRECT information: "Born: January 14, 1968 (age 46), Byron Center, MI. It should read - CORRECT: "Born: January 14, 1974 (age 40), Bloomington, MN"

I have been unable to find where I can make edits to this search result description. Any assistance is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOLAmanda (talk • contribs) 04:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

How Google displays what it scrapes together for its Knowledge Graph is something you'll have to discuss with Google. I have no idea how to begin that discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Yes this isn't something on Wikipedia's end, but at the bottom of the window in Google's search result is the word "Feedback" which you can click on to report false information.AioftheStorm (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people are fooled by Google's layout and think the whole box is from Wikipedia. It is only the text paragraph ending "Wikipedia". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The underlying Wikipedia article does not list his date of birth. If you have a reliable source for his date of birth, you can post a link on the talk page, Talk: R. Brandon Johnson and it can be added. Otherwise, as per the biographies of living persons policy, it will remain omitted. As mentioned, the inaccurate date of birth is not coming from Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Mistake with my last name

Hello, i wanted to denounce a mistake with my last name. In your article called "Monaco at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics", you wrote that the name of the athlete, a judoka, was "Nicolas Grinder". The exact URL where the mistake is written is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco_at_the_2014_Summer_Youth_OlympicsMonaco_at_the_2014_Summer_Youth_Olympics This is a mistake, because my name is Nicolas GRINDA. I please want you to verify your sources and change this mistake on my last name as soon as possible.

Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.90.186 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi Nicholas, unfortunately, that is the name given in our reference, at http://www.intjudo.eu/upload/2014_03/22/139548459716682772/yog_participants_02.pdf, which appears to be an official list from the International Judo Federation, and we have to go by what our sources say. Can you point us at another reliable source which gives the correct name? Rojomoke (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Attribution after a content merge from a draft article

Dear editors: While working at AfC I often deal with cases in which an editor creates an article only to find that there is already a mainspace article about that topic. Of course, the article is declined with the suggestion that the editor add appropriate material to the mainspace article. Often, though, that doesn't happen, so later on a different editor copies over some of the material. (Sometimes it's me; sometimes I notice that someone else has done it.) To maintain attribution, the merge instructions say to put in the edit summary, and/or on the talk page, the name of the article from which the material was copied. However, AfC drafts are deleted if not edited for six months, so, to preserve the original edit history, the draft is moved to mainspace with an alternative title and turned into a redirect, and an {{R from merge}} template added to the redirect. My question is, should the attribution text in the edit summary name the original title from which the text was copied (an AfC draft which isn't there any more), or should it name the current title (a mainspace redirect)? In the case of a single-editor draft, can the issue be avoided by naming the editor specifically instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Hey Anne. If the content is solely by one user, then the best solution is to list that user's name (linked), in an edit summary with attribution details. Doing so not only avoids the problems with linking to the unstable source name, but the source need not be kept. See WP:PATT. If you're going to list the source, then definitely use the name of the title where the history is located, i.e. the redirect name, as it's the history that provides attribution. It's obvious though that problems can arise with this, such as if the content was copied over before a move and redirection. As to the page I linked, they suggest the attribution edit summary "text originally contributed by [[User:Example]] on 2014 23 July". I would make it more explicit, something like "text originally contributed by [[User:Example]] on 2014 23 July for [[DraftName]]" (if the draft has been deleted, which should no longer be a problem) or if redirected anyway, "text originally contributed by User:Example on 2014 23 July for [[RedirectName]]". Note that if text has been copied over by someone else without attribution, you can later provide a copyright attribution note in an edit summary using a dummy edit (example).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You should also consider whether a WP:Histmerge would make sense, such as if the 2nd editor copies from the decline AFC to create a NEW article. Monty₈₄₅ 13:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, what you have said agrees with my thinking, but the instructions didn't appear to cover the "draft" case, so I appreciate the confirmation. Monty845, there are times when a historymerge is appropriate, but not in the case I was discussing, in which the draft was created after the mainspace article, and was written independently by an editor who didn't realize that the topic was already represented. Thanks to you both for taking time to reply. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I missed that detail when reading the fact pattern. Monty₈₄₅ 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Irina Press

Would some one please be able to have a look at the article on Irina Press as it appears to have been hijacked for an article on Masmaraza Momin. 81.149.235.31 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed (and block issued) by OrangeMike.--ukexpat (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This was "interesting" in that it appears that the vandalism was conducted by meatpuppets or sockpuppets, by two vandals and not one. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina Transportation Museum.

This museum located in Spencer, North Carolina should be added to places to visit.

Maybe in a travel guide, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a travel guide. Try Wikivoyage, you might have better luck there. SpinningSpark 15:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Need help with the Firefox Timeline Template

I'm having a problem with the Mozilla Firefox timeline template. Yesterday, I tried adding the Firefox 31.0 and Firefox 24.7.0 ESR release dates to the chart, but I ended up breaking the template with this error message. I wanted to lengthen the timeline template a little more, but I don't know how to do it. If only Raghusri were here to lengthen the timeline. Would someone please help me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The error message was because you had "test" instead of "text". I've corrected that for you,& sorted out the lengthening too. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. Well, thank you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfair deletion of my article.

Hi my name is Mendy Oirechman and i just recently posted a really nice article on the lenovo vibe z2 pro and it was wrongly deleted i would like to request that the article be put back up on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Oirechman.mendy (talk • contribs) 15:51, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

• If your referring to Lenovo vibe z2 pro may be coming up with an upgrade to the vibe z called the vibe z2 pro, it fundamentally wasn't written as an encyclopedic article. If you want to try to improve it, we could probably move it to a draft space, but I don't know if it really justifies its own article about an unreleased device that has received some speculation. Monty₈₄₅ 15:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had specified the name of the article, or if you had posted this inquiry from the account that was used to create the article. Monty845, who is an administrator, evidently found the article. Why did you create a new account to inquire about article deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Which account was used to create the article, Robert? The deletion notification was on the user talk page of the OP. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was created by the OP. Monty₈₄₅ 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert, perhaps you were being misled by the OP having only one edit in their history? This is because edits to deleted articles disappear from users' contribution histories as well as from the article history. However, they are still visible to administrators. However, this tool will tell you if deleted edits exist. SpinningSpark 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I can understand why edits to deleted articles are deleted, but it can cause confusion. In any event, it would helped if the OP had identified the former title of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, it's a pain to find for editors who are not administrators but in this case I doubt that even the OP would be able to remember that ridiculous title. You can find it by going to Special:Log/delete and then using your browser search facility to find "lenovo vibe z2 pro" (the informtion actually provided by the OP). You may need to go back through the log several pages, depending on how long ago the article was created, the log fills up quite quickly. Or you can set the "limit=" parameter in the url to some very large number (up to 5000 is allowed). Or you can set the date if you know roughly when it was created. That still won't tell you who created it, only who deleted it, but it might give a link to an AFD, or if not a CSD reason which usually answers the question "why was my article deleted?". SpinningSpark 17:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The name was ridiculous. It would have needed moving if it hadn't needed deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing a paper with ten authors

Is it necessary to list all ten authors or is it permissible to shorten the list? If so how many authors should be named before the "et. al."? I'm using the "cite paper" template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You should include all. You can set the number displayed with |display-authors= per the documentation. {{cite paper}} → {{cite paper}}. --  Gadget850 ^talk 16:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! (Note to self: RTFM!) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

British/ UK culture - Folklore

I was searching for info on English national dress. I am English and we don't appear to have one. Wikipedia came up with a load of info on British culture, which I know and love so well. I hadn't realised how English I am. We have many immigrants in the UK today and they often ask me to explain points about our culture.

I know it's a really small thing, but in the section on Folklore it stated that Hallowe'en was a Scottish custom. I just wanted to say that I am English, all my forebears were English and we have practised Hallowe'en customs, the same as specified for Scotland ever since I was a child in the 1960's. I learnt them from my Mum who was a child in London, as was my Dad, during World War 2, and they got it from their parents, who were also Southern English. We cut up swedes into faces and put nightlights inside, we dressed up as witches and ghosts, played games, like bobbing apples, my mum made toffee apples (which are called turnips in Scotland I believe), as pumpkins were not as available in the 1960's as they are today.

I'm not sure how to edit. I went on the talk page, but it was about much more high brow stuff. (Thomas Tallis v Elgar - I'm a Tallis fan myself) I just wanted Hallowe'en celebrations included as an English custom as well as a Scottish one. I have a friend from Lithuania who is very interested in our ancient customs. People from various countries in Africa have also asked me questions about folklore.

Sorry if this seems boring to you, and I'd be more than happy to receive any kind of reply, regardless of how long it may take.

Regards

Elizabeth Butler

British culture it's under the Folklore heading

Mlqzu49876 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You can link to a section within an article like this: British culture#Folklore. I agree with the OP, it is odd that Hallowe'en is described there as exclusively Scottish and Irish. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) — Hello Elizabeth, and welcome to the Wikipedia help desk!

We'd be very happy to have you join the ranks of Wikipedia slaves editors. I added a "Welcome" template to your talk page which has some useful links for new editors. Since you seem to be mostly interested in English culture, you might want to check out Talk: Culture of the United Kingdom; at the top there are links to "WikiProjects" that might interest you, and there is a "To do" list that could use your assistance. Of course we'd be glad to provide assistance here, but you should also check out Wikipedia: Teahouse:  "A friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships."   ~I hope this helps, Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If you go to national dress you will find that redirects to folk costume. According to that article, the closest we have to it in England is the smock-frock. However, that is completed uncited (citations are very important on Wikipedia). When I think of English national dress I'm thinking Morris men. SpinningSpark 00:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia of National Dress "England...has no official national dress or recognizable ethnic dress", but they do talk a great deal about smocks. SpinningSpark 00:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not bowler hats and furled umbrellas?--ukexpat (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Patrolling new pages

WP:NPP states about manually marking pages as patrolled: "In some editing contexts, editors will see a 'mark this page as patrolled' link." Can someone explain what "some editing contexts" refers to, and why some new unpatrolled articles don't have that link? It's quite annoying when going through Special:NewPagesFeed to see a page indicated as "unreviewed", and review it, only to find that "[mark this page as patrolled]" is not present in the article.
Random examples: Milroy State Bank Building (patrol log empty [4]), Javidan Gurbanova (patrol log empty [5]) etc. 2Flows (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Both of the pages you found were recently moved, either from userspace to mainspace or within the mainspace. I believe that in that case, page curation will recognize the articles as new and give you the option to mark as patrolled from the page curation sidebar, but Special:Newpages will not, so you won't get the "[mark this page as patrolled]" link. Altamel (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be right. I found some other such pages, and they have all been moved. But is there another way to mark them as patrolled then? 2Flows (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to find them through the page curation feed, then the sidebar with the option to patrol should pop up. Altamel (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I had closed that toolbar a long time ago and completely forgotten about it (cause I am using Twinkle + link at bottom of page). But now I reopened it and it works fine. Thanks! 2Flows (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24

Regarding the creation of "Catharine R. Stimpson" wiki page

Catharine R. Stimpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greetings,

I tried to create the page "Catharine R. Stimpson" and am having trouble getting the page to format and hyperlink the way I want it to. Also, The name needs to be properly capitalized as the subject.--MarcieBianco (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)--MarcieBianco (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

More importantly than worrying about formatting and capitalisation, you need to rapidly provide some references to reliable sources in the article. If you do not, I'm afraid it will soon be deleted. SpinningSpark 08:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's also far too promotional in tone.--ukexpat (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ginger Rogers

I am 86 years old and I was a big fan of Ginger Rodgers, but when you start knocking Fred Astaire to make her look good, she looks bad. Fred had many beautiful partners. Why knock Cyd Charise. She actually was a dancer whereas Ginger couldn't tap and she couldn't do this and that ... Cyd was one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. Cyd and Tony were a great Hollywood couple. The crack about Ginger did all the steps and did it in heels and backward is misleading because Fred made up all her steps. Fred complimented her and you use it against him! Now you got me talking about Ginger when she was one of my favorites. See what I mean? Have some class. There is no need to down someone to praise a person you should give praise to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.91.164.48 (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what article you are talking about, I cannot find anything negative about Charisse's dancing in any of the Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, or Cyd Charisse articles. But whichever one it is, the place to discuss problems with an article is on the article's talk page. SpinningSpark 08:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

VocalYogaVY

All materials linked or written for the VocalYogaVY.com website belonged to myself. VocalYogaVy is my USA trademark to protect very specific exercises. The Vocal Yoga is also a trademark i owned for these exercises in India. There are five basic exercises that I will be describing that are leading people to vocal health. The vocal yoga therapy research has been published on PubMed.

Please guide me to set this up correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocalyoga (talk • contribs) 06:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are some policies and guidelines you should read: notability, conflict of interest, promotional user names. SpinningSpark 08:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

He's right. You should read the pages he cites, and expect your current username to be disabled (don't worry, you can easily create a new account). And incidentally, unrelated to Wikipedia, I see, at the lower left corner of http://vocalyogavy.com/, the concealed string "Vocal Yoga VocalYoga Vocal Yoga Vocal Yoga VocalYoga Vocal Yoga VocalYoga". I suggest that you delete it. Google is likely to regard it as an attempt to spam its search mechanism, and to mark down your domain accordingly. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I "exact phrase" search on Wikipedia alone?

I know I can do a Google site search, but can I skip that step and find the "known knowns" instead of all the other knowns? I've tried the plus sign and the quotes (not with that phrase, though). And a bit of archive searching. But I give up. Help, desk? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Just found this through Google. The link there wasn't linked to a permanent version of the Village Pump one, but found that here. (It also doesn't properly link back to the search question.) Neither is very useful, as far as I can tell, but the most useful I've found. Help:Searching says quotes work, but they don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Have you enabled the "new search" in your beta preferences? For me, a search for "known knowns" finds just 14 hits. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to suggest the new Cirrus search as well. The example in the VP thread of "passed away" seems to work fine in the new search engine. Mostly this worked fine in the old search engine as well, but in this case and some other oddities it seems to go off the rails. SpinningSpark 07:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I only just noticed there was something called Beta by my Preferences. I've only even touched Preferences once or twice, long ago. Guess I'll look into it (and that code tag).

"Known knowns" works for me, too, now that I try. I guess that was a poor example. My actual search was for "the WWE". Recently reverted that mistake, looking to find more. But about half of them only show "WWE" (at least highlighted). I don't want to search each article to see if I'm missing something. I might try that "new search" thing. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Copy pasting lists

I can't find the policy, but I know it's out there. It says something like: You may copy paste lists of information, provided that you cite, of course, but only if the content of the list did not involve creative writing, but is only a compilation such as "lizards that are commonly sold in pet shops". Does anyone know where this policy page is? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOATT, although your example of "lizards that are commonly sold in pet shops" would probably involve a degree of creative writing. SpinningSpark 09:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't that particular page apply to in-Wikipedia copying only? benzband (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Also see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What is not plagiarism. benzband (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much, Benzband! I've been looking for that for ages and it's been right under my nose. I'll save both of those links to cite in the future. Cheers to you!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What is reliable source

Sunil Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi...

I have created a page, but getting warring for reliable source. I already give a url as reliable source in award section. So kindly provide assistance on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhavhitesh (talk • contribs) 09:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that actually discuss the subject of the article and verify the statements made in it. Even after that, the article could still be deleted due to notability concerns, see WP:42 for a brief explanation. The subject's LinkedIn page is most definitely does not count towards notability, nor does the notability of the company necessarily mean that the CEO is notable. You should probably also read WP:COI and possibly WP:AUTO. SpinningSpark 09:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Change Foxy Brown's disrespectful profile

I'm writing on behalf of rap superstar Foxy Brown's page. It's beyond disrespectful that her "mugshot" is used as her profile pic. Very disturbing. I tried changing this myself but ask that whoever moderates this uploads her BROKEN SILENCE CD pic as her profile pic. Also, there are tons of blatantly false information in her profile (her Father's name being completely different) just one of many. This is a celebrated iconic rap star and this atrocity needs to be changed immediately. I've actually made Foxy and her team aware of this Wikipedia posting that was clearly written by a hater. ThanksXcdfserfff (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You say you have tried changing this yourself, but this is the only edit from your account. The album cover cannot be used in her article because it is copyrighted. It comes under fair use to use it in the article on the album, but it cannot be used elsewhere. If you have a freely licenced alternative image you are welcome to upload it. Issues on inaccurate information you can raise on the talk page, or you can fix them yourself if you can cite a reliable source with the correct information. SpinningSpark 12:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate language and inaccurate information

The Wiki page contains inappropriate language and inaccurate information which seems rather offensive to certain viewers. Can it be edited or fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.124.139 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but can you be more specific? Inappropriate, inaccurate and offensive can mean a lot of things, depending on the certain viewer. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:52, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean by inappropriate, that´s a lot of genderfucking. "Offensive" as argument only goes so far on Wikipedia, but that may be overkill. Please post your concerns (with more detail) on the article talkpage [6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I´ve asked for input [7] but you never know with us volunteers. And again, it would help if you can be more specific. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Saw the post on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Genderfucking. The language is a result of a page merge of genderfuck into gender bending. The term "genderfuck" is an actual term in gender studies and as you can see in the article is well-sourced. The information is not inaccurate. Regarding the concern about "inappropriate language" I would point to Wikipedia's policy of "not censored". The page does need to be smoothed out though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"User:" in the heading

Hi,

Just a quick question. I created a page about our company but it has a "User:" in a heading before the company name. How can I get rid of that?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannasos (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

First, you created the article in your user page. On the one hand, you can Move it to article space. Second, however, it is likely to be deleted because you have a conflict of interest, since you apparently work for the organization that is the article subject. Your article may be deleted. Third, your user name appears to be that of the organization, which violates the user name policy. Please see Changing User Name. However, the alternative would be to abandon it and create a new user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I highly recommend that you don't move that page into the mainspace, as it currently looks promotional. If you do so, you risk facing an editing block for advertising. Piguy101 (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

New Article did have third party verification cited

Good Morning,

I am new to Wikipedia. I am a published author and have an established presence online with many of my written works in this site: www.robertcliftonrobinson.com.

On the 24th of July, I created a page (Robert Clifton Robinson), similar to other authors such as myself, with links on that page which point to Amazon where my authors page is located and my published books (4).

I tried to be careful and follow the example of other author's who already have pages on Wikipedia.

According to Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source[edit] Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) the creator of the work (for example, the writer) the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

I did include on the page I created, links to Amazon where 4 of my books are published and my author's page is listed.

Doesn't this meet the above requirements?

While I was trying to edit the page, I received a notice that the page was a candidate for "quick deletion." I read the instructions and realized that this notice had come while I was still creating and editing the page. So, I completed the page at about 1:00 am and went to bed.

This morning, the page has been completely deleted. I have read the comments for why this was done, and do not really understand why this page was removed. I had links to my published books that would verify the information on the new page: Robert Clifton Robinson, as well as verify the validity of the information placed on this page. I intended to return this morning to place additional citations to further validate the page, but it was already taken down.

I learned this morning that there is a "Sandbox" section where I could have created the page and then submitted it for review, before publishing. I apologize, I did not realize that this is the correct way to publish a new article on Wikipedia.

I would appreciate instructions on how I can change, add, or delete any information on the article that I published on Wikipedia, so that I can correct my errors and be able to publish the page again.

It seems that I did include a source for third party verification, as a link on my "Works" section--to Amazon as my publisher, for verification. Perhaps this was overlooked?

Or, do I need to add examples of my work and add links to amazon for my published books?

Thank You for your help, in advance,

Biblesavant (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Clifton Robinson

You already have comments on your talk page. However, your article was deleted under A7, for failing to provide any indication of notability. However, it could have been deleted for several other reasons. You have a conflict of interest, because the article is an autobiography, and they are strongly discouraged. Please read the conflict of interest policy and the autobiography policy. The article was also probably overly promotional. Please do not try to "fix" the article and resubmit it. Any changes, additions, or deletions will not change the fact that it is an autobiography and that you have a conflict of interest. If you do try to submit the article again, with or without corrections, you run the risk of being blocked from editing. Please read those policies and realize that you just can't submit an autobiography. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Formatting Contents

How do I put a Contents page on someones wikipedia page Also in the upper right hand corner my client wants me to put a list of her previous jobs as well as birthday etc. She is following Anthony Weiners wikipedia outline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paularyan1 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Paularyan1: A contents box will automatically appear after four or more headings are used. However, I advise you not to edit with someone else's advice, because you may have a conflict of interest. Piguy101 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is about Mary McCarty, the article needs attention from someone who, unlike you, does not have a conflict of interest. She is notable because she has served a prison term for fraud, but this is not mentioned in the article. Maproom (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. User:ukexpat types faster than I do. Maproom (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

--ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Christian Mythology Page

I'm a devout Christian and I believe that this page is completely blasphemous to my faith. I would ask that it be taken down because I feel that whoever created the page was bias. Christianity is not a myth- the Bible has been proven time and time again- from the Dead Sea Scrolls that included over 2,000 accounts of Jesus's time on Earth to the accurate prophesying of Revelation that is accurately describing prophesies that have been fulfilled. One example is of Israel's becoming a country again. The verse is:

Isaiah 11:12 - And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

There are many other verses describing prophesy fulfillment in the Bible, if you need proof simply find them in the Bible or search for them online.

Thank you, and I hope something is done about this issue as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.156.221 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not censored. As long as the content on the page is verifiable, and the page subject itself is notable, it should meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. I apologize for any umbrage taken. Piguy101 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nor is the bible a reliable source for anything.--ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You will probably be happier with Conservapedia. --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Bible is a reliable source for what the Bible says. --Jayron32 04:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Even then, in a large amount of cases, it's only a reliable source for what that version or translation of the Bible says. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

my edits were incorrectly reverted by cluebot

I made many correct edits to the page Madison Square and they were all taken off by ClueBot for no apparent reason. All of my edits were well researched and provided better information than what was already there. I worked very hard on the changes and I am seeking help on how to have my changes restored to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art at Madsqpark (talk • contribs)

ClueBot left a message on your talk page, which you removed, which tried to explain why it made the revert. If you read it, what part specifically do you have a question about? Dismas|^(talk) 21:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The user "Art at Madsqpark", just like the user "Madsqpark" yesterday, has been warned that their username is in violation of our policies, and that, as an editor with a likely conflict of interest, they need to consult WP:COI and follow its suggestions, which means that they should not edit the article Madison Square directly, but should make suggestions on the talk page to be implemented in the artcle by other, unconflicted editors. For these reasons, I would have reverted these edits even if Cluebot had not, so that issue is moot. BMK (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 World Junior Championships in Athletics

There appear to be two different versions of the same template. At least I can't see the difference. {{2014 World Junior Championships in Athletics}} appears on 2014 World Junior Championships in Athletics – Women's 100 metres directing to the Men's 10,000 without a comma. {{2014 World Junior Championships in Athletics}} on 2014 World Junior Championships in Athletics – Men's 100 metres directs to the same page properly per MoS with a comma. This led to my creating the linked page without a comma and being unable to move it to the correct place with a comma (I did copy and paste so now we have two versions of the same page). I don't see how we have two templates of what appears to be the same name, or now how to fix all the confusing transclusions. Trackinfo (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your problem, it was probably just a caching issue. If you are still having difficulty try bypassing your cache. If a similar problem recurs in the future you can sometimes fix it with a purge of the page, although often it is less painful just to wait while the servers catch up. SpinningSpark 23:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about the fact that you have created 2 articles, 2014 World Junior Championships in Athletics – Men's 10000 metres and 2014 World Junior Championships in Athletics – Men's 10,000 metres? I believe that the latter is in accordance with the usual convention, so the former should be deleted (which you can request by the use of {{Db-author}}. I've amended Template:2014 World Junior Championships in Athletics to point at the correct page. You can use the "what links here" entry on the toolbar to see what else points at the wrong name, & correct them. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Brandon Barnes

Please Look at Boyz II Men song "falling". My Uncle is Michael Brandon Barnes. He and Brian McKnight Produced this said song, along with many others. You have him on there as Brandon Barnes. When you click on his name, it talks about a punk rock drummer from colorado. this is not who produced this song or others. PLEASE correct this, as my uncle is Michael Brandon Barnes.

He is not getting credit and people think this "Punk" drummer is writting for Boyz II Men, which is crazy. Please google him and you will see this is a Correction that needs to be mad.

Michael Brandon Barnes is from Gadsden Alabama. Not Colorado like this Brandon Barnes Punk rock band member.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.157.18 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding II (Boyz II Men album). When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Mysdaao ^talk 22:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the wikilink to the wrong Brandon Barnes. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

searching wikipedia using internet explorer

how can one make wikipedia the default search engine in internet explorer for windows 8.1? (I have done this with all my computers for years but have found that it is no longer an option under internet explorer add-ons.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.227.180 (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Try looking at this: Change or choose a search provider in Internet Explorer Piguy101 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Custom edit of Template:Infobox language possible?

OK. I have a situation on the Cree language page where the Infobox for that page has the wrong information. One of the Infobox lines is for ISO-639-3, where it lists cre – inclusive code, then goes on to list 9 dialects. Only problem is that cre covers 6 of those dialects, and the other 3, though part of the Cree language, are not part of the cre ISO-639 Macrolanguage code. However, the template won't allow me to list 4 ISO-639-3 codes, with the fourth one being the cre, and then having the remaining 6 displayed. If I want to have such a custom display, how would I go about doing it without recreating the template from scratch? Is there a way I can enter commands to custom edit that template? CJLippert (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Boko Haram

Reference help requested.

I can't see whats wrong with this:

(It connects to the website correctly, other refs like this are fine).

FYI. a bot sent me here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks, zzz (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

References

You need |url= before the URL. --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25

When a guideline conflicts with a policy

Hello, when a Wikipedia guideline conflicts with a Wikipedia policy, what do we do? Do we need to ignore the guideline in these instances, as policy takes precedence? Thanks in advance! LesVegas (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you give a specific example, LesVegas? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Just remember that the most important policy is WP:IAR, which basically says "Take whatever action improves the encyclopedia." Just don't get into any poor behavior in doing so. If someone disagrees, you're allowed to talk it over with them. --Jayron32 02:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses guys! I looked into it a bit further and found the policy vs guideline answer here LesVegas (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the specific issue? As the guideline that you cited on rules conflicts says, it is not sufficient to ignore all rules and move on, but the conflict should be resolved. What is the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing Username

I just registered, and afterwards realized that I used my initials which is not recommended. I feel really unsafe and would like to change mu username to something else. I looked at the change username pages, but I have no idea how to contact Wikipedia. I would like to do it ASAP. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cra2383 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

To editor Cra2383: I would offer to file a request for you, but I'm not sure if that's acceptable. The gist is to go to changing username (simple) (if the new name you want is not taken) and make a new request by clicking the link. If you are still having trouble, leave a response below with the specific problems you're having. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Tooltip settings

I accidentally disabled the Reference tooltip settings and now I have to scroll the whole length of the page after seeing the reference details. I have enabled it again and even purged the browser's cache but stil the ref. info doesn't show up next to the citation when I rollover the mouse pointer on any inline citation.--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I just tried disabling this and reenabling it as a test and it came back fine. If you let me know what browser and skin you are using I can test with your particular combination. Also, you might want to check if javascript has stopped working altogether; for instance, I see you have DYKcheck installed. Is that still working? SpinningSpark 09:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Spinningspark:I am using Google Chrome and have vector skin enabled. The DYKcheck is working fine, I can't see any issues with it.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It works fine for me in the Chrome/Vector combination as well. Have you gone back to preferences and verified that the tooltips gadget is actually ticked? Perhaps you just forgot to save the settings. Anyway, I don't think there is anything up with Wikipedia, it seems to be limited to your computer. You might get some more advice on that at WP:RDC. SpinningSpark 10:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki link required

Hi can someone put in a link between Bossuit-Kortrijk Canal and article "Canal Bossuit-Courtrai" on the French wikipedia (and vice-versa) Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 10:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of Auckland

how do \I get a map of all businesses in the CBD OF Auckland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:D800:11C2:8C00:896A:378C:E2F6:ECB4 (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia. We have an article on Auckland CBD but we don't maintain business directories. You can find business directories by googling for "Auckland CBD business directory" or maps with "Auckland CBD map" but I doubt that you will find a map of all businesses in the CBD. There are far too many of them. SpinningSpark 11:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for help re primary information

We have an irate former member of the Community Chapel and Bible Training Center who has already served a short block for repeatedly deleting most of the article, and now wants the article deleted, as it is “slanderous”(sic)

Whilst the subject itself seems notable, if only for the number of lawsuits for sexual improprieties brought against the pastor and others in the church leadership, the article does have problems. Several sections are based solely on PDFs of letters etc – i.e. primary information, moreover, these letters etc. are no longer available, as the two sites used - kenady.150m.com and ccbtcresearch.com - are both returning errors. The article also references a lot of 1986-1988 newspapers, which I cannot find on-line, so do not know what these verify.

Could another editor look and see what they think about the sections based on missing primary information – do we just delete these entire sections? Or try and find the source? or try and find an alternative secondary? – it may be that a US editor can access some of this, such as the newspapers, that I cannot access from the UK, and will also have better insight into the US legal system – Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not really looked at the article or the lengthy dispute on the talk page, but here is a general answer. In general, we AGF citations to offline newspapers. If you have doubts over the veracity of a citation you can ask at WP:LIBRARY to find a copy of the article. Letters are not usually accepted as reliable sources. Apart from the WP:PRIMARY issue, they will not usually be accessible to others so fail WP:V. There is also the question of copyright which is vested in the letter writer. Linking to sites that breach copyright is not permitted. It might be possible to find archives of the pages that have gone dead, but I would question their reliability for use in Wikipedia in the first place. SpinningSpark 11:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there someone I can email outside of Wikipedia?

I got a serious issue here with a user named Ryulong and he has done nothing but harass me since I started List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases because he didn't like it and he doesn't want it to exist and he is pretty much doing anything in his power to get his way by trying to get me blocked for an edit war (which he "broke" as well, he started on a Template:Power Rangers and stating that my posting the list is irrelevant with "it is not relevant to the whole of the topic" when it is as both are Power Rangers, he has also proven he is trying to get his way by trying to delete two other articles just to get his way with the page I started, I do not know what to do, I do not want to be blocked because this edit does not like a page I started and now will do everything in his power to get his way by doing all this as well as throwing intimidation stuff on my talk page. Please help me! Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has gone out of control and now Bumblebee9999 wants to report me to some non-existant governing body to get his way just as he is accusing me of warning him and reporting him for edit warring as an attempt to get my way. There is no real world contact and even then going out of your way to contact someone off-site to get me in trouble is a violation of so many rules.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You can email whoever you like outside Wikipedia, but it won't make any difference to our procedures. There is no point bringing your dispute here. The behaviour issue is already open at the edit warring noticeboard and you can contribute to the debate at the AFD. Accusing experienced editors of harrasment is not going to help you. Rather you should concentrate on addressing the objections to the article rather than attacking the person. SpinningSpark 11:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Experienced user or not his behaviour is not acceptional at all. So please do not tell me not to "accuse experience editors of harassment" when this experienced editor has done nothing but that. Thanks! Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, harassment is harassment regardless if someone is experienced or not. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I recant this as the situation has been resolved. Sorry for any inconvenience I caused or to anyone I upset. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion is not harassment. It is a normal part of our procedures. Your remedy is to defend the article at AFD. Ryolung knows this because he is familiar with Wikipedia procedures. You do not and you would do better to assume good faith on the part of others until you have that experience. This would become harassment if the same, or similar, articles were being repeatedly nominated with the same rationale after the community had already made clear that they wished to keep them. We are not at that stage yet. Concentrate on convincing other editors that the article(s) should be kept. SpinningSpark 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate your advice and I will take it into strong consideration for other users but you should not be too quick to defend Ryolung I am only saying because it was pointed out that "he clearly knew what he was doing and was gaming the system." per the decision of his block. I am just making you aware and as I said I do appreciate your advice and thank you for it and will take it into consideration and try to assume good faith with other Wikipedia users, just cannot with him. I was also advices to avoid interacting with him and I am going to do so. Good day and thanks again. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk-about Semir Osmanagich

Semir Osmanagić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,I cannot find the way to talk with Ronz

who diverted my editing of Bibliography on article "Semir Osmanagich", without comment why he did it and didn't give me possibility to ask him..

I am very thankful if we can communicate and

I can get explained what is wrong with my editing.. so I can learn and to do it better.(I am new here)

Data which I gave about published books are more complete and in form of encyclopedic information as it is expected to find it on Wikipedia.

maybe it should be in some chronological order or maybe something was missing , but please tell me..

Thank you--Indija (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You can contact User:Ronz on their talk page, User talk:Ronz. But FWIW I agree with the removal of that material - Wikipedia articles are written in summary style and are not supposed to be all-encompassing lists of a writer's oeuvre.--ukexpat (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ronz explained his reasoning in this edit summary - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and so we do not need to host a comprehensive list of publications. You can discuss this with Ronz either on his talkpage or on the article's talkpage if you wish. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)