Wikipedia:Help desk

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

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

Ask a question

February 10

Browser Requirements

I would like to know why Wikipedia cannot be accessed (no response from server) using Lynx or other old browsers, and what are the supported browsers. Note: Lynx can use https.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.232.250 (talk • contribs)

Hello, anonymous person. WP:Browser notes might have some useful information, but it seems to say that it does work on Lynx etc. I suggest you ask at WP:VPT: people who know about how Wikipedia works technically are more likely to hang out there than here. --ColinFine (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Flag templates producing inconsistent spacing

List of U.S. states has identical formatting for all states' names on the left side of the list, except for North Dakota. For some reason, there's an extra space between the flag and the name. Why? It's not merely a mistake on the list; identical code produces identical results at WP:SAND. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Special:ExpandTemplates shows it makes two &nbps; instead of one for North Dakota. The extra one comes from {{Flag/core}} saying {{#ifeq:{{{size}}}|23x16px|&nbps;}}. It tries to line up the text in a list of flags by compensating for the flag being more narrow. It may overcompensate a little, at least in some circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

North Carolina

North Dakota

Rhode Island

But it doesn't do the same for Rhode Island; do you know what the difference is? Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

{{Country data North Dakota}} has default size 23x16px. {{Country data Rhode Island}} has 23x17px. {{Flag/core}} has hard coded an extra space for exactly 23x16px. It doesn't seem optimal but I don't want to examine how a myriad of flags might display in different browsers and circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

North Dakota/sandbox

I created a sandbox page with a 23x17 flag, which seems to work better, and I'd like to change the country data page to expand ND's flag to 17px. Where would you suggest discussing this? VP/Pr seems overkill, and North Dakota not being a particularly populous state, the Wikipedia:WikiProject North Dakota is nowhere near active. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Erchless Castle

Please fix up ref number 6 - something is wrong with it. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Srbernadette, basically, someone tagged it as a questionable source. Perhaps you've not encountered it, but one of our core policies is "no original research" — something sourced to personal communications is good when you're compiling your own research (whether for your own interest, for academic work at any level, or for ordinary publication), but because encyclopedia articles are meant to summarise what's already been published in major sources, personal communications shouldn't be used. The type of information you inserted is quite reasonable for inclusion, so if you can find the same thing published in a reliable source, you should feel free to put it back, along with a proper citation to the source you used. Final note — explaining your sources is critical: because anyone can modify Wikipedia articles, readers (including other editors) need to be able to see where you got your information, and if they don't know where you got your information, they can't check up on it: they have to take your word for it, and that's never a good thing in any kind of writing. I see that you're already doing your best with that, so please keep it up! Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.

I think that the 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs on this page need to either be removed (or have citation "warning" included). I think removal. Please fix Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly correct, but it's always possible that everything in those paragraphs came from source #8, the Telegraph article from 6 September 2009. This is where you or I become the reader who needs to see where someone else got information: if we read the article and discover that it all came from there, we should just rearrange the text to make its source obvious, and if it's not there, we insert a warning or remove the text. There's a third possibility: perhaps it was once cited properly to a good source, but the source got removed. This is rarer, but it can happen by mistake (you meant to copy a source for somewhere else, but you accidentally cut it, and then later you saved) or by intentional vandalism. This is where the page history comes in — we can look for the text's first appearance, thereby learning what the author meant to have it look like, and we'll be able to notice if someone removed a citation that was originally there. I can't do any of this myself (it's approaching 1AM my time), but I'll do my best to remember to check back here. If I forget, leave a reminder at my talk page and I'll respond. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to find reliable sources for 2 paragraphs towards the end of the article - but failed - therefore I have deleted these small sections. Please chec. Thanks 101.182.136.195 (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet again you've started a new thread on an existing subject, so I've merged the sections. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

On checking the sources (those that are available to me), I can't find that information in any of them either, thus I agree it's reasonable to remove that passage for the time being. However, looking through the page history, I notice that this (and much other material on this page) was added by User:Paul_de_Bedyk, who was actively editing just day before yesterday. So chances are he's around and able to clarify. I've left him a note on his talk page and invited him to drop by and comment.-- Elmidae (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

InternetCorruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia

Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia - Well you're tarnished damaged goods lost me as a donor . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.198.152 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The above appears to be referring to this news article: http://www.cnet.com/news/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/ Rwessel (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"News" from September 2012. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And does anyone else find it weird when people knowingly abuse Wikipedia by offering paid commercial editing services, and then people blame Wikipedia for it, not those who abuse it? JIP | Talk 20:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External video in the body of an article

Dear editors: This article: Hoot Hester has a link to an external video near the top of the page. I know that external links in general, and also external photographs (as opposed to uploaded ones), are not considered appropriate in the body of an article. What about external videos or sound clips? Should the link to this clip be moved to the "External links" section? This is the first time I've come across this. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes external video is central to the story and warrants prominent placement in the body. Death of Sandra Bland and Shooting of Samuel DuBose, for example, use {{external media}} for this purpose. My opinion is that the video in your example does not qualify and should be in External links. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mandruss; I have moved the link to the section you suggested.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

How to replace graphic file linked to article by File:Xxxxxxx ?

Location: That (music)#System

Existing files, as referenced in Edit area:

System

As retrieved by right-clicking the images: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Indiskt_That-1.jpg/300px-Indiskt_That-1.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Indiskt_That-2.jpg/300px-Indiskt_That-2.jpg

I have created replacements for these 2 files, correcting an error in notation and reordering the contents to match the order in the article.

1. I don't know how to find the location of the original files based on the links. 2. I don't see attribution or copyright information for those files. I obviously copied their information and forma to make my corrected images. 3. Should I replace those images, add mine to the "gallery" with them, or post them to Wikimedia Commons?

Please tell me how to find directions for locating those files. Will there be copyright information for them there?

Then I'll try to find the instructions for doing the upload.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebeckwith (talk • contribs)

Those files are: c:File:Indiskt That-1.jpg and c:File:Indiskt That-2.jpg. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it the case that as the file seems to be hosted at Commons here, that a new commons file would need to be created? I.e. a new 'image' containing the different information rather than replacing the existing image. As I understand it, replacing images at commons is for newer versions of the same image, e.g. cropped versions or some other change. Eagleash (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Autofill not working on Cite template toolbar

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask; if not, please redirect me. I generally use the drop-down citations templates on the edit toolbar, to save time. Until recently, I could just paste the URL of the target and click the little magnifying glass, and Autofill would (often) fill in many of the other details. But for the past two weeks or so, it doesn't do anything. The URL is still there, and all the other fields remain stubbornly blank. Is this a general thing, or has my computer somehow got itself confused? (Before you ask, yes I have done a cold reboot.) In case it matters, I am using Chrome under Windows 8.1. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's also failing for me with Firefox. A better place is WT:RefToolbar. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mandruss: - I see that you have already raised the question on the RefToolbar page so I'll follow it there. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nizami Ganjevi is not Persian, he is Azerbaijanian poet.

Dear Wikipedia Team.

On the following web-page: Nizami Ganjavi there is a mistake: Nizami Ganjavi lived and created his art in Azerbaijan,namely Ganja. Thus he is not a Persian but Azerbaijani poet. I kindly ask you to correct this. As during the history of humanity Russia, Iran, Armenia always tried to show Azerbaijanian culturwe as their own. Please as being the WIKIPEDIA, which always provides the best, reliable and correct information, follow your way.

Regards, Sevinj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.146.26 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Azerbaijan existed as an independent country during the lifetime of Nizami Ganjavi. Maproom (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have an improvement to make to a page, please post your suggestion with a citation to a reliable published source on the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Nizami Ganjavi. But, as Maproom says, there was no such place as Azerbaijan in the twelfth century. The article does mention that he came from a place that is now in Azerbaijan, and that several peoples including Azeris appreciate his heritage. So you would need some reliable published sources that specifically describe him as Azerbaijani (and, probably, that explain why this apparently anachronistic designation is appropriate). --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How do I raise a question about an article?

To be specific, I have an issue with Frobenius solution to the hypergeometric equation

I would like to know how to raise it with the author without actually touching the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys sea (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Post your comments to the talk page, Talk: Frobenius solution to the hypergeometric equation. I see that the article has issues with its tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How do I raise a question about an article?

To be specific, I have an issue with Frobenius solution to the hypergeometric equation

I would like to know how to raise it with the author without actually touching the article.

The question I would like to ask is this.

In the expansions about z=0 the solutions to the case \gamma is an integer not equal to one (\gamma=1-m where m=1,2,...) and (\gamma=1+m where m=1,2,3...) does not include the finite sums seen in Abramowitz and Stegun (Editors) Chapter 15 (Fritz Oberhettinger) 15.5.19 and 15.5.21.

(Abramowitz and Stegun "Handbook of Mathematical Functions" Dover Books on Advanced Mathematics ISBN 0-486-61272-4.)

For instance, for c=1-m 15.5.21 has a term \sum_{n=1}^m \frac{ (n-1)! (-m)_n}{(1-a-m)_n(1-b-m)_n} which I have derived myself for and m=3 for instance. Can the author point out where I have misunderstood, or tell me whether this problem is real?Tethys sea (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys sea (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

See reply immediately above.--ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies from ukexpat and Robert, I hadn't figured out to add to the talk pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys sea (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

List of organizations opposing mainstream science

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.

---

We have posted the complaint below on the Talk page for the "List of organizations opposing mainstream science" article. Also, seeing that a number of similar complaints from others have yielded no results or even attention, we are following Wikipedia's direction and posting the complaint on the Help page which Wikipedia specifically recommends and writes is often more frequently checked than Talk pages. Since the material posted is extremely insulting and damaging, we would appreciate quick remedial action for the specific item discussed as well as for the general tenor of the section(s) in question. Thanks. Please see below

In the section on Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), there appears, “However, journalist John Horgan, a friend of Wertheim's, reported that "When [Wertheim] attended an NPA meeting... it reminded her of an experiment in which three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were introduced to each other... Each concluded that the others were crazy. Watching presenters at the NPA meeting, Wertheim comments, was like 'watching thirty Jesus Christs.'”[19]”

This struck me as just gratuitous and snide insults. I thought such fare was explicitly prohibited in Wikipedia. When this section of Wikipedia was presented to an audience of those who challenge various aspects of currently accepted science, it elicited an extremely strong negative reaction – although it proved to be a unifying topic. Some assessments during the presentation and afterward in discussion groups, included (in addition to my “gratuitous and snide insults” assessment), “amateurish”, “frivolous”, “slanderous”, “libelous”, “defamatory”, “tabloid”, “arbitrary”, “unfounded opinion”, “baseless fantasy”, “It’s Wertheim who’s having the schizophrenic fantasies”, etc. The Wertheim quote seemed to be insulting not only to members of the NPA, but also to members of the CNPS which was characterized in the article as a spinoff of the NPA and by extension the whole community of those who challenge various aspects of currently accepted science. Note that many members of the NPA and CNPS are full professors, PhDs (or equivalent, e.g., Ing’s in Europe) or independent researchers with significant credentials (e.g., patents, publications in the top tier journals, nominated for the Nobel Prize).

I’d suggest that a knowledgeable person might see the same presentations as Wertheim and see well educated, very intelligent speakers passionately advocating deeply researched views – the fact that they speak with great passion and conviction should not per se consign them to being assessed as mentally ill or delusional.

The above segues into Wertheim’s qualifications for making assessments that are published in an encyclopedia. Since the Talk section has an extremely limited readership and a discussion of her credentials is relevant, we’ll briefly discuss those. First, she’s not a scientist, she’s a science writer. Wertheim has her niche. Her foundation is “The Institute For Figuring” which, in her words, “is an organization dedicated to the poetic and aesthetic dimensions of science, mathematics and engineering. The Institute’s interests are twofold: the manifestation of figures in the world around us and the figurative technologies that humans have developed through the ages. From the physics of snowflakes and the hyperbolic geometry of sea slugs, to the mathematics of paper folding, the tiling patterns of Islamic mosaics and graphical models of the human mind, the Institute takes as its purview a complex ecology of figuring.” The IFF’s Crochet Coral Reef project shows her to have an eye for art, a talent for writing and an admirably kind heart when not discussing scientists outside the mainstream and many other good qualities and likely is a nice person most of the time. However, her niche is not General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc.. Nor does being nice part of the time give her a free pass to do serious damage to thousands of serious scholars by putting forth gratuitous and snide insults about their work which often required decades, if not a life time, of hard work. Wertheim has written about physics, but her academic background in physics seems to be very light and may be limited to a single course in high school physics.

To be fair to Wertheim, when she wrote about the NPA, she was likely not aiming for a Pulitzer Prize and was not delusional about having one of the great minds in physics. She likely did not see herself as a god of science able to look down on the work of thousands across a very broad spectrum and see who was right and who was wrong. Likely she understood that the depth of her perception was limited to the assumption that all of currently accepted theory is correct and that all who question it are wrong and even mentally ill. This assumption of Wertheim’s seems to be shared by the Wikipedia writers/editors of the NPA/CNPS sections and shows a lack of knowledge about the history of science among other things.

As a writer, Wertheim wanted readers. Again, to be fair to Wertheim, when she spoke or wrote about the NPA in the style quoted above, she was likely not delusional and was speaking/writing more in the style of “witty” cocktail conversation to be entertaining because many readers enjoy reading put downs of others so she found a schtick that worked and kept with it until it faded and was recognized as lacking substantive content and she lost her audience for that comic routine except, apparently, for Wikipedia. Again, Wertheim cannot be excused for doing serious damage to thousands of serious scholars by putting forth gratuitous and snide insults about their work just because her appealing to the lowest common denominator for her readership proved to be an easy way to make a few extra bucks at somebody else’s expense.

Wertheim has a great aptitude and penchant for self-promotion and she seems to be working this skill to the fullest in the pages of Wikipedia. So this brings up, “What is Wertheim’s involvement in this section?” If she has been directly involved, she needs to be replaced. If she was in contact with a front man, the front man needs to be removed. If she allegedly is not involved directly or indirectly, there appears to be a Wertheim surrogate who backs posting gratuitous and snide insults. Not only should the gratuitous and snide insults be removed, but the whole section needs a re-write to at least start with some semblance of validity and those editors who are responsible for this tabloid entry need, at the very least, some help for redoing this section. If an editor employs gratuitous and snide insults, it indicates a particular mindset about a topic so even when he feels he’s being objective or neutral, his bias and derogatory feelings can still come through. The whole section needs to be overhauled. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for posting gratuitous and snide insults about those for whom its editors happen to have a strong personal dislike and negative bias.

Other examples include, “Margaret Wertheim … speculated in a 2012 essay that much of the interest in this area is a response to the heavy mathematical content and abstract ideas underlying conventional scientific theories, which, she says, makes them inaccessible to the general public.[16][17][18] She compares NPA with the revolt of Martin Luther against the Catholic church.[16][17][18]” Why is Wikipedia including the speculations of Wertheim!?! It’s possible that somewhere someone said something that is a shadow of what she speculates, but this empty speculation is rightly labeled speculation and off target. Also, it would seem that the reader’s interpretation of her comment on Martin Luther depends on the reader’s religious affiliation.

Even if the gratuitous and snide insults quoted above were said by someone with physics credentials, that would not justify including them. Gratuitous and snide insults are just not appropriate fare for an encyclopedia.

By way of contrast, the “Flat Earth Society” section is written quite reasonably and factually. I don’t think that’s because “Flat Earth Society” has the highest of scientific credentials. The contrast between that section and many other similar sections with the NPA/CNPS sections highlights the mean spirited bias of the Wikipedia editors/writers of the NPA/CNPS sections. We do not ask that the section be filled with glowing compliments, just that it not be written in the style of a tabloid smear.

Further, the introduction to the whole list says, “This is a list of organizations opposing mainstream science by frequently contradicting the facts and conclusions recognized by the mainstream scientific community. By falsely claiming to employ the scientific method in order to advance certain fringe ideas and theories, they are engaged in the promotion of various forms of pseudoscience.” [red added] This may apply to some organizations in the list, but it is a misrepresentation of the NPA and CNPS and probably several others in the list and needs to be stricken or modified to indicate that it does not apply to the NPA and CNPS (and applicable others). Ironically, much of the work in those organizations points out where the mainstream has abandoned the scientific method and where it contradicts the facts (i.e., the empirical data). We would suggest limiting the introductory remarks to “This is a list of organizations opposing mainstream science by frequently contradicting the conclusions recognized by the mainstream scientific community.”

The rather extensive inclusion of gratuitous and snide insults in these sections of Wikipedia does not seem to be in the best interest of the organizations who are being attacked or Wikipedia itself or the readers of Wikipedia. The only one whom it promotes would seem to be Margaret Wertheim and her chosen style of scientific analysis. Let’s work together to put this section of Wikipedia on a higher level and avoid setting a dangerous precedence regarding including gratuitous and snide insults in Wikipedia at large. Having now looked at the Talk section, I see that a number of people have broached this topic before while reviewing different but related issues. For example there appears:

“It appears that this list is there to be a 'shame' list for ideas that editors don't like. If there is robust evidence against a school of thought then this should be on the school's page rather than noted in an uncited way on this blacklist of science. Nsxsvn (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)” HarvPhys (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:TLDR and sum up your issue(s) in a few clear sentences.--ukexpat (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest closing this as not ripe. The same material is on the talk page and not yet responded to.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:07, 10 February 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.

Please can you edit ISLAM page

This needs to be removed from the family life section please. 'Even after marriage, there are limitations regarding sex. For example, Islam prohibits a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating and during postpartum period. It is considered a great sin for a man to have anal sex with his wife.[104]'

I am a teacher and direct children to using wiki for information about different faiths. How is this necessary to family life. Do not understand why this is on here. PLEASE REMOVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffycakes (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

One of our basic principles is that Wikipedia is not censored. --ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that section was removed by Eperoton with this edit at 00:35, 11 February 2016‎. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Erchless Castle

Please check that my recent deletions on the above page are all ok - it is, I think, a "dubious" page. I had to resort to adding a genealogical web site as a ref - is this OK? Thanks for your help. Srbernadette (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Most genealogical web sites are not considered reliable sources because anyone can post their own family tree to them and there is no review. Published genealogies that have been reviewed prior to publication may be reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Has the appearance of Wikipedia changed

Today, every article of I have viewed seems stretched out.

Eurocus47 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eurocus47: I don't see any drastic change, so this must be something at your end. Please try bypassing your browser cache to force your browser to reload everything - that's Ctrl+F5 in many browsers. If that doesn't fix it, please post again here with your browser name and version. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 11

Kevin Durant (NBA Player)

Hello, I am from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and would like to notify the Wikipedia team of an error. I love Wikipedia and use it everyday for all sorts of things. However I have recently noticed that the Wikipedia page for the NBA player Kevin Durant is wrong, in the (Quick Facts Portion) of the page. The error says that he is #35 for the Charlotte Hornets, and that is not accurate. Kevin Durant is #35 for the Oklahoma City Thunder NBA team. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you for everything that is Wikipedia. It's the best!!! 👍🏻🏀🏀🏀👍🏻 Sincerely, Sean M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:B600:800:B1CE:BCE5:8DF8:9054 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. The article had been vandalized. It has been fixed with this edit by Bagumba. In the future you can fis the vandalism yourself or if you find several edits like this by the same person you can report them to WP:AIV MarnetteD|Talk 01:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Are RfCs binding?

This is implied at WP:RfC, but not explicitly stated. If they are, is there some point at which they become outdated or invalid? For example, if the information used in the discussion is later found to be incorrect or incomplete, or if the text in the article that is at issue fundamentally changes?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There are some answers to your question here Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change. From my own observations I can say that - unless dramatic evidence is discovered - it is bad form to open a new RFC within hours or days of a previous one being closed. Others may have more info that I have left out to share with you. MarnetteD|Talk 01:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:MarnetteD. RFCs generally are considered binding. It is a matter of common sense how long the RFC is binding, that is, when it can reasonably be asked whether consensus has changed. RFCs are binding in the sense that editing contrary to an issue that was resolved by an RFC is considered to be editing against consensus, which is a form of disruptive editing and may result in a block. Is there a specific RFC about which you have a question? Of all of the processes for content dispute resolution, RFC is the only one that is considered binding and non-voluntary. Third opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard, and formal mediation are voluntary. Sometimes one of those processes may be followed by an RFC in order to establish binding consensus for a period of time. Is there a specific RFC about which you have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was prompted by a rather bizarre argument that we have been having about the article on Harold Holt, an Australian prime minister who disappeared in the surf in 1967, but I wanted to clarify the situation in general because the policy pages don't give a clear-cut answer. In that case, the RfC was somewhat marred by the fact that the text at issue contained a long-running hoax and one of the key sources was accidentally misquoted. Not to mention that all but one of the participants disagreed with the consensus. I was mulling over what to do to resolve the issue (if anything) and therefore I wanted to know where we stand in relation to Wikipedia policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In this case, the real issue appears to be that you question the closure, not that you think that information has changed. You can ask to have the closure overturned at WP:AN (not WP:ANI). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a number of issues. I was accused of violating the RfC when I edited the text to remove the hoax. (If I did, it was unintentional.) But I think the presence of the hoax material fundamentally affected the context of the text. It is now clear that Marjorie Gillespie (his lover) was the main witness to Holt's disappearance, rather than just someone who happened to be on the beach (along with a list of "friends" who have turned out to be bogus). The closer suggested "omitting it altogether". This would mean either we didn't mention the main witness, or that we pretended she was a bystander. That seems unworkable. Fundamentally, however, no one seems to disagree with the main thrust of the closure, which is that we stick to what the sources say. I guess, with regard to the hypothetical issue, if all editors agreed that the issue had fundamentally changed, then we could move on from the RfC by mutual agreement. In the Holt case, that is far from the case. As I said, I wanted to clarify what the policy is. Perhaps it should be made clearer at WP:RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't researched the disappearance of Harold Holt enough to know whether there was a hoax. I know that his disappearance is still considered a mystery. If any of the information that has been published was a hoax, then I can still see that a request for Closure Review is better than a new RFC, in view of how recent the RFC was. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The hoax was vandalism of the Wikipedia page, since corrected. However, this is a moot point, as a discussion has already been started at WP:ANI without my knowledge. Thanks for your time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Village of Kaslo - photo

The photo attached to the article on the Village of Kaslo is dated 1946. In it, the SS Moyie is clearly seen in dry dock, much as it is today. However, further down in the article it is noted that the SS Moyie plied the waters of Kootenay Lake until 1958. A similar article devoted to the SS Moyie confirms this. Therefore, the date on the photo must be in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:76B4:C900:7083:779B:45F7:662E (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This would be considered original research, but if you can provide us with a reliable source for your information, we can change it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Who are the specific editors watching a particular Wikipedia article page?

On the statistics page for an article, it states the number of individual "watchers" for that article. Is it possible to see who the actual watchers are? Or are we just privy to see the number without the identities? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: No, watchlists are private; see Help:Watchlist#Privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Why does it state a specific number on some articles? And, on others, it generically states "less than 30 watchers" (or whatever the cutoff number is)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Here it says that the "less than 30" feature is to stop vandals targeting pages that have no watchers; the software only shows the true figure to admins. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I never thought of that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Are there any statistics to identify the rank or popularity of a Wikipedia article?

On the statistics page for an article (or, anywhere, for that matter), is it possible to see the "rank" (or some other metric of relative popularity/usefulness) for an article? When I look at the statistics page for an article, I can see how many views it had had in the past X number of days. But can I see something like "this article is ranked number 763 of all Wikipedia articles"? Or something similar? Something that indicates its relative popularity/usefulness/attraction, relative to other articles. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: It may not be quite what you're looking for, but if you take a look at the various options at Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views then it may help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will check it out. For what it's worth, I think that every article should have some statistic associated with it. To indicate its relative usefulness or popularity, relative to the other articles. I think that would be helpful. How would I propose something like this? And where? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Popularity does not equate to usefulness. The software tracks views, # of edits etc but usefulness is subjective. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If you proposed this, I would strongly oppose it, Joseph A. Spadaro. In my view anything that in the least suggests there might be some sort of competition (especially a popularity contest) between articles would encourage thinking and possibly behaviour that is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Everyone calm down. I guess one has to "guard" his exact words when speaking here. Some metric that measures how much people use each article. There. Is that more "pc"? Also, I am quite sure there are already "Top Ten" types of lists out there. I just saw one. And I am reminded of them, every so often. Do you oppose those, also? There are many at this link, provided above: Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There was this for a while, Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool. -- GB fan 18:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Page views is a quantitative measure and is fine. Already the Good Article quest causes nonsense building out articles with excessive minitia detail. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but ... page views by itself is a meaningless number without any context. Some article gets, let's say, 38,000 page views per month. Is that a lot? A little? Average? Who knows? There is no context whatsoever. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: You might be interested in Wikipedia:Top_25_Report, which is available for every week.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I know that there are lists for the "top top top" articles (the Top 10 or Top 25, etc.). I'd like to see some metric that gauges readership and usage of the other 5 million articles. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I know it's not what you asked for: the top 5,000 most viewed over the past week are listed at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages. One thing I would like to clarify in your request: would you be more interested in the total views the article has received ever, the views in the most recent week/month, or the average per week/month since it was written?--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. By focusing on the "Top Ten" or "Top 5,000" (or whatever number), you are missing my point. I want a sense of the usability, popularity, attractiveness, and usefulness of an "average, regular, everyday" article. Not the Top Ten stuff. Obviously, some article like "Donald Trump" or "ISIS" is going to get a lot of page views. But, let's say that I (or anyone) create an article. It would be nice to know if people are referring to that article and if it's good/useful. If I see that "my" article gets 38,000 views per day, I have no context for that number (38,000 views). Is that a lot? A little? Above average? Below average? Just about average? Yeah, I know it's probably not "Top Ten" league material. But I'd like more info than simply "it's not in the Top Ten". If that makes sense? (And I am simply using the number 38,000 as a hypothetical example.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Need to create gorgons head story in Hindi

Hi Wikipedia Team,

Please help to create the story of Gorgons Head in Hinidi or Marathi Language.

Regards, Hanumant Pawar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.16.177.52 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Translate us explains the basic methods, but you might want to ask for help at the Hindi and Marathi help desks, rather than the English help-desk, to see if anyone there is willing to help. - Arjayay (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Cherno Barra Touray

Hi, I only found a few lines about Cherno Barra Touray from Gambia. I know he has a new job. Nothing about his personal life. What role in played in Gambia War. The information had to be changed to english. How do I ask for help to get more info. about this person that was a football star in his country, saw war, and has had many job in the Government. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E7D2:6D00:4CD6:C9F:C027:D91C (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like German Wikipedia has an article about Touray, so you could try translating that article. Alternatively, if you can find reliable, independent sources about him, you could start an article yourself. Check out Wikipedia:Your first article for advice on how to go about doing that. —me_and 12:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Help Desk!

The Tireless Contributors' Barnstar

Hola Help Desk Team. Thanks so much for helping me each time in the past when I have posted queries here. This forum is perhaps the most amazing place on Wikipedia given the effort you all are taking. One reason I have continued on Wikipedia is because of the wonderful support given by you all. I am sure that must be the same case with other new editors who have been patiently guided by you all. You all are my tireless contributors. Xender Lourdes (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have copied this barnstar to this page's talk page, WT:HD. Since I didn't give it a section heading, I assume it will never be archived and will remain on that page indefinitely. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That is very considerate of you Mandruss :) Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Laird

Ref 14 is not right here - please get the name of the publisher. Thanks 58.108.249.112 (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Eagleash (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Protest

How do I protest racist and incorrect information on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atonn01 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Without reference to a specific article and therefore in general terms; if you find something that you are certain is incorrect then you can edit the article concerned, yourself. You will have to cite appropriate sources to verify any information you add or change. If you have concerns about a specific biographical page relating to a living person you can raise them here. In other circumstances, issues should be raised on the talk-page of an article. Please sign your posts on any talk-page by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks Eagleash (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As Eagleash said, without knowing specifically which article you're talking about or what concerns you have, it's a bit hard to answer your question. That said, often people who come here saying "Why does article X say Y?" have seen an example of WP:VANDALISM in an article. Vandalism does happen but we make efforts to fix it as quickly as possible. But again, if we don't know what article you're referring to, it's hard to say if what you saw actually was vandalism. Dismas|^(talk) 19:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that this is about White pride - we have seen a rash of emails about it at OTRS.--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Ukexpat may well be right; I have seen some posts elsewhere about that page. Eagleash (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

What is OTRS? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team Eagleash (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Posting photos for people who can't post photos

Hello,

I am at my wits end, sort of, since I have been on here since 2002 an used to edit things more than I do now, and part of this is because it has become a bureaucratic nightmare. For instance I have, over the years, worked on articles and uploaded pictures for people / on behalf of people who were busy or who did not know how to use a computer or the facebook. They would send me pictures or I would scan pictures for them and then upload with their permission and they would have me list it as the sort of picture that anyone could use as long as they didn't use it for commercial reasons. There were fewer choices back in the day for these copyright sorts of things, but I think it was just gnu creative commons open source free use sort of permissions but since I am not a intellectual property attorney or a pedant I don't know. Anyway, fast forward a few years and I now constantly get these notes about pictures saying that I do not have the right to upload them and they will need to take them off the article. This has happened with pictures I added to the Seth Shostak page and the Sonya Rapoport page, among others. It is very frustrating to try to help someone and to add to the wiki only to have someone say that because the person didn't actually upload it themselves it doesn't count. Yet I see endless pictures on here that I doubt were uploaded by the actual person holding the camera or making the artwork. So what am I doing wrong? Saudade7 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Greetings, @Saudade7:. I'll admit that I am probably partly at fault for this sort of thing. Anyhow, the issue with uploading someone else's work is that it means that uploader cannot easily explain the copyright status, so we need either OTRS or some other permission proof for it to be acceptable under our stringent copyright policies.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Jo-Jo Eumerus: What is OTRS? Does the person need to sign something? What if one of the people [Sonya Rapoport] has since died? Does that mean that all her pictures need to be taken down? (Honestly the problem is also that the rules change so much that what was okay at some point not requires more and more work, and I actually have a life and cannot manage things endlessly. It sort of makes editing the wikipedia sort of pointless. Saudade7 22:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I sympathise with Saudade7. I have even had problems when I take an image from Commons, make changes to it as requested at the Graphics Lab, and upload it to Commons as a new image, stating exactly where I found it; and it gets deleted because I have not supplied the right copyright information. I have now stopped taking requests from the Graphics Lab unless the image to be changed is already public domain. But I don't think this is the right place to complain, the problem is at Commons. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to complain, I just generally don't know what to do anymore. People asked me to upload the pictures for them and chose the kind of permissions to go with their files. Sonya was like 89 at the time and would have never been able to figure out the difficult uploading process herself. I feel badly because she was so happy to have people see her pictures and now she is dead so cannot give new permission. How are there even pictures on the wikipedia at all given that people are not allowed to write pages about themselves and only the people themselves are allowed to add pictures !?! Saudade7 22:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Saudade7: Normally I'd advise for you to advise them to upload these images themselves, but from your description that is not an option. Otherwise, the main two mechanisms to prove a license is to send an email to WP:OTRS (see also WP:IOWN) or to publish it somewhere else with a suitable license. Also, regarding File:Sonyaforwiki.jpg (I think this is one of the problem images you are concerned about, yes?) it can probably stand as fair use anyway if there is a licensing issue, until the copyright expires.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

One of Saudade7's questions was "What if one of the people [Sonya Rapoport] has since died?" Copyright licenses must be written. Email and web pages are written. But if a person only gives oral permission to copy a work, and then dies, that oral permission doesn't count. That's not a Wikipedia rule, that's the law in the US, where Wikipedia servers are located. The only recourse then would be to find out who inherited the copyright and get a written copyright license from the heir. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A follow up Saudade7: If you were in contact with Sonya you may be able to find out/contact whoever is/are the copyright holders (or their heirs) and ask/convince them to donate the images under free licences. I've had luck myself with such requests, with a contact it's even more likely.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Maproom and Jo-Jo Eumerus... thank you for writing to me on my talk page and I hope you will see this here since I never know if I am supposed to respond on my talk page or yours or just here. Anyway I like your kindness and advice. All of Sonya Rapoport's works and writings etc. were left to the archives at the Bancroft Library, at the University of California, Berkeley, a public university. I don't know if that helps anything. Otherwise I guess I could ask her daughter to write a note since she is the heir to the rest of the estate. Or else maybe I would need a librarian at the Bancroft to write? Everyone would be happy to help get Sonya's pictures back on her page. They have been slowly done away with over time, alas. Also sorry I am so slow to respond. I am in England and my phone plan doesn't have much data and I am on the road alot. Ciao and thanks again, also to Jc3s5h. Saudade7 23:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What matters is who inherited the copyrights in her writings. If it was the library, then you could ask the librarian. But it is possible that she willed the documents themselves to the library, and the copyrights in them to her daughter. Don't worry about speed, "Wikipedia has no deadline". Maproom (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Saudade7: Hi. I am glad you did respond; whether it happens here or on your talk page; I was afraid you might not but now I realize that I have far more Internet time than most people. Unfortunately, I don't know about the background of Sonya's images's transfer so I can't speak of who would own the copyright. Maybe we'd need two different permissions, one by the daughter (maybe by asking her to reupload the images?) and one by the library (via an email to the image donation email address from their official email) to cover both possibilities. Hope this may work!Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Do note: permission given via OTRS can be quite broad: for example, it can designate you as the person to upload on their behalf, without having to specify everything you will upload (although it helps to have at least a general characterization, e.g. "various artwork by my mother Sonya Rapoport"). - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating Article

I'm trying to create an article and when I click on Save Page it comes up saying "automated filter has identified this edit as a possible autobiography" and to submit to click Save Page again. When I click Save Page it then takes me to another page where I have to enter a CAPTCHA word. I do that and hit enter or Save Page and it just takes me back to the first automated filter page. It just keeps going in circles. How do I submit my article?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimson delight (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Crimson delight: I don't think this running in circles is normal, probably a bug. That aside, I suspect the issue is that you have the same name as the article you are trying to submit. Perhaps you can paste it in User:Crimson delight/sandbox at first?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. I put it in my sandbox, now what?--CD (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a running-in-circles bug that's been here for years. When you get a Captcha wrong, it gives you another one - fair enough. But when you eventually get one right, it still gives you another one, and it's easy not to notice that you have in fact been accepted. Maproom (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be what is happening here, for if the save had been accepted, it would appear in the user's contributions. —teb728 t c 00:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The article now seems to be at Crimson Delight (apple). Dismas|^(talk) 00:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just moved it to Crimson Delight as disambiguation is not required.--ukexpat (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Harv applet

@Help desk: I use Sfn/"harv" style referencing for WP:V. How can I install the editing tool that helps automate "harv error" detection? See this conversation, if you need more information. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Instructions at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

February 12

Error in reference

Resolved

ref 4 at World Marathon Challenge has the following error: "zero width space character in |title= at position 99".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done The zero width space was just ahead of the 'm' in mother. —teb728 t c 00:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fixed in Special:Diff/704513301 (I removed something just ahead of the 's' in single) —PC-XT+ 01:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Bijaya Kumar Gachchhadar

Reference help requested. Is there a way to retrieve the archive date for wikiwix? Or, is there a better archive, somewhere? I tried Internet Archive and WebCite, already. Thanks, —PC-XT+ 00:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

template for references to section which may or may not be on the same page

Is there a template that references a section, and makes the resulting link so that, if the section is on the same page, it is just a simple (piped) section link (e.g. to #Another Section) whereas if not it is the full page link?

For example, at WP:RFD, each day has its own page, which is transcluded. If I want to cross-reference another discussion, I just use the Wikipedia link, a bit long-winded, as "see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009/January 32#Invented". What I would like to do is "see also {{internal-link|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009/January 32|Invented}}" and have that translate either to the full (internal) link, or just [[#Invented]], depending on whether the FULLPAGENAME(?) is the same as the target page for the link.

There's hardly any convenience in typing, but it means when people click through the link it won't reload the page (for the given day) but just jump to where it is transcluded in the current page.

I don't mind attempting to create this template, but have a feeling one might already exist.

Thanks in advance

Si Trew (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, there's a flaw in this — how would it know that the linked page was transcluded on the current page? Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Resubmission

I have submitted my article over a month ago but it has neither been reviewed nor published. Please help d elaborate the reason for the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flexing_It#Background — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinmaygupta28 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You hadn't resubmitted it. To resubmit when you are ready, use the blue "resubmit" button in the box at the top of the article. Your problem was that you had deleted the feedback, the lines that include <!-- Do not remove this line! -->, in this edit. I have added back the material deleted in error. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives to oversight

Say for example, I come across a serious situation that is related to a subject of a BLP. I know that requests for oversight are mostly for completely removing the visibility of past edits. However, what if I simply want to warn a group of "powerful" Wikipedians of a possible attack that may involve hacking or something similar? I wouldn't want to protect the page because that would easily be visible to the public, and anyway the attacker might be powerful enough to find a way to evade this. If I just want to warn of a possible case but in a secure fashion, what should I do? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to warn someone about somebody threatening to hack Wikipedia's servers, you probably want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Their contact details are at wmf:Contact us. —me_and 14:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Me and: That wasn't really the severity I was trying to ask about - more like just a page possibly being targeted. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion! The Average Wikipedian (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Values used for an Infobox field...

What I would like to do is be able to generate a list of all of the values that a specific field in a specific Infobox. So for Template:Infobox Fraternity, I'd like to get a list of all entries in the "Type" field for all of the groups that use it. Any suggestions?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

Only to manually check all articles. Ruslik_Zero 20:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe APerson can help. I think you could actually should be able to do that with AWB, but I'm not sure. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Div col level 2 header alignment

Why are not these headers aligning properly User:Titodutta/sandbox (permalink for future references) --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: what would be proper aligning in this case? I can't see anything wrong there (or it's simply the morning :D ). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:Edgars2007, not aligned properly 1 (this image will expire after 1 month). --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. At least I have them aligned properly. Firefox and WinXP. I made an edit there, how it looks like now? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:Edgars2007, no please, I have to use this on Meta and a few other Wikipedias, replacing the template with Multicol won't help. --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Help with image

Hi. I have edited the article on Somatic anxiety. I have added a photo of the Inverted-U Hypothesis, but can't seem to get the caption to display. Thanks for the help! LoudLizard (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Use [[File:HebbianYerkesDodson.svg|thumb|Caption goes here|alt=A graph showing the inverted-U hypothesis.|right|350x350px]] --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually: [[File:HebbianYerkesDodson.svg|thumb|A graph showing the inverted-U hypothesis|alt=|right|350x350px]]. The "alt" parameter is for descriptive text for screen reader software to reproduce.--ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you both saying basically the same thing? Dismas|^(talk) 22:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes and no, they missed "thumb", which I highlighted. Ukexpat commented on moving the alt to caption. That's also okay. --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Locking user pages

Can a user i.e. me lock my user page so only I and admin can edit it? Cls14 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That is not possible. It is possible to protect it so only admins can edit it, or protect it so all confirmed users can edit it but not IPs or unconfirmed users. -- GB fan 00:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you do the latter? Protect it so only confirmed users can edit it but not IPs and unconfirmed? Cls14 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cls14: You need to make a request at WP:RFPP- it's usually accepted if you ask for something in your userspace to be protected. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks geniuses :-) Cls14 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cls14: One way to accomplish the first thing (protect userpage against all editors except for you and administrators) is to copy the markup of your wiki page to a User:Cls14/Userpage.css, replace the content of your user page with {{User:Cls14/Userpage.css}} and then as for full protection on WP:RFPP of your main userpage.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In this case, the problem is that the original poster's user page was vandalized by an editor who is registered but not autoconfirmed. In this case, semi-protection will allow him to edit the page, and it is unlikely that any other autoconfirmed editors have a desire to vandalize the page. The other editor has been warned, so that by the time that the other editor has been active for four days, either they will be blocked, or they will have learned their lesson. My advice is to request semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

February 13

Good Editors Beginning as Vandals?

I reviewed a user’s sandbox that had been submitted to AFC. It was a one-word test edit, and I declined it as a test edit. The user was then indeffed as not here, among other things for vandalism. I then nominated the sandbox for Miscellany for Deletion. Two editors agreed to Delete. One editor said to Keep, citing WP:BITE, and said that user sandboxes are the proper place for test edits (which is true), and that deleting a sandbox for no good reason was rude. One of the other editors who favored Delete noted that the editor had been blocked indefinitely, and so “rude” did not make sense. The editor who favored Keep said that many good editors began as vandals. So my first question is: Does anyone here think it is true that many good editors began as vandals? I am aware that some good editors began as net negatives to Wikipedia, because they were flamers, or added unsourced material, or were edit-warriors. Does anyone have evidence that many good editors began as vandals? It just seems to me like a strange statement. Also, it is possible that some editors began as vandals, but we will never know it, because they may have then created a new account and began editing reasonably. That would technically be sockpuppetry, but would be a case where ignore all rules should apply rather than blocking them and forcing them to request unblock of one account or to submit a standard offer. In an unverifiable opinion, do good editors often begin as vandals? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about "many", but there was someone at the Wikipedia 15 event in Seattle who said that his first few edits were vandalism as tests to see how quickly they'd be fixed. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I know of at least two valuable and accomplished contributors whose first edits were vandalism. I hope there was some additional context behind the block you refer to above, because indeffing a user after nothing more than a test edit and some sort of mishap is poor form, I think. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I declined a test edit, simply as a proper exercise of Articles for Creation review. The editor's other edits were vandalism. An admin then indeffed the editor as not here. I am not an admin. I would have indeffed the editor for vandalism-only account, a distinction without a difference. I think that the indef was correct, because they hadn't made any constructive edits (e.g., gnome edits, questions on talk pages). I don't think that there was a "mishap", unless submitting the test edit to AFC was a mishap. If the editor wants to start editing constructively, they can request unblock, or they will establish a new account with no history. (As noted, the latter is technically incorrect, but actually constructive and should be allowed under IAR.) If the editor is unblocked within six days, they can ask to keep their sandbox. In my opinion, there isn't value to keeping sandboxes of indeffed users. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Why Are So Many Test Sandbox Drafts Submitted for AFC?

Many user sandboxes are submitted to Articles for Creation that clearly do not appear to be draft articles for review. Some of them are just test edits, which is the primary purpose of a user sandbox, but it is not what AFC is for. My question is whether there is some user interface reason why new editors submit these test edits to AFC without intending them to be draft articles, in which case the user interface can be improved? I understand that occasionally a new editor who is even more clueless than most new editors doesn't know that Wikipedia doesn't have articles that are test edits, but I can't imagine that all of the test edits that I see are due to complete cluelessness as to what is right for Wikipedia, but to some other cluelessness about what Submit is. (Also, the Submit button isn't obvious, except on a draft that has once been declined. My user sandbox has an AFCH button, which would permit me to Comment or Submit. Are these due to new editors wondering what AFCH means, and then not knowing that Submit means Submit for review and publication?) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

My question is primarily about edits that appear to be test edits. A different matter, easier for me to understand, is one-or-two-sentence statements as to who the editor is. They may either be intended for publication as autobiographies by editors who don't know better, or they may be intended to be social media profiles by editors who don't yet know that Wikipedia isn't a social medium. (In some but not all cases, the latter might be reasonable user pages, and many new users don't know the difference between articles and user pages.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem with missing spaces

Can anyone work out what's gone wrong at Exchange Building (Seattle)? E.g. " Art Decooffice building", "Razorfish(a". Offhand, the source looks as I'd expect it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Something strange happened with this edit, but I have not yet figured it out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem has something to do with the included designation list ( remove it and things look fine).--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it, and it cleaned up the spacing. But now I don't know what to do with the removed material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been further followed up and is fully fixed now. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking for a specific template or function

Is there a template, built-in function, or external tool where you input an article's title and it outputs the "final destination". For instance, inputting USA would give me United States, and inputting Canada would give back Canada. Is there anyway of doing this for a long list of articles? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 05:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Brightgalrs: I have one method of doing this. Do you want it for one-time use or regularly? If the first option, then you can tell, what list do you have. If the second, then most probably my method won't be good option. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably just a one-time thing. I'm all ears.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 18:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh and the list, which is just a list of unicode characters (warning, fairly long) User:Brightgalrs/Unicode List. I really want to sort out the unicode articles and redirects. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a lua module that might do what you want. I grabbed the unicode character Ϻ from your page of unicode characters and tried this:

{{#invoke:redirect|main|Ϻ}}

which returns:

San (letter)

put that in wikimarkup:

[[{{#invoke:redirect|main|Ϻ}}]]

to get:

San (letter)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you, thank you. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 21:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

batch complete source removal advice

Hello, There is a lot of references to FILIT, an external source of information, in Slovak version of Wikipedia. The source is not reliable due to the usage of circular definitions. These definitions are beeing transfered to wikipedia articles consequently. I did try to update the source definition page to point the issue https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filit

and start to remove( or replace, when in my powers) them https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smr%C5%A5 https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rozdielnos%C5%A5

, however this activity has been stopped by Editors/Moderators, because of the missing source replacement advice. E.g.: It may be wrong, but unless you make a page with different lies, status quo remains, even if it is not proven right. Basically, the source does not comply with the Second pillar of Wikipedia, beeing written from a neutral point of view, and blocking the change on wikipedia with "shut up, unless you agree to follow the existing rules" with the Fifth pillar, Wikipedia has no firm rules.

Regards

p.s: The pages are directly linked from english version via language selection in left columns.In example clicking "Slovenčina" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death points to a page, containing the data, partially created by some Ashtar Sheran's follower(s) on primary source(FILIT) without mentioning it. This IP is currently blocked on the Slovak language Wikipedia due to non-constructive changes( yes, data cleansing means removing, so it stands for non-constructive changes definitions). Meanwhile the Wikipedia is another missinformation source.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.6.184 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC) 

@78.99.6.184: This is the English language Wikipedia- we have no power on what any other language Wikipedia does. If you have a problem on the Slovak language Wikipedia, you need to discuss it there (do they have a helpdesk like this one?). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Image placement

Can someone please fix the image size and placement in List of locks and dams of the Upper Mississippi River? The present configuration looks awful. Maybe if the images were adjacent to the table on the right? Thanks. 32.218.45.170 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the images into a gallery towards the end of the article. Another editor may wish to re-position. Eagleash (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks. 32.218.45.170 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary

I just edited an article with the phrase "concluded with conclusions". As I filled in the edit summary, I wondered what the term for that type of 'dancing of words' is called. Its not an Oxymoron. But something like that. Buster Seven Talk 21:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You are probably better off at the Language Help Desk. Here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You may be thinking of tautology?:--David Biddulph (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thats it. Thank you, David. Buster Seven Talk 07:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Depends on context. Could be "blunt talk".Contexterr (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Marlies Somers

Hello, why my articel is planning for deleting? It is the same refrence with the articel Mirjami Heikkinen. So why this articel is for deleting andn ot mirjami heikkinen? Iti s the same refrence! Delete mirjami heikkinen to!--Maxie1hoi (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Just what it says at Marlies Somers. It is a biography of a living person that has no references. You have seven days to add in-line references. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with the recently closed Keep on the other voice actress, because it was actually No Consensus, but since No Consensus leaves the status quo, that is not worth taking to deletion review. I will comment that the article that is currently tagged is in much worse English than the one that is being kept. My suggestion is to submit any future articles via Articles for Creation, where the English can be cleaned up. Bad English is not a reason for BLP proposed deletion, but it is taken into account in formal AFD deletion discussion. If your English isn't good, rely on other editors for help with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that, probably in response to your post here, a footnote has been added to the draft, the English has been improved, and the deletion tag has been properly removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

February 14

List of United States Supreme Court Justices by age

Do we have an article along the lines of List of United States Supreme Court Justices by age? I can't seem to find anything. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it. But you can go to List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and use the arrows at the top to list them by birth year. Dismas|^(talk) 18:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

HOW TO UPLOAD OUR WIKIPEDIA ON GOOGLE??

Dear sir/Mam,

Kindly tell me how i can upload my wikipedia on google???

Thanks & Regards

Shoaib Siddiqui — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msgraphics007 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I cannot guess what you mean by "my wikipedia". You have uploaded several images to English Wikipedia, but none of them is in use anywhere (and one appears to be of a magazine cover; if it is, it is in breach of copyright). And Google is a search engine – no-one can upload things to it. Maybe you want Google to list something you have created: that's not really a problem for this Wikipedia Help Desk, and anyway we wouldn't be able to help without knowing what it is that you want it to list. Maproom (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Msgraphics007. From your question, and your username, I am guessing that when you say "our wikipedia" you mean an article in Wikipedia about you or your company, and you are interested in having such an article to improve your presence on the web. If that is the case, then I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia. I am not sure if you are referring to an existing article, or about one that you hope to create, but in either case:

• Wikipedia may have an article about your company if there is substantial material about the company written by people who have no connection with the company, and published in reliable places;
• Any such article should be almost completely based on what these independent sources have published about it. What the company says or wants to say about itself is almost irrelevant to Wikipedia, the article will in no sense belong to the company, and anybody connected with the company is strongly discouraged from editing the article.
• Wikipedia may not be used for promotional purposes, and so we have little interest in how google treats an article.

I also observe that one of the images you have uploaded to Commons, File:Shoaib Siddiqui Meerut.jpg includes a resume, which is quite inappropriate to the project. Please read commons:Commons:Project Scope, particularly the part that says "Every file ... Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", and WP:NOT, especially "Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service..." -ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Overlined text does not display properly in table of contents

The Prosigns for Morse code article includes several sections with overlined text like this. This overlining is significant to the content of the article and cannot be substituted by any alternate highlighting forms such as underlining or italics, angle brackets, etc. The overlining displays correctly in the article itself, but does not display in the automatically generated table of contents. Is there a fix or workaround for this? Thanks. 50.174.97.118 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

See /Archives/2016 February 5#Overlined text does not display properly in table of contents. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Map has wrong location

In Pleasant Valley Grange Hall, there is a map of New York State, but the location specified is far off. I have no idea how to fix this myself. Mb66w (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Request assistance at Talk:Pleasant Valley Grange Hall. Since that talk page is probably not well watched, someone at this Help Desk may look at your talk page request for assistance. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is listed as being part of two wikiprojects so you could try asking at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York. You could also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Hopefully one of these will find someone who can help. MarnetteD|Talk 18:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the problem stems from the fact that the article in its original creation listed the town as being in Oneida County, New York. That was changed to Dutchess County, New York over four and a half years later. I am finding some obscure references to a PV in Onieda Co but there are far more for Dutchess Co. That grange has a Facebook page. I haven't yet found how the red dot is positioned on the map. But I am wondering if it has something to do with the coordinates linked at the upper right corner and in the infobox. They go to this page and clicking on a couple of the links there (like Bings and Google Maps) connects to maps for Oneida Co. That leads to the question - Is there more than one Peasant Valley Grange Hall?- The Granges in New York website has listings for both counties. One way to untangle this is to revert the article back to Oneida Co and start a new one for the Dutchess Co grange but other editors may have a different/better solution. Mb66w please feel free to copy/paste my research to any other place that you ask about this. MarnetteD|Talk 18:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I should mention that I tried the first reference for the article but it goes to a generic page and my head was already swimming from all my other research so I didn't go any farther. I could not access the second reference so if anyone else can that might help explain what is going on. MarnetteD|Talk 18:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Your wondering is correct. The infobox coordinates position the red dot on the map. There is a separate parameter to choose the map, itself, and these are out of agreement. I might change the map back to Oneida Co. for now, because I don't know the proper coordinates for the one in Dutchess Co. —PC-XT+ 19:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if a histunmerge to split the article might be appropriate. Otherwise, if this is to be for Dutchess Co., the coordinates just need updating. The map could be disabled until then. —PC-XT+ 19:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Why did someone delete the user talk page "User talk: DJ Oamen" ?!?! What can I do about it???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.70.0 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted/removed article - Betty X

Musician Betty X has had a Wikipedia entry for more than 10 years. Her page is now no longer coming up. It's confusing to booking agents when Betty X (musician) entry goes straight to Betty Shabazz who never used the moniker Betty X. (No disrespect to Betty.) Can Betty X (musician) page be re-established? Is there a reason that the page was removed after having been up and in use for 10+ years? Any explanation and help in getting this resolved would be greatly appreciated.