When creating this article, I forgot to italicize the title of the book in the name of the article. Is there a way to italicize the article name at this point, or does the page have to be moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osl2015 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion. Hi, I am trying to create a page for Françoise Doherty (and The Girl Bunnies series), Canadian filmmaker, LGBTQ activist and it was sent directly for speedy deletion. The old page was orphaned. The new page is directly from a journal entry and other sources. The artist in question is sourced in many areas. How do I write for someone who was previously deleted. The info is similar because the person/collective is the same. There are many sources, I've listed 4 below. Any help would be great. Thanks.
@Lforets: It's usually better to write an article as a Draft, and then move to be an Article when it is ready. See WP:YFA for how to write an article, and use the Wizard there to create the draft. Not sure what you mean by "directly from the journal", but you can't just copy things into Wikipedia, due to copyright. RudolfRed (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I couldn't find a more appropriate place to put an "edit request" of this nature, if there is one can someone either replicate it there or let me know, thanks — IVORKDiscuss01:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
My name is not Turner. I am writing to you concerning the succulent article that I edited. My colleague Morgan had given me life changing information that everyone needed to know. Semen IS in fact involved in the succulent species. The suck my butt thing, was, in fact, a complete joke. But I couldn't help myself I'm sorry its how I was born. Semen flows through the succulents mitochondria. The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. Therefore semen IS in fact important to the succulent plant life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotTurner159 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ampersands that are part of HTML character codes have been replaced with the character codes for ampersands, so that the history pages shows the original code instead of the intended character. For example, "…" has been replaced with "…", so that the page shows the code instead of the intended ellipsis. I see that these character codes no longer work. They should be replaced with the correct modern codes in order for the history pages to correctly present the content of the original pages.
In the God as the Devil article, section Opposition, the illustration of the Cathari is much larger than it originally appeared.
These problems did not exist when the edits were first made, so the history pages do not accurately present the correct history of the pages. Can they be fixed?
@WagePeace: Old revisions always show what the code would produce today. This is unlikely to change for multiple reasons. One of them is that editors may revert to the version but they should know how it looks now. The old rendering is not saved and it would be difficult for the software to figure out how it was rendered long ago. In some cases it would also produce problems with images and templates changed for legal reasons like copyright violations. The current version of templates and images is used. The page had no code to specify image size so the full image File:Cathars expelled.JPG is displayed. The size was 204 × 208 at the time but the current version is 955 × 1,000. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But is that correct? The current HTML of the history pages is not the same as the originals. The ampersands have been converted to "&". The originals were not like that. So was there some process at sometime under which all old pages had their ampersands changed to "&"? -- WagePeace (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WagePeace: Our software MediaWiki transforms wiki source to html, sometimes with help from other programs. This process is often called to render the page. The details of the transformation can change with new software versions, e.g. to follow a new html or character standard. I'm not big on character standards but maybe … became a disallowed number in the used standard at some time so the software started transforming it to html which displays the code itself instead of sending a disallowed character code to the user's browser. Or maybe it was always disallowed and the software became stricter. Every time a page is rendered, the old html is overwritten and not stored, e.g. after every edit to the page. Any change of the wiki source itself will be in an edit in the page history whether by a human or bot. Here is an editor changing … to [...]. I don't know whether there has been a bot making this change systematically. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Thank you for your very complete explanation of what's going on in both problems. It's lame that Wikipedia has depricated the old HTML codes that still work in modern browsers that are backward compatible with those codes. I just tested … in the latest Firefox and IE and it is rendered as an ellipsis. But Wikipedia has chosen to break old history pages that were written correctly according the standards extant at the time, which seems to me to be a bad policy. Also, the Wikipedia page on ellipsis that you linked to doesn't say anything about the old code for it, which would be a good idea, including stating that current browsers continue to render the old code correctly. So I disagree with how Wikipedia is handling these old codes in its history pages and in its articles about characters, but I thank you for explaining the situation. -- WagePeace (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WagePeace: Wikipedia uses UTF-8. Our html says <meta charset="UTF-8"/>. UTF-8#Invalid byte sequences may be relevant. If we let the user browser try to render invalid UTF-8 characters then editors with browsers where they work may not spot and fix them, while they fail for other users or may even exploit security holes. Rendering of old revisions is low priority. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After code 128, the whole character space is codeset dependent (unicode and thus UTF-8 are not backwards compatible with it), so the only thing you can do is 'guess' if the character should map to Windows extended or Mac extended or something completely different. It can be: á, Ö, IBM next line (CR+LF) and many things more. It's therefore probably better if people replace them indeed, instead of making the computers guess.
We have not chosen to break this, we have chosen to go from old dated technology to newer standards, which are more precise and international and most importantly, avoid such problems forever. As a side effect of this, that will cause a minor degradation in how content render, but that is acceptable. We don't even render pages with the template code that we used back then either. I also wonder how you would be able to determine that "These problems did not exist when the edits were first made". I wouldn't be so sure about that, as we have been on unicode since 2006'ish i think. But it might be that we accepted older codes for a while longer back then. We might not have had validators for entities in place until quite a bit later. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The way I know the problems did not exist when the edits were made is because I made the edits. I previewed the pages before posting. They rendered properly, both in the previews and upon posting, and there were no warnings that anything improper was being used in the pages. PrimeHunter linked above to a page that fixed the problem in the live (i.e., non-history) page in 2015, which suggests that the problem first arose visibly some time before that.
It displayed correctly in your browser. You don't know whether it displayed the same in all browsers, other software and printers, or whether it would do that today. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After some searching I found Draft:List of 2018-19 NBA season transactions. It has multiple differences from the name you wrote. Please link any page you post about. I guess you made the page but you had another IP address at the time. It was submitted for review yesterday and the box at the bottom says "This may take 8 weeks or more". If you make an account then you can create articles directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Want to add/edit etc my fathers Wikipedia site....DANE LUSSIER, screenwriter
I need help/instruction on how to update/edit/add to info incl a photo of my fathers info on Wikipedia. Am a bit confused on how to. I do not as yet have an account.
Please contact me to instruct.
Thank you very much.
Dane Lussier II
[contact info redacted]
Adding a picture is hard, because we are forced to ask a bunch of questions, etc, to try to adhere to copyright law. Sorry. Basically: create an account, make a few etids, and then upload your picture to wikicommons. Its easiest if you use a picture that you took yourself, since you then have clear ownership of the copyright. For such a picutre, you simply assert copyright ownership and licence the picture to us (and to everyone) using the CC-BY-SA license. After you upload to wikicommons, just add the name of the picture file to the infobox in the article. -Arch dude (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit the article yourself, but since you are associated with the subject it's better to add the info on its talk page and ask someone else to add it to the article fo you. Please provide a reference to a published source (WP:RS). -Arch dude (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested updates in Talk section as a COI
Hi - My co-worker suggested updates in the talk section of Carbon (company) Wikipedia page in May 2017 and there still have been no updates to the page. Is it possible to somehow expedite this process? I've done quite a bit of research, but haven't seen anything substantive. Please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.155.23.250 (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At Capitalization#Nouns, there are two bullets before the point beginning with "Most brand names and trademarks are capitalized". The two paragraphs before also have two bullets, but only one is displayed there. So why does this deviation occur with the third item?--Kohlscheid (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The effort Help desk responders put in to handle queries
The article Abdul Quadir Amin was recently created. The actor has two minor credits in notable films, so I thought it best to avoid CSD and use PROD since there is some potential claim for notability. The Prod message notes that the article had previously gone to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Quadir Amin, but nomination there just resulted in an early speedy deletion. Does this article qualify for speedy under CSD G4? MarginalCost (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MarginalCost, your question is a potential RFA question to any candidate you want to publicly embarass; one reason probably it has gone unanswered till now :D
Here's my take. If we assume that the previous Afd is to be considered as a valid discussion, then your current Prod is invalid, as Prods cannot be applied on any article that has undergone a previous Afd, and the G4 would be valid. But, in my opinion and reading, the previous Afd can be ignored, because the editors there simply converted the discussion into a speedy nomination. This implies that the G4 would be an invalid tag, and the current Prod would be a valid tag.
In other words, I hope I've nailed the answer to your RfA query and you !vote Support whenever you see my name in any discussion :) If you need any further assistance, do ask again (there's a limit of two questions per editor in an RfA; thankfully, that's not the case here at the Help desk). Have fun with the prod nomination. Thanks, L0URDES23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that neither of the films that this "actor" was supposed to have appeared it actually credit them, and their article itself claims "uncredited", I have deleted it as A7. Black Kite (talk)23:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My question concerns photos. I'd enjoy going out and taking photos for adding to wikipedia articles. I've looked at the photo request boards and checked out {{photo requested}}, but I kind of want to see "all articles that have co-ordinates, and whose co-ordinates are within, say, 15 miles of these co-ordinates" - is there a tool that provides this? I feel like there is, but am struggling to find it.
(Even better, of course, would be 'all articles that have co-ordinates within 15 miles and don't have pictures)
Hello friends! I joined this site almost a year ago, but never was actually active. By any chance could I change my name? From now on, I'd like to be a part of the wiki and help out. :) [[User:Fennekin&Eevee]] (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to make the caption go to the side of a photo, instead of always underneath it?
I have a small image with a caption larger than the image itself, that forces it to be no longer next to the text it applies to in certain zooms. I am interested to find out whether there is a way of making the caption text go to one side or the other of the image.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Hey Chrisdevelop. Yes, it is possible to do this using comparatively complicated markup. See below for two examples. The problem is, it's probably going to take a lot of tweaking to get it to display exactly like you want it, and you probably need to check it in an couple of browsers and on mobile to make sure it displays right for everyone. Hope this helps more than it confuses. For more information on how all this stuff works, see Help:Table. GMGtalk12:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo:Fabulous, thank you! And the wordwrap seems to be lock solid on all zooms on all devices I've tried it with so far.
I did have trouble getting the second format to move holus bolus to the left hand side of the screen, and take both the image and the text with it. Any thoughts on that for future reference?
Hey Chrisdevelop. Honestly no. The second is harder to use and so I haven't worked with it very much. The first is just using standard tables, but in a way that makes it look kindof like a custom version of our normal image display. It's much better for customization. Like I said though, make sure to double check all of this, especially on mobile devices. You've got a lot of pretty custom designed image layout in that draft, and mobile may display it completely different than PC does. GMGtalk19:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link to our article Amro El Geziry. As you'll see, this athlete's name is spelled three different ways (El Geziry, El-Geziry and Elgeziry) in the sources used as references for the article. The article's title uses the version published by Union Internationale de Pentathlon Moderne, who would seem as authoritative an entity for this as one could imagine, other than the athlete himself.
The problem is that there is no single "official" way to transliterate Arabic script into English script, as detailed in Romanization of Arabic. Consequently, different publications (such as newspapers and magazines) will likely follow their own preferred methods (i.e. as laid down in their own Style guide), and none of these are "wrong" as such: even a person's official documents may differ one from the other, sometimes not as that person themself would prefer.
Hello, I'm working on an article about the song "U Don't Know Me", and I'm desperately needing help to translate this portion of a Danish review:
Og så er der de to nye tracks. ‘Oh My Gosh’, et exceptionelt housenummer, der vækker minder om de store hits fra Remedy og ‘U Don’t Know Me’. Det holder ikke helt samme klasse, men det er svært at begå sig blandt kvalivarer af ypperste kvalitet.
"And then there are 2 new tracks. ‘Oh My Gosh’, an exceptional housenumber, that awakes memories about the great hits from Remedy and ‘U Don’t Know Me’. It's not quite the same class, but it is..." Can't make sense of the rest, but fairly sure it's praise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Danish and would say:
And then there are the two new tracks. ‘Oh My Gosh’, an exceptional house number, that awakes memories of the great hits from Remedy and ‘U Don’t Know Me’. It is not quite the same class, but it is difficult to assert oneself among quality goods of the highest quality.
To clarify a little: The whole review is written with some unusual terms to sound cool. My English is insufficient to convey the writing properly. The quote praises the two new tracks but says they aren't nearly as good as the great hits from Remedy and ‘U Don’t Know Me’ which the writer praises even more. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting a Page
Hi,
A page has been created with my name without my consent. I wish to delete the page. Please clarify the procedure for the same.
I've posted an article [Lomepal (English version)] but it has been deleted straightaway. I guess I posted it in the wrong place but I abolutely need to get this article back (as I created it here on wikipedia and I don't have any trace of it anywhere, not in my sandbox nor in my drafts) because I have to give it back for school.
I am in the process of getting a book published. My publisher Balboa Press, division of HayHouse, has stated that I can't use Wikipedia is a "valid source." Stating the following:
Copyrighted Text from Wikipedia
Wikipedia will not be acknowledged as a valid source by Balboa Press because anyone can make an account and modify the information found in the site without authenticated sources. To resolve this issue, you can paraphrase the texts you got from Wikipedia.
Question #1: What is a "Valid Source?"
Question #2: Why isn't Wikipedia one of those?
Question #3: Will I get into any copyright problem if I do quote from Wikipedia?
Question #4: How is the Integrity of the information in Wikipedia maintained?
Question #5: Does my publisher have a point, is the information in Wikipedia Untrustworthy therefore unquotable and unusable?
@Mmfaff: Hello, obviously we cannot comment on what your publisher might consider to be 'valid source'. On Wikipedia we woould use the term 'reliable source' and you can find out more about how that applies at WP:RS. The reasons why Wikipedia is not considered reliable are explained at WP:UGC. You can use content from Wikipedia, it is freely licensed, but you must attribute it appropriately. Wikipedia content is maintained by the use of reliable sources and the vigilance of the community. Yes they have a point, editors of Wiki articles cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You will have to ask your publishers what they consider a "valid source" for their purposes. For the articles that I look at, I find that Wikipedia is about 99% accurate (your mileage may differ). All wikipedia articles should contain references to WP:Reliable sources so that readers can check the accuracy of the article. Text in Wikipedia is released under a licence that allows reuse. See WP:Copyrights for details. Integrity of information is maintained by ordinary editors checking against published sources. Occasionally incorrect information or deliberate vandalism doesn't get noticed for some time, so it is up to you to check against the references provided. I think your publisher has a valid point. If you write a book, then you have an obligation to check the facts, and not to rely on volunteer editors here to do your checking for you. I think paraphrasing is a good policy if your book claims originality. If you do find some errors in Wikipedia, we will be very grateful if you point them out, or even correct them yourself. Best wishes for your publication. Dbfirs11:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3:...depends. Probably not legal ones (but don't take my word for it), but many people, like publishers, object if you just copypaste stuff and claim it as your own work.
On (3): Wikipedia is under a "free" Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA. While you need not pay royalties or request agreement to copy-paste or closely paraphrase it, you still need to give appropriate attribution (the "BY" part), and any derivative material you distribute must be under a similar free license (the "SA" part). Failure to do either would technically be a copyright violation, although one unlikely to lead to prosecution. Whether it is plagiarism is another matter entirely; whether you pull something off a respected author's masterpiece or off the depths of internet forums, and whether your respect any copyright doesn't matter for that; what matters is whether you correctly cite the original source or try to imply it was your own thoughts and writing.
If you are using Wikipedia as a source of information (rather than as text to copy), you can substitute citing Wikipedia by citing the sources Wikipedia uses in its articles. That is the common trick for classrooms, and actually encouraged by quite a few professors. TigraanClick here to contact me11:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmfaff: Wikipedia has an article at Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia which explains among other things the problems with citing Wikipedia.
In general I'd agree with your publisher: referencing Wikipedia is pretty much always a bad idea. Wikipedia is a good general reference for looking up information; but it can be edited by anyone, even anonymously, and does not always have enough editor attention, especially on more obscure articles, to ensure reliability. See, for example, the Jar'Edo_Wens_hoax, which existed on Wikipedia for ten years before being noticed. I've found numerous other examples of either deliberate or accidental incorrect information in Wikipedia, which sometimes has been online for months or years before being picked up.
Any good Wikipedia article should have references to reliable sources for every significant fact in it - if it doesn't, it's a bad article and definitely shouldn't be cited. If it does, then use it as a pointer to those sources instead; check the books out of a library or view articles online, and cite those books or articles in your article, rather than Wikipedia itself.
Quoting from Wikipedia is a bit of a different matter - it may be separately notable and interesting how Wikipedia describes a topic (for example, "mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change" was coined on Wikipedia and has since been used as the title of a published maths textbook); so you could include quotes if you thought they were relevant - although most publishers would still probably prefer you to quote published books, for the same reasons as above. If you do quote Wikipedia, the rules are much the same as for quoting any work - make sure it is properly credited, don't pass it off as your own work. TSP (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said above, Wikipedia agrees with the publisher that you should not cite Wikipedia. Instead, use a Wikipedia article to get a good overview, and then go read the sources cited by Wikipedia and cite those sources in your book. As a payback to Wikipedia, please consider editing the Wikipedia article to reflect any discrepancies you find during your research. Now, the actual reason the publisher does not want you to copy/paste from Wikipedia is different from this. They don't want to bother with the required attribution that our copyright license requires, even when you have carefully validated all of the information. That's why they recommend that you paraphrase. -Arch dude (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what it is (you can copy the line into the address line of the browser and you see the image, but this does not help much). In the german wikipedia it shows up too and there all the edits I have seen, are marked with tag "Visual edit" too. So it smells like a feature of this editor. --Wurgl (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a wikipedia page sandbox draft, Now the title shows User : username/sandbox, when do I change the Article name and how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.123.121 (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello anon. There's lots of folks around to help, but I'm afraid you're going to have to give us a better indication of what exactly the problem is. GMGtalk16:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason whenever my cursor crosses over a highlighted word (which is linked to another page), an image pops up. I can’t seem to make it stop. It is annoying me. Can anyone help me make it stop? I want to go back to the way it was before — no large images with a brief summary of the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:200:CE30:4FE:8D08:37AA:24F1 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have an account already. When I am logged in the problem goes away. But when I'm logged out the problem is still visible. Is there any way for me to fix the problem for when I am logged out (and simply browsing around)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:200:CE30:4FE:8D08:37AA:24F1 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Get one of the pictures to pop up. There should be a gear in the bottom right-hand corner. Click it. A menu titled "Page preview" will come up. Click "Disable" and then click the blue "Save" button in the top right-hand corner of the menu (not the X). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to upload a new version of File:Melbrail former present proposed.svg which I created from the current version, but when I try to upload my new version I get the following error message: Found unsafe CSS in the style element of uploaded SVG file. How can I fix this/get past the error message? NB: I'm not very familiar with SVGs or CSS, beyond knowing what they stand for and how they're used, so any instructions will have to be pretty basic for me to follow them. Thanks in advance. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The guys over at our computing desk can probably help. What software did you use to edit the SVG? You can use a text editor to look at the original and modified SVG files and you may see something. -Arch dude (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<ref> tag creating <span> with white bg
Hello; I have no idea where to ask this fairly technical question so I figure I'd put it here.
<ref> tags are wrapped in a <span> tag that looks like this:
This causes what is arguably an undesired display in any HTML element with a non-white background, as can be seen in the header row of the table at The Terror (TV series) § Episodes.
I can't see any reason to keep the background-color:white stipulation, but I also can't see where on en-WP or Mediawiki this might have been discussed. Thanks. — Hugh (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hugh: It's not done for refs in general. Your example uses {{Episode table}}. Template:Episode table#Parameters says at "Reference": "If Wikipedia's link colours are not WCAG 2 AAA Compliant with the background colour, Module:Episode table/ref is used." So the used template adds background-color:white to the references in this example because blue text on grey background is hard to read for some people. See MOS:CONTRAST. The white background disappears if the template is for example called with |background=yellow. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving all URLs in an article
Is there a relatively fast way to archive all the URLs used in an article's references? It is possible to do individually, of course, but this is time consuming for one article, let alone several. I seem to remember having seen people archive all URLs at once, but remember neither how, nor if there are multiple ways to do it. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Noyster. I just tried doing this for the Colin Robert Chase article (with "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" checked), but it didn't archive any of the URLs. Instead, it said:
I expect this has to do with the references in that article being in {{sfn}} format and not themselves containing URLs. The related URLs are in your "Bibliography" section, but the bot hasn't gone there. Whether there is a way to do this using IABot – can't find documentation, perhaps Cyberpower678 can tell us: Noyster (talk),20:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find the Wikipedia blank world political map. Where is this located?
Also, how do I edit this map, for my purposes? I wish to provide a key and colour the respective countries according to the key.
Your help would be much appreciated.Mrodowicz (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has removed the revisions I made to the Atholl Highlanders page saying I did not provide references. Can you help I have read the Wikipedia reference help and I do not understand where I am going wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHCastle (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editor on a topic appears to be a researcher in the field and is stating his own opinions uncited. Could someone help?
The Luwian language article has recently been edited several times by the editor Ilya.yakubovich (talk | contribs). Some of the content added appears to be personal opinions of this editor, with no citation of a source.
What makes this particularly problematic is that Dr. Ilya Yakubovich is actually a scholar in this field; his current home page is here (in German). From the editor's contributions, I'm pretty sure he is that Dr. Yakubovich. In fact from the Talk page sections titled "Revision" and "Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language", I think he's edited the article several times in the past. (The IP addresses in those sections are geolocated at sites where Dr. Yakubovich worked when they were posted, according to the biography on his home page, and the second one I linked explicitly mentions a monograph that can be found in his home page's list of publications.)
Personally, I welcome knowledgable experts editing articles on their fields, but they must follow the same rules as everyone else here. I would think that they would find it easier to do so, since citing sources is a normal part of their work, they know which sources are of high quality, and they should have plenty of access to such sources. The important thing they must keep in mind is that a reader of the article can't easily know whether any particular statement was written by an expert, an ordinary person, or even a crank with time on his hands. Nor can the reader know what sources back up that statement unless it has citations.
I'm not experienced in teaching or enforcing Wikipedia policies, and I can't spare the time; I only came across this by chance while reading some articles I was interested in. If someone else with more experience on the policy side could follow up with this user, I'd really appreciate it. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there particular contributions that you are concerned about? Having glanced at his last few, they seem to be reasonably well-referenced, and I can't immediately spot places where they are in breach of Wikipedia policy. TSP (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Among his most recent edits, it was this one whose content really bothered me and led me to make this request: "The Lydian language, however, cannot be regarded as the direct descendant of Luwian and probably does not even belong to the Luwic group. Therefore, none of the arguments in favour of the Luwian linguistic dominance in Western Asia minor can be regarded as compelling, although the issue continues to be debated." That statement isn't cited, and I'm pretty sure it's his own opinion. It sounds like a claim you might find in an academic paper, and would be perfectly reasonable in that context, but in the end it's still only the opinion of one researcher.
The fact that the Talk page section titled "Revision" was written by a user claiming that Dr. Yakubovich's views were not yet accepted by the academic mainstream of the field only added to my concern. I don't know whether that is still true or not, but either way, that would make uncited claims more problematic and increase the need for citation. (I myself have no background in this field; like I said, I was just reading up on a topic I was interested in.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin Douglas Howell,. Can grasp youre undeliing conserns. How about this as a pons asinorum. We inform Dr. Yakubovich that it is in his 'own' interest that he makes it uneqvivable clear that he is indeead User:Ilya.yakubovich and not a imposter. That is simple. I, you or my cat can leave a pointer on his talk page Wikipedia:Help available for editors with conflicts of interest. Being an academic he may also be only familiar with the academic procces and not WP policy. If he is indeed Dr. Yakubovich, he may not yet relise that under WP policy, he does indeed have a COI to declare. The other issues like not accepted by the academic mainstream can be takled later. Reseacher on th ecutting edge are allways in front of the main stream, by the very nature that they are in the fore front of dicovery. Yet Dr. Yakubovich may not understand that although he may be right... WP needs good 3rd party sorces – althoug we may alow exseptons in special cases. Aspro (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How to create a wikipedia article page for my organisation
- We would like to create a page related to our organisation on wikipedia, as there currently isn't one.
How do we do this?
The sandbox only allows us to create a user page, but not an encyclopedia article.
Note: Identical question has been asked and answered at Teahouse. Please do not use more than one help page at the same time for the same question: Noyster (talk),14:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I need to determine the number of categories that I have created. I have all the stats I need on my editing but don't know how to find this number. Best Regards, Barbara✐ ✉ 17:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbara (WVS): Fun fact; Technically you can only really know how many wikitext pages you created in the Category namespace. A category is automatically created as soon as it is first used and never truly deleted. Blue link or red link, the category exists. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
April 19
Is there a "this page contains plagiarism" template?
This article or section may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please review the source and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror.
Do be careful, however. We have a great many articles that originated from works in the public domain, often originally by direct copying, and that have only a single "attribution" to the original. Because they do have this attribution, they are not plagiarism. For example, this applies to a great many of the 8,200 articles in Category:Articles incorporating DNB text with Wikisource reference. -Arch dude (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct error in protected article
Hi :-)
There is an error in a protected article. Ensuring that there is consensus in the Talk section at the end of the article does not make sense re this particular error, as it’s an error which only those with specialized knowledge would know definitively that the error IS an error.
I am an expert in the particular field concerned (criminology). As such, I immediately noticed the error in the protected article, upon reading just a bit of the article. How do I submit notification of the error, or edit the article, as an expert in the field which concerns the particular error? As in, how do I do so, without needing to first ensure that a number of Wikipedia users have agreed that the error exists?
Hello P. You are going to have to tell us which article you are talking about and what the error is for anyone to be able to help you. MarnetteD|Talk05:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pigletbunny: in Wikipedia, the knowledge of contributors counts for little. What matters is citations of reliable independent published sources. If you can cite such a source in support of your view, you should explain your concern on the talk page of the article in question, mentioning the source(s) that should be cited. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the AFD template. It should have been placed at the top of the article, don't worry though a bot has done it for you. - X201 (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Was a spelling mistake in the reference NZFC(talk) 00:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I couldn't find a more appropriate place to put an "edit request" of this nature, if there is one can someone either replicate it there or let me know, thanks — IVORK Discuss 01:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
