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

September 5

Rolled back changes "because they did not appear constructive"

A recent change of mine was rolled back "because they did not appear constructive". However, I believe this change was constructive, as it updated the article to reflect the updated name of the venue.

Can someone check over this? I'm extremely new to Wikipedia, so if I missed a guideline, etc, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks. Jkm7 (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nope, looks like your edit was completely correct (the name of the venue, and our article, having changed in 2017) so I've reinstated it. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, your edit looks fine to me, Jkm7. I don't know why CLCStudent thought it wasn't constructive: perhaps they thought you were changing the text of a wikilink, and assumed the link would be broken, without themselves checking whether that wikilink existed; but I don't know. It might also be that you added information without a reference - the existing paragraph has no reference for the location (in fact it has one citation, which is a broken link). In this case you brought your query here, which is fine, and Black Kite reapplied your change. But if you look at the Bold cycle, you'll see that this is how Wikipedia is meant to operate: if an editor thinks your edit is unhelpful and reverts it, your recommended course would be to open a discussion with the editor who reverted you, usually on the talk page of the article in question, and try to reach consensus. --ColinFine (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I replied to them on my talk page. Thank you Black Kite and ColinFine! Jkm7 (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. If you ever disagree with a change I make, you can always come to my talkpage and tell me. CLCStudent (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@CLCStudent and Jkm7: I appreciate that you two are interested discussing edit changes. But others are also interested. Instead of each other's user page, please use the article talk page where the debate may get input from others also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Replacing infoboxes

Hi, I posted this question in the Teahouse, but did not get an answer. I'm copying it here:

I found an article about a company in a non-Anglophone country with some outdated info in the infobox. Looking at the article in the country's native language, their infobox had some more up-to-date details. I could update it, but it seems that it would be difficult to keep up with. However, when I look at the page with the (undocumented) Infobox company/wikidata template (after adding the details to Wikidata), it seems like no information is lost from the current state, plus it would have the benefits of keeping up with Wikidata changes. However, when looking up the policy for this, I found a recent discussion on Wikidata infoboxes, and it seems to be a contentious issue. Additionally, I don't know of any other articles which use this template, so maybe it's not ready for primetime. Is there a policy in place for this? ARR8 (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

ARR8, I'd say go for it if you feel that the Wikidata entry is a) more likely to be updated and b) not more likely to be vandalized. If anyone objects, they can revert and start a discussion. I think the main concern is vandalism, and if the article on English isn't very watched, there isn't really much advantage to not using a Wikidata box. If it improves Wikipedia, ignore all rules — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Alpha3031, thank you! ARR8 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

About pinging

Another user found a new way to be annoying; pinging me a bunch of times in a row.

I turned off pings from that user, but I was wondering about the mechanism. (I tried pinging myself and nothing happoned).

To be continued... --Guy Macon (talk)

@Guy Macon: If I ping someone...

@Guy Macon: ...multiple times in one comment...

@Guy Macon: ...will they see multiple pings? ---Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Or do I have to... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: ...post a new comment... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: ...for each ping? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

As much as I understand, it is one ping per editor pinged for each time someone signs a signature. Lourdes 05:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

One thing you can't do is to ping yourself. To test pinging, you have to log out or use an alt account. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

...or ask someone else for help. :) --CiaPan (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It's possible to get multiple notifications about the same edit if it links your user page multiple times. Some context of the link is shown so the notifications may not look identical. You can also get a separate notification if your username is linked in the edit summary. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Guy:....pong! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"Dotard" entry

A few months ago, I included an entry to this word in the List of disability-related terms with negative connotations list, and I have included a source to back this up. Maybe we can redirect this entry to the linked article "List of disability-related terms with negative connotations" instead of having it just its own page that redirects to Wiktionary? Just an idea. It's just that nobody's taken me up on this idea, is all. Johnnysama (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I see wiktionary having a better description than the main page List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. Imo, the current redirects are editorially sensible and there's no need to do a back redirect. Warmly, Lourdes 05:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Why, if I may ask, the current redirects work? Just wondering. Johnnysama (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Erasiest to ensure comfort

Add erasiest to encyclopedias Honor Karen Phariss the erasiest to ensure comforting the global world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.241.166 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I don't know what you are talking about (it would be helpful if you would rightwrite in comprehensible English). But if what you are asking is for a new word to be added to the encyclopaedia, the answer is No, until the word has been written about by several people (unconnected with those who invented it) in reliable sources; see notability. If you are asking for something else to be added, you'd better explain more clearly what you want. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think it is even a protologism yet, and neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary allows those until they become neologisms. Try waiting a decade to see if the word sticks. Dbfirs 15:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe they're referring to Karen Pharis who owns/owned stations like KFPW (AM), KPBI-CA... But probably not. (I miss EEng during these golden moments :D ) Lourdes 16:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Miss me? I didn't even know you were shooting at me! EEng 17:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Math rendering

While editing "Antiderivative" yesterday, I noticed that within <math>-tagged expressions, some figures appear bolder than others (e. g. $(-1)$ in $\left[F\left(-1\right),F\left(1\right)\right]$, or $GF(1)$ and $2$ (← Why is that rendered so small here?) in $\int _{F(-1)}^{F(1)}g(x)\,dx=GF(1)-GF(-1)=2$). How come?--Neufund (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: It seems to depend on the brwoser zoom. I'm using Firefox and when I go on 110 %, for instance, $GF(1)$ and $GF(-1)$ seem equally bold, but $GF(-1)$ and $2$ appear slightly sharper …--Neufund (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Neufund, this is probably something to do with your screen resolution. It all appears quite similar and fine to me. Lourdes 16:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

ارسال مقاله جدید

سلام من میخواهم یک مقاله از یک بازیگر پورن بنویسم که معروف است اما در ویکی پدیا اطلاعاتی از آن نیست… لطفا کمک کنید — Preceding unsigned comment added by KINGSIAVASH (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this is the English Wikipedia. You might like to read WP:Your first article and WP:Biographies of living persons before you start. You should also be aware that being famous in one very limited field does not necessarily make the person WP:Notable. You should start by collecting what has been written about the person in independent WP:Reliable sources, then summarise what is written using your own words. Dbfirs 19:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors for specific guidelines in regards to notability.Naraht (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

How to permanently and globally disable mobile wikitext editor without disabling mobile wiki skin.

I have repeatedly encountered the problem and tried to searched and asked for solution but still can't find anything that can help me.

On mobile devices, due to the limited amount of memory, it's easy for browser tabs to be clear out of memory when user opened too much other tabs to look for information when from other sites.

Normally, when browser reload those tabs when user switch into the tab after the tab being cleared out if the memory, it would still be possible for original text in editor field to be loaded back.

However, since that wikitext mobile editor was dynamically pulled in the page, this browser text field recovery process could not work, and thus hours and hours of edits that would have been made via mobile browsers have all go into vain thanks to that completely counterproductive design.

How to permanently disable that?C933103 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). That's where all the *really* techie people hang out...Naraht (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• C933103, have you tried switching off your "Beta" preferences using the "Settings" tab in the mobile version? That should dissociate the Wikitext editor function without disabling the mobile wiki skin. (But I'm not sure about this; so do try this and confirm please). Thanks, Lourdes 07:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I didn't enable the beta setting in mobile setting so that does not help C933103 (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Wiki page

Hello, I have been working with an editor on updating the Wiki page of Richard Borer. We are going on two months of back and forth and no progress has been made. Can someone please help me get content updated? I have the script that I would like to use. I have read through the Wiki rules of conduct and am confident that the content meets all of the requirements. I also have links to references (if needed). Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.228.31 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The first step is to put your suggested changes on the article talk page. - X201 (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

And then read WP:BRD and WP:DR NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

and please User:Thehappyworkaholic always log in when editing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

CS1 style templates: access-date and archived sources

Hello! I was wondering if someone might be able to give me some advice about this matter. I was checking a reference - which source is no longer directly available on-line, but only via internet-archive copies - and I found out that the more recent archived versions (as the linked one) do support the content of the article, whereas the older ones (e.g. those around the access date) don't. Since the content is a data subject to infrequent updates, this is probably what happened: after the citation had been added for the first time, some later editors updated the content but omitted to update the access-date parameter too; then the main link dead and someone (maybe a BOT) rescued it with the then-most-recent archive copy. That being the case, I'm not sure what I should do: leaving the current access-date would be misleading, using the same date as archive-date would be a lie (I didn't actually saw the original back then, but only the copy now provided by the archive) and I don't know when the last editor used the then-available link to update the content the for the last time. May I use today as the access-date, despite being more recent than the death of original link? Or may I leave the access-date parameter empty? Thank you for your consideration. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yak79 2.0: You should update the access date, since you verified that the article reflects the source as of today. The prior history is not relevant. If the available archived copy has a publication date, add that date in the "date=" parameter. You are effectively replacing the old source with a new source. -Arch dude (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for your kind reply; but I'm afraid my question wasn't clear enough: the article doesn't reflects the source as of today, because now the source is gone for good; the article reflects the source as of the day it was archived “for the last time” (18 February 2017, which currently fill the archive-date parameter), and not as the day we know for sure it was verified for the last time (21 September 2013, which current fill the access-date parameter); moreover, the source was just an ordinary webpage without any date of publication or last editing on display, thus the date parameter can't be filled. In the end, although I didn't actually verified the source, I'm anyway certain:

• that the article reflects it as of some day between September 2013 and February 2017 (due the archived copy I still consult today),
• that the source was likely verified by someone during that period (due the fact that the article has been updated accordingly),

In this respect the prior history is relevant: I'm not able to check the source but I'm sure it was verified in the past (or at least it was positively checkable), only I don't know when exactly this happened and therefore what day the access-date parameter should be filled with. Best regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My advice is to check the article for its own citations, and hunt down the one that supports your statement, then use that. That's what I did, for all the good it's done me. I have to ask, though - if the updated articles don't support it, are you sure it's still true?

2601:543:C001:FE13:189C:9DDE:3E6A:2568 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

September 6

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

I am having trouble citing my reference. Thank you. Burcon, Michael. Multiple factors and several common triggers contribute to Meniere’s disease (MD), but the hypothesis of this study is related to one cause: an upper cervical subluxation complex (UCSC), the result of whiplash trauma, caused by vehicular accident or blow to head. J. Upper Cervical Chiropractic Research – June 2, 2016

Hello Michael Burcon That looks like you're trying to cite yourself. Please see WP:SELFCITE. Anyway, I suppose your were looking for a citation like this:

<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Burcon|first=Michael|date=June 2, 2016|title=Health Outcomes Following Cervical Specific Protocol in 300 Patients with Meniere’s Followed Over Six Years|url=https://www.vertebralsubluxationresearch.com/2016/06/02/health-outcomes-following-cervical-specific-protocol-in-300-patients-with-menieres-followed-over-six-years/|journal=Journal of Upper Cervical Chiropractic Research|volume=Volume 2016|pages=13-23|via=}}</ref>

which renders as:

References

--Vexations (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Michael Burcon: please also see WP:MEDRS. Maproom (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Search for a word, excluding two classes of results

I've occasionally seen "roughy" appear as a typo for "roughly", e.g. a college campus being "Roughy bounded by E. Washington, Bennett and Gorrell Sts", and I thought I'd run a search for it to find typos. Problem is, a roughy is a kind of fish, and many pages have that word in their titles or have links to pages with the word in their titles. Is there a way to search for a word while excluding links and title results? Presumably nobody's going to attempt to link roughly, so I can ignore those results. Nyttend (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Would this help? -linksto:"Albert Einstein" "Albert Einstein" -prefix:Albert Einstein

Lourdes 13:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You could search for 'roughy -fish' and that would only cause you to lose out on articles where people are roughly handling fish. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have a static latin name so trying to block that out is probably not going to work.

2601:543:C001:FE13:189C:9DDE:3E6A:2568 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

James Dao, New York Times

Why is there no wiki bio information on James Dao, Op-ed of the New York Times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6515:C900:E1A3:5854:81BC:DA87 (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are asking why there is no Wikipedia page about him, he would first need to pass Wikipedia's fairly stringent rules on notability (see that page together with WP:GNG). Notability has a particular meaning within the encyclopedia. If you feel he is truly notable you can create an article yourself (see WP:YFA, WP:WIZ and WP:AFC) or you can request that a page be made at WP:REQ. If he is notable an article will likely be created in the fullness of time by an interested editor. Eagleash (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

app for filling the sfn template

Filling the {{cite journal}} templates is bothersome and boring. I wish an app could be developed, and I could just insert the DOI and the app could fill the rest of the template. Citing journals and multi-authored books is the most boring task I come across with. Could someone develop an app to help me (and many more fellow wikipedians)? Where should I apply? Thanks Τζερόνυμο (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia:Citation_expander. Ruslik_Zero 20:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Τζερόνυμο have you tried this? › Mortee _talk 20:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I do use Ref Toolbar, but that does not output sfn templates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both Ruslik0 and Mortee for your answers. Both are really easy to use. DOIs are a piece of cake now, but is there something similar with isbn? 20:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Τζερόνυμο I don't know of one for ISBNs exactly, but I use this tool constantly for books I can find in Google Books. › Mortee _talk 14:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong name showing up in automated edits

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T203583

I noticed earlier that on the page for edit filter false positives (WP:EF/FP/R), the previous two posts had been done by IPs, but the posted message used the name of the admin that had made the previous edit (see here and here). I thought it was either bad faith by the IPs or some one off glitch. But now on my WP:TW talk page edit here, it has also inserted the previous editor's name into the automated message instead of my own. Is there some common reason that the wrong name is showing up in these messages? LynxTufts (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

LynxTufts The bug is phab:T203583 Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Show more languages

If you want to read an article in another language, expanding the collapsed language list is no longer possible. I tried both Firefox and Chrome. --2001:16B8:314D:B400:88E4:B985:A02B:26DC (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You may have reached an article that has no other linked languages. For example, see Abdullah Rimawi and confirm if you can see the other language links provided therein. Thanks, Lourdes 06:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. In articles with many language version, there is clearly an option which you can click on, but nothing happens. I used to use this function a lot to look up words in different languages. The Polish Wikipedia is the only one not to follow this bad system of collapsing the language list in the first place, but I can't really speak Polish to start my search from there. --2001:16B8:31AA:8300:C81A:8C7:3D41:1160 (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a bug in this feature with work to fix it at phab:T203750. As a workaround, you can click "Edit links" to get to a Wikidata page where the links are available in another format. Registered users can disable "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Then you always see all links. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Burt Reynolds

For Wikipedia to be legit, please check out what someone wrote above Burt Reynolds photo. "Burt Stupid Reynolds" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.93.6.17 (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The vandalism has been removed and the article has been protected. †dismas†|^(talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I d like to ask whether a topic is notable...

...before I start writing it down. I am thinking on the "Anarchism in Ancient Greece". Is it notable enough or no?Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What sources do you intend to use? Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I would be using

• Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism, London, 2012, There is a chapter
• James Joll, The anarchists, 1979, a couple of pages are dedicated to anarchism in ancient Greece
• A short history of anarchism, Book by Max Nettlau, some more pages discussing anarchism in ancient Greece.
• Graham, Robert (2005). "Preface". Anarchism: a Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas: from Anarchy to Anarchism. Montréal: Black Rose Books. pp. xi–xiv. ISBN 1-55164-250-6. Retrieved 11 August 2010.

Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

At a glance there are a lot of such articles, so if you think there's enough to fill its own page, then I say go for it. if you're not sure, you could add it to the Anarchism in Greece page, but I think that Ancient Greece and Contemporary Greece are different enough to warrant two articles.

2601:543:C001:FE13:189C:9DDE:3E6A:2568 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machine

Please remove the citation from Mike Dixon, you are costing me stupid perversion of Justice problems and a fellow with same name fighting for a refund from fraud remote cheating me out of over $10,000 from stupid TAPROOM GAMING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:922F:8360:90E8:C770:E880:4310 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Do you think the article mischaracterizes Dixon's research? If so, start a discussion on the article's talk page. We will not remove this information merely because you assert that it is causing you problems. -Arch dude (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Reset a GA review opening (admin needed)

Hi, an IP opened a review for an article that I nominated for GA status. But it was their only edit and it was a test edit. I reverted their test edit. Can an admin delete the GA5 so that a GA reviewer can open it properly?? here is the link : Talk:Xbox_360/GA5 Thank you JC7V-constructive zone 23:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, you can add {{db-g2}} on pages created by test edits, which will get an admin's attention quicker than posting here. Iffy★Chat -- 08:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Continual undoing of my simple edit

Recently I've been doing a little research on canines. Outside of Wikipedia, I found multiple references to the family Canidae containing a creature referred to as a 'dhib'. Obviously I came straight here to find out what a dhib was, as I'd never heard of it. Wikipedia did not have the answer.

After continuing to look it up, I found out 'dhib' refers to what is now known as the Egyptian Wolf. I have learned that 'dhib' is actually a somewhat important word as well; it's what these animas were referred to before their generic English name, it's the Arabic word for Wolf, it's the name used to identify these animals in the Bible, and it's a common surname or part of a surname. Very interesting!

So, to save anyone else the stress of digging this up, I find a good source, and I update the article with a simple edit along the vein of 'aka Dhib ' and put my citation next to it. Additionally, I took the effort to set up a redirect page so Dhib puts you on Egyptian Wolf.

Another user comes along and decides that they do not like my citation. They revert my change. Now, I felt my citation was valid, so I said as much and changed it back. My source was another online encyclopedia, not editable by the public, fully cited. This same person decided that the source was not valid because it was a copy of an older Wikipedia article; and of course they undo my edit, again.

I still felt the source was valid, but I can understand the concern, so I go and I look and I find an actual book, ISBN and all, that is not cited on my original source, and I put my edit back with this new reference. Our person from before goes and looks at a preview of the book, reviews four pages of it, and does not see anything on those pages, and decides this is fair enough to undo my edit, again.

I feel like I have done more than enough due diligence to add one little edit as important as the creature's actual original name, and that changing it back again on my part would look like an edit war. What can I do to prevent this busybody from continuing to blank my valid edit?

Note: I have reviewed the activity of my counterpart and see that they've been warned about excessive reversion and edit wars before, as well as a history of unwelcome changes of their own, so I feel more inclined to believe that I am on the right side of this issue.

2601:543:C001:FE13:189C:9DDE:3E6A:2568 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Rather than communicate via edit comments, you should attempt to engage with the other editor on the article's talk page and reach a consensus. Use non-confrontational language and assume good faith (WP:AGF), even (or especially) if you feel the other party is being unreasonable. If nothing else this will make your arguments sound more reasonable to third parties. If you and the other editor cannot reach consensus, continue as described at WP:DISPUTE. -Arch dude (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• The book citation added did not include the page No. The other editor has searched the applicable section within the book but did not find the information quoted and was therefore justified in their removal, Book cites should habitually include page Nos. On another note, punctuation goes before references. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

September 7

Adding email address user account post creation

I was wondering how to register my email after I've created an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourthcube (talk • contribs) 03:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Click on the Preferences link at the top of any Wikipedia page (while you're logged in), or go to Special:Preferences. At the bottom of the User Profile tab there should be a place to set your address. HTH Rojomoke (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Why dose my content has a draft status?

I have created a page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Choi_Young-Jae_(South_Korean_singer) and it has draft status right after I published. Where did I do something wrong, Can you give me a detail about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araya0209 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Araya0209:. There is nothing wrong in writing articles in drafts, it is even encouraged because it gives you more room to better develop your article without risk of deletion. I have submitted it for review on your behalf and it will soon be reviewed and moved to mainspace if found reasonably ready. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Laird

Accidentally removed top part of page on our phone. Please fix. Sorry 1.136.110.148 (talk)

 Fixed - X201 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Lupton family

I have tried to make the file of the coat of arms at the top of the page bigger in size - but I have failed sorry. Please fix if one of you editors or helpers is able Srbernadette (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Have restored it to what it used to be. To be honest, it looks large enough as it is. You need to remember that image size can differ for everyone, what looks like a postage stamp on your screen could take up most of the page for someone else with different settings. - X201 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Concern about anon edits

Greetings! An anon editor Special:Contributions/175.136.86.24 added a similar contribution to four articles almost simultaneously back in February, and has made no other edits before or since. The added article may be solid reference, but at least as used seems promotional. The changes have stood mostly as is for these many months. However, in Urban Agriculture I (a few hours ago) moved and edited it from the intro to a topic. It still leaves me with a bad taste and I may just delete it.

The UA artcle is its own mess that I will work on -- this is only one problem I'm tackling, next is a talk update. Can you find someone else to look further into the subtle vandalism of the other articles? They all fall under Agriculture -- maybe (instead or in addition) you can submit this concern to an Ag section administrator. Many thanks --GeeBee60 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello @GeeBee60:, having spotchecked most of these edits they look like obvious cite spam to promote the publication and recent research from this author(s). Some common features of this kind of spamming include: 1) undue emphasis on the own work and 2) usage for secondary or tangential details without providing substantial facts of central relevance for the topic. 3) Bloated and vague phrasing to cover up the lack of substance from point 2. Most of the checked edits meet all 3 criteria. I'd suggest to remove most of them - maybe leave but shorten 1-2, if you feel they add something substantial of value to the article. GermanJoe (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Checking for more incidents there are also a few more IPs and one account with similar questionable edits. I'll help clean up (but will leave unclear cases behind for topic experts) - and done (nothing essential to salvage). GermanJoe (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @GermanJoe:. I might keep a diluted reference to the article in Urban Ag, if it proves credible, justifiable. The other articles I'm not touching. It bugs me that the entries stood untouched this many months but oh well. GeeBee60 (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Add link to a reference

On the Personalized Medicine page, a manuscript in Biotechnology Journal is cited but there is not link to article or PDF. How do I add that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RSnyderman (talk • contribs) 13:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Presumably you mean Personalized medicine, not Personalized Medicine (journal)? Probably easiest to use {{cite journal}}, filling in relevant parameters where available. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references duplicate key

Hello, I have tried to post my articles on Jack Beeson on your site but encountered difficulty. The two articles are: Master of the Opera, in Rochester Review Spring Summer 2003 Vol. 65 No. 3 and Jack Beeson, Columbia Magazine, Spring 2002. Thank you so much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18a:c680:aa0f:c9f8:4308:23aa:dc91 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2018‎ (UTC)

Your additions were reverted because they were in the wrong places. Wikipedia uses references to support individual facts in the article. See WP:Referencing for beginners for details. Our article is not the place to advertise your publications, but possibly they can be used to support some statement? Dbfirs 17:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

How do you add a picture to the main landing page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abby laverr7 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• If you mean the Main Page that you see when first coming to Wikipedia, you don't add pictures there. Any picture appearing there undergoes a somewhat thorough vetting process to make sure it is appropriate. Crow^Caw 17:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean by "main landing page" the article that you've been working on, Jenny Wilson (politician)? If so, see here. †dismas†|^(talk) 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

what about internal contradictions?

i have encountered several instances of Wikipedia articles contradicting other entries on Wikipedia. what can editors do in these situations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlcred (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If they are unsourced, they could be removed. The better course would be to correct them, if necessary, and cite your sources for the corrections. And if it can't be nailed down either way, state that and again source it. †dismas†|^(talk) 18:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

See also {{Contradicts other}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Exists but Link is Red

I'm new here. I was reading the page on simple wikipedia page about the White House Press Secretary and noticed that the link to Dee Dee Myers is red, indicating it doesn't exist. However, an article actually DOES exist. I went to try to edit the link, but it looks like it's already syntactically correct. How can I help fix this link to point to the existing Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissNebulosity (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@MissNebulosity: The English Wikipedia has an article on Dee Dee Myers. The Simple English Wikipedia (which you linked), does not. They are separate projects. A page would need to be written on the Simple English Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Help adding a specific picture to my draft page

I have uploaded a picture for common use on Wikipedia. It is categorised under Writers by Country. It is Colin Reginald Bennett.

I completed the uploading process with all the copyright information and data about the picture.

But now, how do I add that picture specifically to my entry on Colin Reginald Bennett that is awaiting approval?

I can only see on my "Edit source" page, under "Tools", the Upload picture command - and that only offers me the chance to upload ANOTHER picture, I think. It does not bring me into any search system where I can find the earlier picture I uploaded, and select it now for inclusion on the page.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPh1lomena (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@PPhilomena: Go to the commons page, there you will find a formatted link (by the Wikipedia logo 'use this file') which you can copy and paste into your page. If using in an infobox use just the file name without 'file' or any square brackets etc. I.e. xxxx.jpg. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

September 8

Our complaint towards the illegal diversion of our Community Wiki Page Thiyya

Respected Sir / Madam,

We came to know that A Wikipedia page "Thiyya" has been redirected to another page "Ezhava" . As I am representing a community "Thiyya" and its Wiki page, I strongly request you to kindly reverse back this . There is no relation between Thiyya and Ezhava as they are entirely different .

Kindly look into the matter take necessary action as soon as possible

Thanks and regards, SUNITH PONOCHADAN For an on behalf of Thiyya Community and its Wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by SUNITH PONCHADAN (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a specific section in the Ezhava article that deals with this - Dispute between Thiyya and Ezhava. The article talk page would probably be a better place to discuss this topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll add that if you want any help from this community, please refrain from making legal threats. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I assumed good faith and that the use of "illegal" is not intended to chill, but down to English not being the first language of the OP. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Are high school yearbooks reliable sources to verify attendance?

Someone added Edgar Snyder to the "Notable alumni" section on Taylor Allderdice High School, graduating in 1959. Another editor, John from Idegon, removed Snyder because it was unsourced that he attended the school. Most of the school's yearbooks are published online, in their entirety, so I found Snyder's senior yearbook, found Snyder's senior photo and listing on page 67, added the source to his bio, then re-added his listing to the Taylor Allderdice article. I also wrote the reverting editor on his talk page and provided the link to Snyder's yearbook page (http://www.donslist.net/CACHE/1536403/TAHS1959_0067.jpg or page 67 at http://www.donslist.net/PGHLookups/TAHS1959M.htm). The editor then removed Snyder a second time from the school article, saying school yearbooks are not reliable sources. Is this correct or incorrect? Can an official high school yearbook be used to verify if a notable person attended the school? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion it's a reliable source (identifiable publisher, editorial oversight, available to other WP editors). However, please take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which is where the community tries to reach consensus on this topic. Notify the other editor, assume good faith (WP:AGF), and argue your point based on WP:RS. -Arch dude (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I asked on that noticeboard. Unfortunately, the editor showed no interest in discussing the matter as you may have seen on his talk page, which I posted to right after he reverted. He first said he didn't know what I was referring to. When I clarified, he didn't reply but instead immediately reverted Snyder's info again with an edit summary flatly stating that a school yearbook cannot be used as a source. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Move on to the dispute resolution process. See WP:DISPUTE. -Arch dude (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please notify the other user that you opened this discussion on the notice board. -Arch dude (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

'Ghost' reference?

In the article Ambubachi Mela a 'ghost' reference appears - #1 in the References section - with no corresponding reference or citation tag anywhere in the article itself or the infoboxes. What is going on here?
(The reference is to "Meet the Axomiya Sikhs". The Tribune. Chandigarh. 24 March 2013.) Which also appears to have nothing to do with the article concerned.
Chris Fynn (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The reference is in Template:Culture of Assam. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't find it and it was It was bugging me. Since there is no reason why that template should have that embedded reference to an external site I'll remove it. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Book reviews

What is the proper way to cite book reviews? I'm asking in particular about this review by Harvey of this book by Meyerson. The only parameter I found on Template:Cite journal that was close to relevant is |department=, but that's not really what I'm looking for. I'm not satisfied with the ones on Google Scholar because of the amount of detail they provide in the work titles (e.g. "$45"), and I'm pretty sure that's not how we do it here on Wikipedia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

stuck attempting to replace defunct links in reference section for published article Keith A. Schooley

Hi editors. I’m the original author of the entry Keith A. Schooley. I’m having trouble updating several reference links that no longer exist on the web. I want to replace one link in two different spots (#1 and #10) with a powerpoint, or pdf equivalent (or it's link) that is the same exact information from the original link including the byline. The third spot (#13) is being replaced with another link that also contains the same exact information on a pdf from the original link. I am copying the unedited sections that need updating along with the new links. Would somebody please insert these for me? I would very much appreciate your expert assistance. Thanks so much. Hillary Chase.

1. 1: Keith A. Schooley (born 1952) is an American author and former stockbroker at Merrill Lynch, who brought attention to fraud and corruption within the firm at the Oklahoma and Texas offices in 1992 as a whistleblower.

1. 10: Schooley lost his case in arbitration and in subsequent courts. Murdock Global Advisers listed Schooley along with seven other very notable whistleblowers as a result of his actions.

1. 13: In 2012, a fictionalized story "Robber Barons of the Big Board," was written as a screenplay by Chandra Niles Folsom about Schooley, and published as an e-book.

1. 1 & #10 pdf: (Here is replacement link to powerpoint): https://www.auditnet.org/system/.../BuildingEffectiveWhistleblowingPrograms.ppt

1. 13 replacement link: https://thecostcouldbefatal.com/pdfs/Robber%20Barons%20Amazon%20Reviews.pdf

References

Oportunidades

Hello,

Can someone put the Oportunidades page's title in italics? Like on Hardwell On Air.

Thanks,

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Y Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales user page

In the Jimmy Wales user page I have added “I will not send Police at your home!”. Why this is considered vandalism? Wales could found funny that phrase, he have a good sense of humor... --151.49.88.52 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)