Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amanouz (talk | contribs) at 13:47, 15 July 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    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

    July 12

    Offer to create a BLP for pay

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

    I suggest you to report this to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Ayub407talk 08:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ayub407; I've done that.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Karen Blixen

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

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

    Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer) NEEDS TO BE DELETED

    Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer) NEEDS TO BE DELETED

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

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

    I am Lisa Lewis

    Who ever set this page up has used tabloid journalism,

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

    There is MANY wrong facts on this wikipedia.

    How do we shut it down

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

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

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

    New page patrolling help

    While I patrolling, I came across one user who keeps moving articles which are tagged for CSD deletion from mainspace to draft without any discussion. I want to know that is this allowed? Here an article which I tagged for CSD A7 for example. Thanks Ayub407talk 07:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ayub407, In general, of course, we encourage drafts so articles can be improved. Draft articles are not immune from deletion, however, particularly for spam or copyright, and in this case I felt that the promotional tone an total lack of verifiable notability justified deletion even as a draft Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ayub407, We generally reserve moves to Draft space only for article that have real potential for development and meeting inclusuin criteria. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tiger Gang is a confused new editor and has been told a number of times not to make such moves. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimfbleak & Kudpung, I am aware of that but I became confused after seeing Tiger Gang moving multiple articles nominated for speedy deletion from mainspace to draftspace and I wanted to know what he was doing was right or wrong. The issue was resolved shortly after it was reported at ANI. Ayub407talk 11:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Karen Blixen

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

    No. But I'll tell you what you did wrong with the citation templates so that you can fix it youself:
    {{cite web| last1=Wilson| first1=Katharina M.| title=An Encyclopedia of Continental Women Writers, Volume 1| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2Wf1SVbGFg8C&pg=PA319| publisher=Taylor & Francis, 1991 (pages 318-320)| accessdate=12 July 2016}}
    1. An Encyclopedia of Continental Women Writers is a book so you should use {{cite book}}
    2. The volume information, if it is required, belongs in |volume=
    3. page numbers belong in |pages=, not in |publisher=
    4. |access-date= is not appropriate for book cites
    5. the book has a publication date; that goes in |date=
    When reusing a citation, the first instance is named and is the definition for later use:
    1. first <ref name="Wilson">{{cite book |title=An Encyclopedia ...}}</ref>
    2. for every use after that: <ref name="Wilson" />
    Go now and fix your citations.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    few questions

    NAC:This isn't going anywhere, and is no longer a question but a rambling complaint. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    A. There are multiple ways it could be imposed. It could be the result of a discusison at WP:ANI, the result of an WP:ARBCOM case, or as arbitration enforcement. This isn't normally imposed by a single administrator. A 1rr can be applied to an editor or to an article or even a subject area.
    B. No, the software does not do this, someone has to know there is the restriction and monitor the situation.
    C. It depends on the exact restriction. If it is on an article, then it is usually annotated on the talk page. If it is on an editor, then it will be annotated on their talk page what the restriction entails.
    Also. There are other types of restrictions where someone is restricted from editing an article but can edit the article talk page. Someone can be topic banned from an article or a subject area, this may include no discussion of that topic anywhere. Other editors just monitor the situation and raise concerns at ANI or with an administrator. -- GB fan 12:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There is no software preventing or watching for breaches of restrictions. Editing has to be watched manually. Admins have broad latitude to impose any form of restriction necessary (within reason) for topics arbcom has placed under discretionary sanctions. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions. Admins can also sanction disruptive editors editing articles under general sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 12:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, and if a person has a 1rr or uniquely designed restriction this is noted on their talk page in a way they can't erase?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not placed there in a way they can't erase. -- GB fan 12:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    that's probably a deficiency in the system, no?68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to understand that every single page on Wikipedia is a "wiki page" - that is, editable in any way. There have been attempts to introduce more structured editing via software to certain subsets of pages - all have spectacularly failed. --NeilN talk to me 13:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    but if an editor has a current restriction shouldn't that at least be permenately noted on their talk page/contribution page...so people 'know' it exists..??68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe me, the editors involved in getting the restriction imposed and/or editing in the same area will know the restriction exists. --NeilN talk to me 13:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    looking at my final post in this ANI thread...is my suggestion possible/practical?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting_user_Vvven.27s_disruptive_editing68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would need community consensus however. --NeilN talk to me 13:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    is it correct then that an admin can't unilaterally take that step of imposing the unique restriction (which is less harsh than being blocked) but can unilaterally block someone (for disruptive editing, for example)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The community has allowed admins to block for disruptive editing, vandalism, etc. It has allowed admins to place restrictions on editors editing in certain areas. It has not allowed "do whatever you think best" across the project. --NeilN talk to me 13:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think ideally in the case above ad admin could unilaterally impose the restriction (as the case is pretty obvious) and place a permenant note about it...this could then be challenged and overturned by consensus...currently they can just block the person for disruptive editing and then that can only be overturned by another admin (so consensus doesn't really apply)..is this correct?68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of what you say is incorrect - unilaterally imposing, permanent note, blocks only being overturned by another admin... --NeilN talk to me 14:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm stating that ideally they should be able to unilaterally impose/place perm note, but they can't...they can only unilataterally block for "disruptive editing" and then the person can only appeal to another admin (so there's no consensus process for that)..In any event, this is probably getting beyond the scope of this desk and I think my questions have been answered...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just realised who this IP is. I believe all of the above is regarding the fact that I took away his talkpage access last month in an effort to prevent him digging himself an even deeper hole than he was already in, and a (vain) attempt to find a policy I violated in so doing. ‑ Iridescent 14:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    why would you believe that? It's obviously rooted in my suggestion regarding that ANI thread I linked to? how could this possibly be construed to have anything to do with you? don't be so self-centered and try to assume good faith..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Karen Blixen

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

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

    editor refuses to go to to dispute resolution

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

    I would suggest you to report this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard if there's a dispute over an edit. Volunteers there will help you to sort things out. Be sure to give every details about what dispute you're facing. Ayub407talk 15:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I will try this as the next step.Formulairis990 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has explained why he doesn't want to go to dispute resolution at this time. He only said he would stop contributing to the conversation if you don't address his points and continue discussing him. Stop talking about editors/bringing up block logs and discuss the content. -- GB fan 15:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    the OP is dealing with a very aggressive editor, I assure you...so it's a little understandable that he began looking into him a bit...but, yes, try to keep it substantive...I just weighed-in over there at the talk and asked a question...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To GB fan, the question was a to the point procedural question, instead you answered with your opinion on a misrepresentation of my behavior; not unlike the editor in question. If you read the very lengthy discussion starting where I came in [1] and at the very top with the original editor [2] you will see that editor immediately responds with personal attacks, and in my case also brings up my past edits on other articles, and continuously focuses on me. After several responses, and prodded by a particularly egregious response by him to my asking him to explain his apparent double standard, I brought up his repeated blocks history which describe the very behavior he appears to be engaged in. To call attention to an editor's current behavior by pointing out his past blocks for the same behavior seems warranted. His repeated blocks do show he has fans that excuse his behavior because they find him entertaining.Formulairis990 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    consider doing a RfC and clearly and concisely explain the issue in the RfC...and, yes, that editor is often abrasive and profane and proud of it..but he's only one editor and ultimately only has one 'vote' as far as consensus in regards to article content...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for suggesting this. But the system is surely broken if this is the only remedy.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    if you've got two editors at a standstill you have to find a way to get more editors to come to reach some kind of consensus; that is the system..as far as the content dispute, I probably agree with you but would have to look at it a little closer first..i'll perhaps continue to participate at that talk page...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you I appreciate your input, and the question you asked made a good point. My concern is that this will appear as canvasing.Formulairis990 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    no, it can't...you haven't sought anybody out here with an expectation they would side with you in the content dispute over there...I just decided to go check it out on my own initiative after seeing this post, which I'm perfectly free to do...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussing other editors is never OK in a content discussion. Discuss the content not the editors. Trying to insert discussion about an editor into a conversation about content will always derail that conversation. It doesn't matter if he did it first. I tried to explain how you might get the conversation back on track and work towards a resolution of the problem. Dispute resolution is not a mandatory process and he does not need to go there if he doesn't want to nor does he need to engage in a discussion if he doesn't want to. No one can force him to do either. -- GB fan 17:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly agree with User:GB fan not to discuss another editor. The only time to "discuss another editor" is if all else has failed and it is necessary to report the abusive editor to WP:ANI. In fact, in mediated dispute resolution at DRN, if an editor tries to "discuss another editor" rather than discussing content, the volunteer moderator is likely to collapse the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have modified my comment above. I was specifically talking about content discussion and have added that to my post above. -- GB fan 18:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we are in agreement. You can't discuss content and conduct in the same discussion. By "discussing the other editor" in a content dispute, you sink to the other editor's level (if you weren't already down there). Only discuss the other editor if all else fails, and it is better to try to discuss content than to discuss conduct. GB Fan and I are in agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    GB fan, for whatever reason you took the position that the user's refusal to go to dispute resolution were honest, and your comments falsely claimed that I refused to discuss his points, and that my mere mention of the user's history of blocks was the cause of the user's approach and refusal to continue, when in fact from the start the user has refused to have a simple honest discussion and the user's constant antics appear aimed at ever keeping the discussion from remaining on track. The observations from the other commentators here about his profane and abusive style which the user takes pride in, suggest what I've described.
    And note, I haven't brought up the user's style here, and in my talk with the user I only referred to it by telling him to focus on the discussion and not on attacking his projection of me.Formulairis990 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Formulairis990, I guess we will need to agree to disagree. I said nothing about you and did not say you were the cause of this. You asked what to do, I tried to explain a way forward, discuss the content not the editor. You were discussing the content but you were also discussing the editor. -- GB fan 20:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute Resolution Comments

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

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

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

    Uploading an image

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

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

    @Wonderful2016: Your company and the photographer will need to release the image under a free license, see commons:Commons:Email templates.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wonderful2016: Also note that you are discouraged from making substantial edits to pages where you have a conflict of interest, and as your conflict of interest is financial, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose it. Additionally, your current username is against our username policy as it is promotional and implies shared use. This being said, updating an image on a page is usually acceptable, and as long as it is released under a sufficiently free license (CC-BY-SA is the usual one) I would be surprised if there was opposition to addition of a good image. —  crh 23  (Talk) 17:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References for the same material on two separate pages

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

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

    July 13

    Lady Susan

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

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

    Articles based on a fallacious premise - relevant policies?

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

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

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

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

    Barrister

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

    • @Srbernadette: It was almost good. I just corrected a minor point: the website's title goes in the "website" field, not "publisher". ("title" is for the specific page on the website).
    Also, please remember to sign you posts by typing four tildes (like this: ~~~~) at the end of them.TigraanClick here to contact me 11:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

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

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

    Laura Bingham Page

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

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

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

    I have changed what you unsuccessfully formatted as a reference in your question to a wikilink, and removed the stray reference tags. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the problems identified in the box at the top of the article, the words in blue are wikilinks, leading you to specific advice in each case. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

    A message to David Biddulph

    Please help.

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

    Did this fix the problem that you saw on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge? —  crh 23  (Talk) 11:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest to User:Crh23 that a citation ought to be surrounded by ref tags, as reinstated in this edit; all that was previously missing was the < of the opening <ref> tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, that's what was up. I was confused as I don't often see quotes in citations (mainly reading technical articles), and was using visual editor, cheers. —  crh 23  (Talk) 11:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm just being stupid, ignore me. —  crh 23  (Talk) 11:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

    Please use Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions for further requests for help with editing and references. - NQ (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    NQ, this IP is a long-term user who frequently forgets to sign in before posting (See the previous section here). The Teahouse is designed as a friendly place for new users to seek advice. SrBernadette's problems are better addressed here. Rojomoke (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am aware of who they are. I feel they have exhausted everyones patience here at the help desk (judging by the latest revert) and perhaps the friendly people over at the Teahouse might be more inclined to help. - NQ (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps some friendly encouragement that we are happy to help clean up a citation or two, but at some point it is time for the editor to learn how to do it (or find a different hobby).--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Cyrus Warner

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

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

    "Official" fan site

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

    No. Don't undo it. Take the discussion to the talk page of the article and follow consensus (with the non-inclusion of the fan site being the stable state, not vice versa). Lourdes 17:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion should be on the Talk page, as Lourdes says. But I will point out that WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, no 11, says "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority.". --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Best, Drew Geraci

    Hello, Drew. What you've created is a user page; those do not "go live" in the sense that they become part of the mainspace. They are optional and intended to provide other editors some basic background about you, your interests, what sort of articles you've been editing, etc. I am sure there will be additional replies, below. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A073:98E5:BA6B:E905 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr. Geraci, while the links you've given are not enough to develop your biography, I've done some preliminary research on you and am wondering why you did not have an article here till date. I'll churn something up next week and work it up over time. Check here in around ten days or so. Thanks. Lourdes 16:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, Drewvader1009. It's not a matter of an appeal: you should discuss the matter with Diannaa on the article's talk page. It looks as if DGG might be in agreement with you, so I've pinged that user as well. If you can't agree, Copyright problems might be a place to go. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drewvader1009: DGG declined to delete the article on copyright grounds, but I thought there was enough of an overlap that the content shouldn't be here as first posted, so I paraphrased it. I will send you a comparison of the two via email if you like. You will have to activate your Wikipedia email if you want me to do this. — Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good idea to be safe, so I endorse Diannaa's rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of "Flourished"

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

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

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

    See Floruit—it doesn't mean "this is when you were active", it means "we don't have a source for your birthdate and this is the earliest time we can find sources to prove you were around". ‑ Iridescent 18:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Professor Kors, I've replaced it with "Alan Charles Kors (born 1943)" - NQ (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    KLRD (KLoRD) or Shepherd Communications page gone

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

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

    Redirect and/or name change?

    Resolved
     – 19:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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

    Redirect created. -- GB fan 19:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A073:98E5:BA6B:E905 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    I'd like to create

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

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

    How do I get started?

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

    If I may, I'd suggest reading over WP:AUTO and WP:COI first. Wikipedia really frowns upon autobiographies and promotional/self-referencing articles where there is a clear conflict of interest. Also, I'd recommend reading WP:NBOOK as well for what would give your book notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through the articles for creation process is often the easiest way to write an article about which you have a conflict of interest. This way, experienced volunteers will review the submission and hopefully offer assistance. Or, if you can provide links to coverage from professional journalists, such as book reviews at The New York Times or The Guardian, someone will likely create the articles for you. Wikipedia has grown pretty bureaucratic and complex, so you might be interested in looking at this very brief explanation of our inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    July 14

    saving articles

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

    There's not really a set way to save an article "for later". If you'd like to save an edit that you have made however, you can click the "Save page" button on the bottom left of your screen. eurodyne (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you wanting to export pages ? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:CC99:600D:3E4:4B4C (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To retrieve past edited versions of any article, click on the "View history" tab that you would see on top of the article page. Help:Page history will give you considerable inputs on the same. Lourdes 12:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

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

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

    Article topic question

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

    • See POVNAMING and WP:POVTITLE for more information on the title of the article you are proposing. Other than that, the decision about whether to include these details in the main article or to create a fork, should be taken on the talk page of the respective article. Lourdes 14:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    okay, so I guess there could at least theoretically be a stand-alone article about the general issue...as opposed to only allowing potential mention of the topic in the article itself??68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Theoretically, yes. But the appropriate procedure would be to first propose this on the talk page of the relevant article, and then to follow the consensus that is reached. Lourdes 14:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving typo issue

    I made a typo when I attempted to move Consuelo, San Pedro de Macorís to Consuelo, Dominican Republic and wrote Consuelo, Dominican Republicq. How can it be fixed? ⭐ Nika de Hitch (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Done: In this particular case you'd usually need to find an admin, such as myself - the usual venue would be WP:RM#TR. Alternatively, you could have reversed the move and tried again, but that can get quite messy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox picture

    Hi, I'm editing the page on the British Journal of Sports Medicine and I'd like to change the photo in the infobox, replace it by a more recent picture but I'm unsure how to do this. I had a look on the Wikipedia Upload File page but it was quite unhelpful and didn't really give clear instructions on how to do this. Would it be possible for someone to help me and explain how I can change the photo? Thank you very much Chloe C S (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Chloe C S. If you would like to replace an image in an article, the first step for you to do is to upload it. You can use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard to do so; it's pretty straightforward and shouldn't be hard (just make sure the image you want to upload isn't copyrighted). After you have uploaded the image, just edit the page (British Journal of Sports Medicine in this case) and replace the old photo with the new one. To do such, just find the name of the image in the infobox (should be in the format of image.jpg or something), remove that, and replace it with the name of the new photo. If you have any more questions, please ask. JudgeRM (talk to me) 15:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Thank you very much JudgeRM. ! Chloe C S (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You're welcome, Chloe C S. If you have any more questions, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a way to fork the page history?

    Is there a way to fork the page history? I mean something opposite to merge. I'm not going to use it, I'm just curious if it is possible at all.

    The question is inspired by the draft article Page365, whose submission has been declined recently for the fourth time. One of reasons is the subject is unclear – the draft describes both a company and its product. Could it be converted into two sibling pages, one of which would be later truncated to a company and the other one to the product, but both would retain the same (or duplicated) initial history of edits? --CiaPan (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Theoretically this can be done by exporting the page into an XML file, editing it and then re-importing it under a different name. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But we don't do that. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia allows creating a page as a copy with no page history, if proper attribution is given. See Wikipedia:Splitting. For a method where edits are split between page histories but only belong to one of them, see WP:HISTSPLIT. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking 2 Wikipedia accounts

    How can I link two Wikipedia accounts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfwolf7 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Elfwolf7: unfortunately, you can't combine their edits into one account. However, if you merely want to declare a second account, as allowed by WP:VALIDALT, you can add a wikilink from each user page to the other. For example, consider that your main account is User:Example and your valid alternate account is User:Example2. In that case, you might put the following text on each user page:
    Then, make sure that you don't mix up the two accounts and vote twice in the same discussion. There are several reasons why you might want a second account, but the most common is probably because of accessing Wikipedia through insecure wireless networks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    July 15

    Reference name and|or tag errors

    Is there a category, a list, or a method of finding <ref></ref> errors. I correct them when found, but this is discovered randomy. Errors found and corrected so far, relate to reference naming, but could contribute correcting them on a regular basis.— Ineuw talk 00:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ineuw: If you mean pages saying <ref></ref> with no content then it adds the hidden categories Category:Pages with reference errors and Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched for 'articles with ref errors' and found this list which I bookmarked and use to find errors to correct. Eagleash (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Much thanks to both of you. This is what I was looking for, and have been correcting when found, Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). but will correct any error. — Ineuw talk 01:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That message adds Category:Pages with duplicate reference names which currently contains 18,882 pages. Have fun! PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You should find plenty of those in the list noted above! Eagleash (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Image slideshows?

    I believe I saw that MediaWiki now has the capability to have slideshows of media. True? I'd be using it on Wikinews, not here. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zanimum: Looks like it. The documentation with example can be found here: mw:Extension:JavascriptSlideshow. Note, I have not tested this myself so I do not know if it works as intended. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Majora: Thanks for finding this! -- Zanimum (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zanimum: wikinews:Special:Version does not list JavascriptSlideshow so this extension is not installed there (or at any other wikis I tried). There may be other ways to make slideshows. Commons has commons:Help:Gadget-GallerySlideshow. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I was just about to say that I tested it in my sandbox here and it didn't work. It seems like it would be useful to have. Especially on Wikinews. Wonder if you can request it be installed. --Majora (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    GRENADA CARRIACOU AND PETITE MARTINIQUE

    GRENADA IS NOW CALLED GRENADA CARRIACOU AND PETITE MARTINIQUE (G.C.P.) THE NAME CHANGE WAS DONE IN JUNE 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:E71B:1C00:2D47:EED0:3AF3:FCC1 (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've raised this on the articles talk page. If you can provide a reliable source to confirm the name change, there's no reason you can't add it to the article yourself. But please STOP SHOUTING! Rojomoke (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Top icons: Custom sort/order

    Wiki software displays them in A-Z order (I guess). Consider my userpage, I like to sort them like this:

    • Autoconfirmed, Extended confirmed, Rollback, Reviewer, File mover, Page mover

    But Wiki displays them in this order:

    @Wario-Man: I have added sortkeys.[4] The sortkey parameter is documented on some of the template pages like Template:Page mover topicon. It should have been documented on all of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Making a new page

    Please tell me how to make a new page. I am going to make a page about my alma mater, Sto. Tomas Central Elementary School SPED Center. Thank you.DJ Baguio (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just go one Sto. Tomas Central Elementary School SPED Center and click on create article. 2A02:908:5C8:F240:503F:B6B3:301D:E1C5 (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While that reply is factually correct, DJ Baguio, it is very bad advice. Writing a new article in a way that makes it accepted is difficult. Please read Your first article carefully, and then, if you decide that it meets the criteria for WP:NSCHOOL, use the Article wizard to create a draft. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Coat of arms template doesn't work for some cities

    Template:Coat_of_arms returns for some cities the default coat of arms icon even if these cities have a coat of arms logo in their wikipedia entry. For example  Tours or  Pas-de-Calais. Am I missing something? 2A02:908:5C8:F240:503F:B6B3:301D:E1C5 (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The template has a list of cities with their COAs. If it doesn't display the CoA, you need to edit the template page to add the city and the coat.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking a name to Wikidata

    Is it ever proper to link a name in an article or a disambiguation page to the person's entry in Wikidata? Lets assume they are not notable enough for a standalone article. This would allow the reader to see additional biographical information on that person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Search terms

    Hey everyone,

    Some time ago, a suggested adding search terms to a wikipedia article in its talk page (Witchcraft_accusations_against_children). The article in question is interesting but difficult to find both on general search engines and the wikipedia search engine, due to the specific wording of its title and lack of other more known terms. Nobody did it, so I'd like to know how to add search keys words for the mentioned article and others if the need arises?

    Thank you Amanouz (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=729919050"