Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mimel123 (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 19 February 2019 (→‎clean up: new section). 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?)
    Ask a question

    February 16

    MIsh Mash of Two Celebrities

    I am trying to figure out how to fix the Wikipedia that shows up for Wendy Barlow. There is a tennis player from Canada named Wendy Barlow, but the pictures and much of the information is about a different public figure who is WWE wrestler's wife Wendy Barlow. Magazines, which is embarrassing, use Wikipedia to cite her age and say that Ric Flair's new wife is a Wimbledon tennis player. I am their publicist and trying to change this. Obviously, I don't want to take away the other woman's wiki but how to do i delete the stuff about her being married to Flair and the pictures that come up immediately. How do I create an entirely new profile for her as well? Thanks!

    Here is the incorrect profile. That is however, my client Wendy at the top. But unlike credible media sources have been saying she does not play tennis etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Barlow

    Would be grateful for any direction or assistance. Thanks! Elisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantapeach (talk • contribs) 02:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We only have an article about the tennis player Wendy Barlow and it has never contained an image.
    Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.
    This is the version before you made changes February 10. It doesn't mention Ric Flair. Is there anything in that version about your client, or is it all about the tennis player as it should be? I have reverted the article to that version. You shouldn't be editing articles about your clients directly. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atlantapeach: See Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Notability (people) if you consider submitting an article about your client. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing in the Wikipedia article Wendy Barlow about a wrestler's wife. It is unlikely that she is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article about her. If some other website, such as Google, pulls information out of our article about the tennis player, and then does a bio-mashup with the wrestler's wife, you will have to contact the other website to get their mess straightened up. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ric Flair briefly mentions his wife Wendy Barlow. I have added this note about her at the top of Wendy Barlow to avoid confusion in Wikipedia readers:
    This page is about the tennis player. For the wife of Ric Flair, see Ric Flair.
    We are not responsible for Google or magazines. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Eddie Hall: incorrect talk page associated with this article

    There are articles on two different people named Eddie Hall. One is an athlete, the other is a racing driver. The talk page for the athlete's article is actually for the racing driver. How do we fix this? Thanks... BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well spotted. talk:Eddie_Hall was a redirect to talk:Eddie_Hall_(racing_driver) following a page move. I've broken the link and left a brief note.  Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Cite web - missing parameter(s)?

    Please see my new section "Template:Cite web - missing parameter(s)?" at: Help talk:Citation Style 1#Template:Cite web - missing parameter(s)?

    Hedles (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Sister project links

    I would like to draw attention to this inquiry by Czar, since I was looking for the same thing with respect to the transclusion in that section. Additionally, I wanted to ask why exactly it says "Do not place this template in a section containing columns." here.--Hildeoc (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Supported Copyright tag

    Hi Folks, is this copyyright tag supported. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 Possibly asked this before. scope_creepTalk 19:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No. NC means "noncommercial", and ND means "no derivatives", both of which disqualify an image for use in Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deor: I guess I can convert it to fair fair use, and get it shrunk. scope_creepTalk 19:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deor: Thanks. scope_creepTalk 09:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deor: Thanks. scope_creepTalk 09:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Helen Kapalos article

    I deleted a line in this article which is repeated elsewhere in the article with exactly the same reference number. It is now showing an error in the references below i.e. reference no. 1. How do I fix it? The second line of text in this article is the one repeated elsewhere, which has been deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Kapalos 203.196.41.161 (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC) Editrite![reply]

    Hi. I've undone your edit which removed the reference to the supporting source. The lead (first paragraphs) should summarize the rest of the article, so the information should be in both places. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    morgan Freeman

    Morgan freeman was born and ia from greenwood missiaaippi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:55C3:D600:D579:51F9:9DA8:D50D (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to discuss this at Talk:Morgan Freeman, not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    February 17

    Cauley Woodrow footballer for barnsley

    As a family member of Cauley Woodrow I have just removed the names Martin Patching from his name as he does not wish to have this listed, Cauley legally removed the names Martin patching from his name many years ago, we have contacted Wikipedia on many occasions regarding this and was assured that this would be monitored to not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shangoman1964 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging the editor who made the change, to be sure they are aware Mattythewhite.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, it was added in this edit by an IP, and I then sourced it. I think evidence via OTRS of the above would be useful. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shangoman1964: sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for taking the initiative to fix it up. Unfortunately, we can't stop the media from publishing that information, as happened in this case - an editor probably saw it in a newspaper and put that information into the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does have a policy of respecting the privacy of living people (here), so I have gone through the article and added instructions for future editors not to add his full birth name. It is not a perfect guarantee that they will observe it, but it certainly should help. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mattythewhite, sorry if I mis-attributed that change.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gronk Oz I've reverted the change, as this is exactly the sort of thing that needs to go through OTRS, to verify this is actually the subject asking. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: now you've got me confused. (I know, some people say that doesn't take much!) I looked at that page you linked, and it describes OTRS as "an organized way for multiple people to categorize and respond to third party emails". But this isn't about emails at all. It's about respecting privacy where requested. So what am I missing here?--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Shangoman1964 has now disrupted the page removing the entire infobox and some referenced content. I have restored it. I agree this needs OTRS attention as we have do not know who is editing as Shangoman, whether it is Woodrow or somebody acting on his behalf or someone else entirely. OTRS can establish identity and a reason for the request. Eagleash (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    /* Nuclear power plans */ edited deadlink

    hello,

    I have suggested a better link for above-mentioned deadlink and edited it. I want to know that after how many days its actually appear on that page.

    Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushik buha (talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kaushik buha: your changes appeared instantly on the page, and were removed very quickly by KH-1 because they appeared to that editor to be "refspam": i.e. links intended primarily to drive users to a commercial site. I think you made a good-faith modification and that KH-1 made a good-faith decision. You need to discuss this on the article's talk page and reach a consensus about whether or not the links are improvements. Please assume good faith (WP:AGF). -Arch dude (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kaushik buha: The edits were reverted as noted above. You have raised the matter at the other editor's talk page which is an alternative to raising it at the article TP. Eagleash (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Map for church article

    Hi Folks, I have this article: Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian. I'm planning to add an infobox. I found this: Template:Infobox church, but I noticed it doesnt have a map on it. I came across the French version of the article, and it had a map, that put me on it:[1]. The French infobox with ok with the map. Is there any way I can add a map onto the Infobox:church. I was looking for a module where I could link another infobox, but couldnt see anything. Is there another way, possibly another infobox that would be suitable. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed it has a map section. I'm must have been sleeping again. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the parameters are "pushpin map, pushpin label position, pushpin map alt, pushpin mapsize, map caption and coordinates"? For the "pushpin map" name, I think it needs to use an existing template from the location map templates category. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    أمجد فتحى

    ده عيل لا مؤاخذه — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoslehAmr (talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the help desk for the English Wikipedia, so questions should be in English. If you are looking for a Wikipedia in another language, you can find a list at meta:List of Wikipedias. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Properly citing autism advocates as "well known" on a page

    This concerns the page National Council on Severe Autism. The sentence I want to add is: "The organization was founded in May 2018 by well known autism advocates including Jill Escher, Feda Almaliti, Amy Lutz, and Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation."

    Psychology today cites them as well known, and gives specific examples proving that they are well known (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inspectrum/201901/national-council-severe-autism-ncsa-launches). However, this article is written by one of the NCSA's board members, though this article is technically independent of the NCSA.

    Is it an okay source to use for this purpose?

    Ylevental (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ylevental, this question should have been placed at WP:RSN, or on the talk page of the said article. Do that from now on. Now that you're here, the answer is no, it doesn't seem okay. First, your source is a blog. Second, it's a primary source. These make it not a very sparkling source. "Well-known" is an exceptional claim, and you would need multiple high-quality independent sources to prove these people are well-known. So, once again, no. Also, you should read WP:3RR and understand why you might get blocked if you continue edit warring at that page. Lourdes 15:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll remember and I will try not to edit war. Though there has been a lot of plain vandalism on that page. Ylevental (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you've been part of it with your biased editing, YL. 2001:8003:58DD:C700:EDCE:9B6F:49F3:DF40 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What's that floating "curation" toolbar on the right?

    That gray thing on the right is the Curation Toolbar

    I stumbled across United States support for ISIS after it was mentioned on the fringe theories noticeboard, and it has a floating nonscrolling "curation" toolbar on the right. It look like the one at Wikipedia:Page Curation#Curation Toolbar.

    I ma not seeing it on any other page and I don't think I did anything to enable it (maybe it got turned on by accident when I was setting up RemindMe or LintHint?). How do I turn the annoying thing off? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    HTML and its computer programming codes

    I am not that familiar with the "computer programming codes" that Wikipedia uses. I think they are called "HTML" (or some such). In any event, I sometimes use computer formatting codes, such as these: <big> and </big> to increase font size... <small> and </small> to decrease font size ... <i> and </i> to italicize font... <strike> and </strike> to strike-out text ... and so forth. My question: Is there a Wikipedia page that lists all (or most) of these codes and explains them? So, for example, if I wanted to "bold" the font, and I did not know the correct code to do so, is there a Wikipedia page for guidance in such inquiries? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In general wiki source code does not use HTML. You'll find guidance on wiki markup at Help:Wikitext. Before trying to bold the font, or applying similar formatting, please read the Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Biddulph: Thanks. I will check that page. But, I don't understand what you are saying. I see that sort of "mark-up" (if that's the correct word) all the time, here on Wikipedia. That's how I "learned it". When I see that someone uses a "strike-out" for text, I go and look at it more closely ... and I see that it was accomplished with the codes of <strike> and </strike> . And, similarly, with the other formatting codes (that I listed above). So, why do you say that Wikipedia does not use HTML? Are you saying that Wikipedia does not use the codes that I listed above? Or, are you saying that these types of codes (that I listed above) are not called "HTML"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See Help:HTML in wikitext. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph A. Spadaro: This is a matter of definition. Technically, HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) is the syntax that is processed by an HTML parser. Wiki markup is not parsed by an HTML parser, it's parsed by the wiki markup processor which uses wiki markup syntax. Wiki markup syntax includes some elements of HTML syntax. Thus, the shorthand usage of "HTML" to mean "some elements of HTML syntax" is technically incorrect, but it is common usage through the industry. -Arch dude (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arch dude: OK. Thanks. So, does Wikipedia have a "user's guide" (or an article) that contains a list of the commonly used codes that a Wikipedia editor may need at times? Such as: <strike> and </strike> ... or <big> and </big> ..., etc.? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Help:Cheatsheet does the most common Wiki mark-ups. The most frequent don't use HTL-type code Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    turning a redirect into a disambiguation

    I'd like to turn Ten Talents into a disambiguation to Ten Talents (cookbook) vs. Parable of the talents or minas but this is something I know I will completely screw up as I've done that before when I thought I was following directions. I'm willing to try anyway, but I thought I'd come here and ask whether it would be better for me to go ahead and try (and possibly cause extra work for others) or just ask for help. valereee (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We only make a disambig page when none of the entries is considered the primary topic. In this case the parable probably has the edge on "long-term significance", and because the cookbook article is new there is no clear evidence in "usage". So for now I've added another hatnote to the parable article: Bhunacat10 (talk), 17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bhunacat10, thank you! For my own future reference, what do we understand to mean as something being in usage enough to require a dab instead of multiple hatnotes? valereee (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no, a DAB is used when there is no primary topic. Primary topic: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. So the thing to assess is the probable demand among readers for an article, relative to the other articles under the related topic name. This could be judged by one's own knowledge and impressions; by external evidence like quantity of relevant results in Google searches; or by relative page views on the Wikipedia articles when they have all built up some history. Any of these criteria would tell us that (say) Cuisine is primary to Cuisine (magazine), that's why Cuisine has a hatnote and no DAB page: Bhunacat10 (talk), 12:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the computer code in Wikipedia to change font color of text?

    What is the computer code in Wikipedia to change font color of text? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joseph A. Spadaro: According to what I found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikitext#Coloring_and_highlighting_text, you can use {{color}} or {{font color}}. RudolfRed (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @RudolfRed: Great. Thanks. So, where does one find some "official" names that we can use for the colors? Names that are ordinary words like "blue" or "light blue", etc. (As opposed to those hexadecimal computer codes and values, like #0000FF for blue.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See Web colors. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "Misunderstood" individuals

    Here's the entirety of the Alan Balatine article:

    Alan Balatine (fl. 1530s? – 1560) is a supposed historian mentioned by Edward Hall in the list of the English writers from whose works he compiled his Chronicle. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography makes it clear that this person is very likely a misnomer for John Bellenden, and never actually existed.

    The article's in Category:Fictional historians. Is such a person fictional, and if not, do we have a category for this concept? "Fictional" sounds like a character that was made up, e.g. Bilbo Baggins in his compilation of the history known as the Silmarillion, but Balatine is the result of a misunderstanding presented as an actual person. Unfortunately I wouldn't know what to call such a person; he's not a hoax because hoaxes are intentional falsehoods, he's not pseudepigraphical because pseudepigrapha are false ascriptions of texts to real persons (not real ascriptions of texts to false persons), and I can't think of another term. No point in asking at talk, as it's never been touched except to add wikiproject tags in 2011, and aside from a 2015 expansion on his nonexistence, the article's not had a real content edit since 2011. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nyttend: If the ODNB makes it clear that Balatine was likely a misnomer for Bellenden, why can't this information be included in the John Bellenden article and the Balatine page made into a redirect? – Teratix ₵ 01:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)@Nyttend: Probably added as in an overzealous attempt to have a Wikipedia article for every entry in the DNB. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography. In this case feel free to move the info into the John Bellenden article and change this to a redirect. The project is supposed to try to add an article for every "legitimate" DNB article, and I don;t think this one qualifies. -Arch dude (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, good point. Thank you. Now done. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians Why is this locked?

    Why is this article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians , locked from editing?

    Doesnt that go against wikipedia standards that every article is open for editing? How come its only this one and another "palestinian"-regarded article thats locked, and nothing else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.161.190.164 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Because the arbitration committee decided that articles about the Israel-Palestine confilct should be restricted to extended-confirmed editors because of disruptive editing. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    February 18

    Is it alright to do this?

    Is it alright to upload a photo for a draft article?
    - Stinkyjaden (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Stinkyjaden[reply]

    It is, of course the usual requirements for the photo itself must be met. Please do it here. --Cornellier (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stinkyjaden: just to be safe to avoid misunderstandings: freely licensed or Public Domain images are perfectly fine in drafts and can be uploaded to Commons as noted. But non-free images under a claim of fair use are not allowed in drafts (see Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria #9). For non-free images - such as logos, posters, and covers for infobox, screenshots and similar non-free files - you should wait with an upload to English Wikipedia (not to Commons), until the draft has been published in mainspace. GermanJoe (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m looking for a specific article that I don’t know the name of.

    The only clue/hint that I can give, is that at the top of the article there’s a picture of a GBU-43/B MOAB, its color is orange.--5.33.0.177 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you looking for 2017 Nangarhar airstrike? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: See Bomb. -Arch dude (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that too, but it seemed more likely that the IP would be looking for a more specific article, and would have remembered the title "Bomb". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arch dude: l suppose that you nailed it.--5.33.0.177 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Quote in sfn

    Hi, is it possible to add a quote to a short footnote? I have {{sfn|Broadbent|1931|p= 41|quote= These were continually objects of persecution.}} but the quote does not show up:

    All of these sects were persecuted and repressed.[1]

    1. ^ Broadbent 1931, p. 41.

    References

    • Broadbent, E. H. (1931). The Pilgrim Church. London: Pickering & Inglis. ISBN 0-7208-0677-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

    - thanks for your help - Epinoia (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello @Epinoia:, the parameter for additional comments or quotes is named "ps", not "quote" - see also Template:sfn for more details. (I have now added this missing parameter to the TemplateData documentation) GermanJoe (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    -thanks! - Epinoia (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved

    ListeriaBot

    I report here ListeriaBot has not been working for three days and all the lists managed by it can not be updated. Already reported it two other users, admins, talk page of the bot and manager of the Bot (@Magnus Manske: I think). Unfortunately the manager of this bot is not so active these days (I fully understand it) and every other user I reported the problem to has not a clue about what to do. So I report it here as a last stand. --Folengo (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Referencing

    I am the biological father of one of the persons featured in wikipedia. I have added that this featured person also has a half brother, to whom I am also his biological father. How do I reference the source?5chinasa6 (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You would need to cite a reference to a published reliable source, preferably using a citation template such as {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}. Your own personal knowledge is not an acceptable source. You oughtn't to be editing the article directly; see WP:Conflict of interest. Note also that your change was not a minor edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Try Help:Referencing for beginners. Note that WP demands good sources concerning anything about living people (WP:BLP). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What is ".:" sign in wikipedia and what these are used for in wikipedia  ?

    Recently i have seen this in wikipedia a user who created a page having user.:hisname/sandbox, in different language wiki but i have my sandbox user:Rocky/sandbox are they both same.
    Thanks in advance Rocky 734 (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Rocky 734. At least in English Wikipedia, if the user typed a page name exactly as you did here (including the dot), then the software would not recognise user.: as a valid namespace. It would be the same as if I set up a page called something like monday:Bhunacat10/sandbox. This would just be a non-existent page in article space, and no good to anyone. They need to use the correct prefix User: (no dot) to make a user subpage: Bhunacat10 (talk), 19:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We may be able to say more if you link the page. I don't know whether "User." is a valid namespace in any of the 303 Wikipedia languages. Do not make a page at user:Rocky/sandbox. You have to use your full username. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello...@PrimeHunter:This is his page in santali wikipedia, they write user as ᱵᱮᱵᱷᱚᱟᱨᱤᱭᱟ user sandbox Rocky 734 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ok Rocky 734 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rocky 734: So it didn't actually have Latin letters and it didn't actually contain a period. The name of userspace in the Santali Wikipedia is "ᱵᱮᱵᱷᱟᱨᱤᱭᱟᱹ" where the last character "ᱹ" is not a period but găhlă ṭuḍăg at Ol Chiki script#Other marks. I don't know the language and cannot say whether this is a good name for userspace but you have to include that character in your user pages. Otherwise the page will be an article in mainspace. Please note for the future that the edit notice for this help desk includes: "If possible, please be specific in your question rather than general and link to any page or article your question involves, or at least tell us the title of the page." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    John Mogg (British Army officer)

    Please place the accent over the word nee in the photo box at the bottom of the article. Thanks.Srbernadette (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Srbernadette: See this message at your talk page, from over three years ago. Please copy and paste as suggested there or please learn to use the 'special characters' drop-down menu at the top of the edit window. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done it - thanks for the help Srbernadette (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good . Remember for next time. Eagleash (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Source editing

    How do I turn off the technicolour drivel that has suddenly polluted my edit windows? Useddenim (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Useddenim: I guess you refer to syntax highlighting but several features can add it. See WP:HILITE. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting an article

    Hi WikiPeople,

    I'd like to request an article that I want to write, but don't have contant for yet. I'm completely baffled as to where I need to make my request. Could someone please provide a link to the right page?

    Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidphish1996 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sidphish1996 I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking. If you want to write an article, you don't need to request anything to do so. (though writing an article is difficult and you should read WP:YFA and spend time editing existing articles first). If you want to request that others write it, you may visit Requested Articles. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    February 19

    Question about the scope of Conflict of Interest (COI)

    Two days ago, I was told I should not correct a recently added mistake I found on the California Highway Patrol page. I had posting my request for verification for several days with no response from the original poster or other editors. So, I deleted the inaccurate info. I was told I should not have edited the page because I had worked for the CHP 14 years ago. I was not basing my correction on my knowledge, but on direct contact with CHP HQ to see if things had changed in the 14 years since I left their employment. Basically, someone added incorrect information, without citing a source for the inaccurate information. There could never be any prove the added info was wrong because most organizations do not keep documentations on things they have not done. I was told that despite the material being added without citation (and being wrong based on statements from the CHP), I should not have attempted to revert the page back to its previous status because I once worked for the CHP.

    So, here is my question. What level of previous and/or present contact or relationship with any organization/person/thing can I have before I should not edit anything about that organization/person/thing? I am a good researcher, and I have a very wide range of interests.

    I am a citizen of an American Indian tribe. Does that mean I should not edit anything on American Indians, or just my tribe? My published work includes lots of information on many of the US and Canadian recognized tribes in North America. Does that preclude me from editing about all of them?

    I helped to run computers at NASA's Johnson Space Center during Apollo and Skylab. Does that mean I should not edit anything about the American Space Program, just those missions, computers or some other subset?

    While working in broadcasting and in theaters, I have worked with literally hundreds of entertainers of varying degrees of celebrity. You can see many of them in the 300+ photos I have put into public domain or other CC-rated licenses here at Wikipedia. Does this mean I cannot edit anything about any of them? What is the dividing line? Example, I worked as a stage manager for a one-night concert by the rock group Blue Oyster Cult in 1984. I have never encountered them again. Does COI mean I can never edit anything about them ever? Or, is there a limit to exposure or time basis for this call?

    I have worked in many different professions during my 55+ years in the work force. Should I avoid any fields in which I once had a job?

    I have traveled to 47 states in the USA, and much of Mexico. Does this mean I cannot edit about any place I have been?

    I am not trying to be sarcastic. I am asking because I do not want to violate Wikipedia's rules.

    Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC) (Philkon)[reply]

    @Phil Konstantin: This verges on being out of scope for the help desk: we should probably direct you to WP:DISPUTE, or one of several other places. Briefly: There is a difference between interest and conflict of interest. Your degree of COI is a judgement call, which means editors may disagree. In general, I believe that the editor with the potential COI will generally have the best feeling for this. When there is a disagreement, treat this as you would a content dispute by trying to reach consensus on the talk page, and proceeding per WP:DISPUTE only if needed. Removing unsourced material is not a COI issue: any editor may remove unsourced material regardless of COI. -Arch dude (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about caption of image in infobox

    Having just added a photo to an infobox (using Template:Infobox writer) in this article, I'm a bit puzzled by the use of the Caption parameter. I thought that it would override the caption at the bottom of the image, but instead it writes it at the side. I've had a look at WP:CAPTION but it doesn't cover this. Is this the way it's supposed to work? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Laterthanyouthink: Infobox parameters vary. Template:Infobox writer#Parameters says: "image Insert image name. Use only the file name such as abc.jpg, xyz.png, 123.gif, etc. Do not use syntax such as [[File:abc.jpg]] or [[File:abc.jpg|200px]]". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! Thanks for pointing that out, PrimeHunter. It looks as if someone has kindly fixed it up for me. I'll check it out on the computer when I get back home. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Making text flow to the left of a panel

    Dear expert helpers,

    I want to have a panel (not an infobox) on the right of the page, which I have successfully coded but I haven't been able to get the body text of the article to flow around (to the left of) the panel.

    Here it is:

    How can I centre
    this heading??

    Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque.

    I'd also appreciate advice on how I can centre the heading. Cheers. SCHolar44 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    How can I centre
    this heading??

    Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque.
    @SCHolar44: You have a lot of odd or obsolete code. "width:100%" tells your outer borderless table to use the whole width of the window so there is no place for text to flow around it. Maybe my code gives the look and functionality you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly does! Many thanks! (Funnily enough, I had suspected the "width:100%" and substituted a smaller value to test it. Nothing changed -- but I now suspect I had changed one version in my text editor but not the version that went to the article draft.) And yes, the code was odd and obsolete -- culled from some examples around the place. I have analysed your simplification carefully. Much appreciation for your expertise and time -- not for the first time! SCHolar44 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mater Christi College

    I could not find the publisher for ref number 3 - Please assist if you can. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The absence of a publisher parameter is the least of the problems. What is more significant is that the "reference" does not support the text to which you applied it, and that yet again you fabricated the content of the "quote" parameter, despite the fact that you have been warned in the past. If you use the "quote" parameter, the words in the "quote" must appear verbatim in the reference; do you understand that? Is there any clearer way that someone can explain it to you? I have tagged the reference as having failed verification, and removed the fictitious part of the "quote". --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help

    I have now found decent references RE Mater Christi College - but I got it wrong for reference 1 and 6. Please help. I am always grateful and am doing my best. Thanks.175.32.70.221 (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted your edit so that you can get it right next time. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    clean up

    How do i post a clean up request for an editor

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=884112132"