Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erachima (talk | contribs) at 10:01, 4 January 2017 (→‎"New" editors with suspiciously advanced knowledge of Wikipedia: You have to suspect them OF something.). 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

    January 1

    Location map error

    The article Perley Bridge is in the hidden maintenance category Category:Location maps with possible errors. If I look at the category page, it says "This category contains location maps that appear to contain some type of error, but are still able to render successfully. The sort key will contain the type of error that was detected." Where do I find the sort key containing the error message.

    It also seems that the TOC for the category is messed-up. MB 02:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @MB: That was a challenge! After poking around in the behind-the-scenes code, I've expanded the description on the category page. The idea is that all the articles under the "M" heading have one kind of error, all those under the "N" heading have a different error, and so on. Perley Bridge was under the "M" heading; I've managed to fix the error by editing Module:Location map/data/Canada. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have added some text to the heading of Category:Location maps with possible errors to explain the sort codes. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I now see that John had been changing the category description while I was adding my text separately, so I've merged my change into his. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @John of Reading: Thanks. It looks like the "M" errors have been reduced from around 1200 to a couple of dozen with your one change to that Module. I'm not sure what is behind these last ones. The 800 "O" errors seem to be problems in the source articles that have to be fixed one by one. I've done a couple so far. I think the "D" problems will be fixed with the bot changes to use the Coord template. That category was very confusing. It would have been much better if all the errors were separate sub-categories like "D". MB 04:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MB: That one edit cleared several hundred, and I've made a few similar edits to other maps. Yes, since the single category was too big to be displayed on one page, separate smaller categories would have been better. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    why is there no Wikipedia: #Edit2016

    i myself look forward to the year in edit you do why did you side not do one for 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.0.47 (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You apparently refer to a 2016 version of the video commons:File:Wikipedia Edit 2015.webm, mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-12-16/In the media#Wikimedia Foundation releases year in review video. There was also a 2014 version commons:File:Wikipedia Edit 2014.webm. Both were made by VGrigas (WMF). User:VGrigas (WMF)/Edit2016 says he had other projects and not enough time. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mistake made on article;

    I don't really know where to put this, but the article that states: 1959 – Cuban President Fulgencio Batista fled to the Dominican Republic as forces under Fidel Castro took control of Havana, marking the end of the Cuban Revolution. there's a mistake, Fidel Castro ended fulgencio Batista's dictatorship on the island, not the "end of the Cuban revolucion". It was the "Cuban revolution" that ousted Batista. Thanks. 


    Alex..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohibabros27 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about the Main page, which cites Cuban Revolution, correctly I believe. The Cuban revolution, which overthrew Batista, did indeed end when Batista fled, leaving Fidel Castro in power. Maproom (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit dispute re: Carrie Fisher & Sarah Lawrence College

    Revert of my edit
    Please see the article's talk page. I think my deletion was correct and appropriate; what do I do now other than just delete it again? Thanks in advance. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Dyspeptic Skeptic. Without getting into the issue (I haven't even looked at your edit), I can say that deleting it again is never the answer to an edit dispute. According to our policies on dispute resolution, the next stage is to discuss it on the article's talk page. If you cannot reach concensus with the other parties, that policy tells you what are the next steps to follow. --ColinFine (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    William Christopher passed away on December 31,2016

    You forgot to add his death on the list of people that passed away in 2016 He starred in M*A*S*H along with Alan Alda Henry Morgan Lorretta Swit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlychips55 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Curlychips55. No, I didn't forget: I didn't know anything about it ;-). But Kiwipat added the information to Deaths in December 2016 nearly 15 hours ago: are you seeing this missing somewhere else? In future, if you see missing information in a Wikipedia article, you are welcome to add it yourself, preferably with a reliable published source. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably they were referring to the In The News section of the front page, where this has just been added. Sam Walton (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help understanding the comments editors are providing

    I posted an article in my Sandbox and the comment says "it reads like an advertisement,' though they don't cite anything specific. And that I posted inappropriate external links. Can someone tell me exactly what part reads like an advertisement? I am trying to state the circumstances as best as I can based on the articles I've read about the company, and the only external link I had was the company's official website, which I've since removed. Although I am confused as other companies in the same industry have their official websites listed in external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptorsquad (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The tag concerned was added by you in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Language like "how a local company failed to deliver, and a young group of locals were in the right place at the right time. The start of the company's activities in India -- according to him -- were both accidental and serendipitous in nature." has no place in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    How long it takes for Google indexing

    I wrote an article " Madhu Singhal" . How long will it take to get the Google indexing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudipa Biswas (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You article is one of over 14 thousand in the queue at Special:NewPagesFeed awaiting review at New page patrol, which is now a requirement for the page to be indexed by Google. You oughtn't to have to wait more than three and a half months, and if you are lucky it might be sooner. I see that Madhu Singhal has problems with referencing. Two references haven't been defined, a third is a reference to Wikipedia, which is forbidden by WP:CIRCULAR, and the fourth is a bare url leading to a page on the website of the organisation which the subject founded, so there are no independent published reliable sources. This would be grounds for a reviewer to propose deletion of the page. Additionally the page is malformatted by including reference tags in section headings, contravening WP:Manual of Style#Section headings. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What to do when no consensus is achieved?

    I am wondering about a WP policy compliant and constructive way to handle a situation where it has not been possible to reach a consensus.

    I have removed some aspects in an article which in my opinion were either off topic, violated WP:BIO or where misinterpretations of sources (WP:SYNTH). After the original author reverted my changes I went to the talk page and we engaged in an endless tit for tat without convincing each other. After that I started a RFC process to get other opinions. Regarding the crucial aspects (the WP:BIO violation and the WP:SYNTH) the two people who participated in the RFC agreed with my objections (in my eyes). The other editor, however, still does not agree and prevents me from removing the contested contents with the argument that I would need to reach consensus first for removing it. As I call for removing the content and the other editor calls for keeping the (in my eyes misleading) content there seems to be no option for an alternative wording or similar as a consensus.

    I know that wikipedia is no democracy and it is clear to me that there may be different opinions than mine on what exactly is "off topic" and what exactly constitutes a good "encyclopedic" article (with no off topic stuff) but the general question bothers me as I see this strategy to boldy revert any edits by other editors and then repeat the same argument again and again in the discussion to prevent a consensus as quiet an effective way to keep questionable content in an article. Especially in an article which is seldomly frequented (there are only 2-3 active editors on the talk page).

    How to proceed here constructively? With regards to the "only" off topic stuff I could also just leave it as is and move elsewhere but the WP:SYNTH stuff in my eyes leaves something wrong in the article if I would just leave it know as it is (which seems to be the suggestion of WP:CONSENSUS).

    For reference and demonstration (not for WP:CANVASSING!), the article I am referring to is Murder of Maria Ladenburger. Thanks, LucLeTruc (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • What I would generally suggest is to follow the steps listed out at wp:dispute resolution. The Rfc that you started is not worded well and would have given ambiguous responses. Apart from that, after reading the arguments on the page, my view is that there are experienced editors giving their opinions and not agreeing with you. Yes, some do agree with you on some points, but the concept of consensus is not to keep sparring till you get your way on what you think is right. I'm not commenting on whether your viewpoint is actually right or wrong; just that, if things aren't moving your way, Wikipedia is a big place and you can edit many more articles than get stuck on one article. Hope this helps. Lourdes 08:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lourdes:Thanks for your reply. You are right, most of the arguments on the talk page between me and Gerry1214 and Xavieritzm boil down to the question about what is considered to be included in an encyclopedic article and what not and I do not want to claim that my opinion is the only right one there. I can live with just going elsewhere in the not so "serious" cases (i.e. with questions whether something is important for an article or "tabloid" reporting of irrelevant stuff). My question, however, is more general: I have experienced in several cases and with different editors that the strategy (at least that is how I percieve it), to always revert contested edits back to your own version and engage in endless discussions during which you fight for your version to stay in the article with the argument that there is no consensus for changing it is really successful in keeping your preferred version of contested formulation. At least if the other editor losses energy to keep on discussing. Mostly the question boils down to this: If there is no consensus for a certain information in an article after a long discussion, does the contested content stay in the article or is it to be removed? And in which state should the article stay during the discussion? Is there a clear guideline for this? Happy new year, LucLeTruc (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly off topic: How would you have phrased the RFC to be more clear? Thanks, LucLeTruc (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably better discussed on the Talk page of [[Talk:WP:Consenus]]. I started a thread there. LucLeTruc (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again Luc. Thanks for the new year wishes. Año nuevo to you too. There is no clear guideline, except talk page discussions, for which content should stay (and which not) while discussions are on. Admins may sometimes fully protect the article, in case editing disputes get out of hand; and the version they choose might be right for one editor and wrong for another. Our disruptive editing and 3RR procedures control, to some extent, the possibilities of an edit war if the discussions and the reverts get a bit off. I would have phrased the Rfc one question at a time (in the sense, separate Rfcs for each question). Hope this helps. Lourdes 15:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    January 2

    New draft article replacing old draft

    Hi, I want to rewrite Draft:Kristina_Pimenova from scratch, replacing some old draft that got rejected. How do I proceed? Can I just blank the page, thereby removing the template, should it be deleted first, or what? The declining admin doesn't answer me. Lyrda (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lyrda hello. Yes you can blank the page; but don't remove the template as it would help you in resubmitting the article through the Resubmit button, and also allow the reviewing editor to assess the improvements from the previous version. I've created a small section heading for you in the draft, titled "Edit from here for any changes". Delete all the material below the same and write the stuff from scratch. Have a great new year. Lourdes 09:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Formatting help

    Hi all. I've come across an editor who uses strange formatting (see: Black & White Records) I've tried to clean up The Music Trades (magazine) - but when it comes to the "Selected editors and publishers" section, I have no idea on how to format it. It looks wrong to me. I am on my way to correct over 70 articles due to their formatting, specifically the gratuitous use of refbegin and I am becoming a little frustrated, so if anybody can give me any pointers on this particular formatting. thanks --Jennica✿ / talk 03:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lourdes: - I think you misunderstood me. I know about refbegin. This particular user is using it to make large non-referenced lists text smaller. For example, if someone had a 50+ list of albums for a discography section and threw refbegin on it to make it smaller. I don't know about the documentation on this but I can only assume it's incorrect since I've not seen it on any wikipedia article, ever. --Jennica✿ / talk 09:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jennica you're right. It's a very innovative style of reducing the font size :) I've not seen this usage earlier and don't believe there might be any connected documentation on this. You can change this to the standard formatting styles. Lourdes 10:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    PG&E Hinkley

    It is time for someone to update the current page on PG&E Hinkley plume for the most part I feel that it is fair and well written. An update would be great though currently the USGS is conducting a four year study that took two years to develop and get funded. Dr. Izbicki USGS is going to determine a final background number for remediation and cleanup purposes. This will have big implications for both the community and PG&E. The honest truth is the community no longer exists we are now a rural area we have lot our school, gas station, store and neighborhoods all bought out by PG&E. Thank you for the consideration of addition. Daron Banks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.21.209.67 (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This may be about Hinkley groundwater contamination. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello 184.21.209.67, thank you for the note. Would you be able to confirm which article might you be referring to? Thanks. Lourdes 09:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Beatport

    Dear editors: I came across an article (Bassjackers) which is mainly sourced to Beatport. Since this is described in its article as an online store, my thought was to remove these references. I checked the archive at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and one other editor asked about it, but received no answer. Should the references all be deleted?—Anne Delong (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi Anne Delong. In my opinion, if the references refer to Beatport's music rankings, then the answer is no. Beatport rankings are well-referenced throughout global media and are considered information worthy.[1][2][3][4]. Hope this helps. Lourdes 08:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anne, the source you mention is used to support the following statement: "A few months later they released together with Yves V the single "Bronx" on August 13, 2012 through Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike's label Smash the House". If you feel that this is a statement that is exceptional and needs to have exemplary sources, I would suggest putting up a note on the talk page of the article about the same and then waiting for a couple of days before removing the statement and the source. Thanks. Lourdes 09:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lourdes, I see that I have not made my concerns clear. I want to remove the multiple Beatport references not because I doubt that the "releases" exist, but because I believe that the references are there for promotional purposes, and to disguise the fact that the article has few sources to satisfy the WP:NOT guideline, which states "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources". Thanks for the information about the Beatport rankings; although they don't seem to apply here, I will likely come across them at some point in another article. I will take your advice and start a discussion on the talk page. I wonder, though, if someone can point me to the relevant guideline or policy that specifies when it's okay to reference a commercial product listing on retailer's website and when it's not.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anne Delong hi. It's a grey area here. Billboard is a media house. Beatport is not. Billboard rankings are globally renowned. Beatport's are not. Billboard makes money out of its charts.[5] Beatport makes money out of its songs. Something like iTunes rankings perhaps, where Apple might be making money from the songs download; while at the same time, the information about the songs debuting might be helpful. My suggestion would be to simply start a discussion on the talk page of the article with your query, and remove all the said beatport sources if consensus supports you or if nobody objects. Lourdes 15:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    how to get latest update on this encyclopedia project and the wikimedia project as a whole?

    Hello there, I know I can edit this website and copyright issues are not to be asked on help desk. However, the subject content is what I want to ask. -- Ktsquare (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Firstly, welcome back. You would need to spend quite some time reading up on the following pages to get somewhat up to speed on what's going on.
    1. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: Read up not only the page I've linked but also the actual policies and guidelines linked within. It'll take you quite a while to understand all of them; but you're a sysop and it's important you read up on these. Take your time. Three other interesting pages are below.
    2. About Wikipedia and About Wikimedia: I don't know what these pages were when you last saw them, but these give a great consolidation of what the projects are right now.
    3. History of Wikipedia: 2010 to 2016

    Once you've gone through these, come back here and we'll put you up to speed on some other pages you might find interesting. Thanks. Lourdes 09:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, @Ktsquare:. I am not sure just what sort of "latest update" you are looking for, but you might be interested to look at Special:Statistics which will give you current information on things like the number of articles, users, etc. If that's not what you are looking for, please ask more specifically - what exactly do you want to know? --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fleeting notice?

    A couple of days ago, I thought I saw an announcement of a new Wikipedia improvement drive, I suppose like the recent Africa destubathon. I was too busy to read it at the time. It hasn't shown up since. Was there one, or was I just hallucinating? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • "(1) The 2017 WikiCup begins on January 1, 2017. Signups are open until February 5. Help improve Wikipedia's content in this fun competition. This year's prize pool is $425....(2) Everybody is invited to the monthly Bay Area WikiSalon, Wednesday, December 21 (6 - 8:30 pm) to collaborate, mingle, have fun and maybe learn something at the Wikimedia Foundation's downtown SF lounge.....(3) Join Wikipedia Day 2017 in NYC on Jan 15! And sign up for a lightning talk!". Lourdes 10:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Section tagging with Twinkle

    I tried doing this using a custom "Unreferenced section" tag, but the tag showed up at top of article, not in the section I had opened for edting. Does Twinkle not have ability to tag a section? DonFB (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Transferring a Radio Station's Logo (I'll Try This Again)

    I often edit pages devoted to radio stations, but I'm having trouble transferring a station's logo to the info box. This is logo... WLOB Radio logo

    1) It took me about an hour to figure out how to get a logo from a station's website to the info box, while editing WLOB. (There was a logo already there, but it was outdated, giving the wrong FM dial position.) When I got the current logo there, it was much bigger than it should be. I couldn't figure out how to make it the right size. I see some image lines include the word "thumb" but that made the logo too small. I fear I'm going to have to spend another hour figuring out how to size it right.

    2) The logo I put into WLOB got deleted later that day. The reason was "(Copyright violation: external source, no license, no permission.)" Nearly every radio station Wikipedia page has the station's logo in the infobox. They're not getting rejected for copyright violations. I assume those editors transfer it from the station's webpage. Why did it happen to my edit? Whoever deleted it didn't explain how I could avoid the rejection. I'm not sure if it was a real person or a bot who deleted the logo. But there was no explanation for getting it right, just a deletion.

    3) Why is this so hard? I'm not sure I remember all the steps to transfer a logo and clearly I still don't have it right, to size it correctly and to avoid copyright deletions. Yet others must know how to do this, since there are radio station logos in nearly all radio station info boxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve1reg (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See: WP:Logos#Uploading_non-free_logos. The rationale there seems to be what other radio station articles are using. You could not upload to Commons (does not accept Non-free justification for anything), but logo should be uploadable to English Wikipedia with appropriate Fair Use explanation.
    For additional guidance, take a look at WP:LOGOS#Copyright-free_logos and WP:PD#Non-creative_works and Commons:Threshold of originality. That third one might be most important. DonFB (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Saw logo at station website. It's rather wide, so I think it would be difficult to try to use all of it. My opinion: you could crop just the portion that says "News Talk WLOB" and use that; I believe those letters by themselves, even with the color usage, should be eligible for fair use, nor should the cropped image even be copyrightable, according to what I've read in the Threshold of originality page linked above. DonFB (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cher is broken

    I tried a few times on December 26, and again today, but attempting to edit the Cher article results in a minute or so of waiting, then a "Secure Connection Failed" error message. I've never seen anything like it, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Just me, or is something terribly wrong here? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

    The same thing happens at Dwayne Johnson, I've just discovered. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:24, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

    @Lourdes and InedibleHulk: I was able to edit both pages without any problems on Google Chrome. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MRD2014:If it's not too much trouble, could you make this edit to Cher? Getting an up-to-date browser would require an up-to-date OS for me. Seems a bit much. I won't ask you to note The Rock is also Canadian, but the Cher thing seems far less controversial. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
    Separate question, I'm sure -- but what does "Pending Edit", "Automatically Accepted" and "Accepted Revision" on the Cher History page mean? would this have anything to do with the delay? just curious Maineartists (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The page is under pending changes protection, which means edits by unregistered or registered non-autoconfirmed users have to be reviewed by a pending changes reviewer or administrator. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I need help

    Hi there. I need help. I have created a Wiki page for someone I know "Matt Nicholson (Composer)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Nicholson_(composer)

    It seems to be that everything I do on Wiki something goes wrong after creating the update and i have no idea what or why it does this.. For example a reliable source like IMDB is apparently an unreliable source when I have seen people references this type of thing before....

    As well as: "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (December 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"

    "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Matt Nicholson" composer – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images (December 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"

    I have created the page and the relevant information, along with tags and references and cites

    Just wondering if there is anything you can do or I need to know to make this page better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSmusic (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can understand why you are frustrated. In terms of IMDB and its reliability, see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. In short while there are a few areas of IMDB which are completely reliable, there is also a lot where individual users of IMDB can contribute to it without adequate reliablity checks. The IMDB link about him *is* suitable as an external link, though.Naraht (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey GSmusic. While IMDB may be reliable in the sense of, it's right more often than it's wrong, it's also user created, meaning it could be right today, and wrong tomorrow, with little oversight or professional fact checking like a newspaper or a magazine might have. Because of this, it's not considered reliable in the Wikipedia sense, which is a very specific one (see the full guidelines at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). If you see it used in other articles, you are perfectly within your rights to remove it, and point out to the author, as someone has to you, that they need to find a better source.
    In almost all cases, notability is established on Wikipedia by demonstrating (through references) that a subject has received sustained coverage in secondary sources that are independent of the topic. This is made somewhat more difficult for your subject, since the name appears to be fairly common, and is shared by the basketball coach of the Amarillo Bulls. But in your case, what you are probably looking for is industry or entertainment publications, things like reviews of his work or interviews that cover what he's done and who he is. You should be looking to show that he is not merely a person who does composing as a working man (for there are surly many thousands) but someone who is exceptional in their field and has thus attracted attention, and consequently coverage of his person for doing so.
    Writing a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, so don't get discouraged. It may require a good bit of digging to beef up your article, but on the bright side, once done, will persist for a very long time, and hopefully receive attention and added work by others who are helping to build the encyclopedia. Hopefully this helps. TimothyJosephWood 14:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GSmusic: First: Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your full disclosure: "I have created a Wiki page for someone I know". As you know, this may be seen as a COI, so you may wish to tag yourself on the talk page. You are one of the few who actually admits it, so good for you! Second, see if your subject meets one (or more) of these requirements for notability here: WP Notability Music. If so, add it to the article. This will assuage any doubt for his inclusion. Also, as a rule of thumb (that the other editors have already mentioned), it's best to simply place IMDB in External Links. Try and stay away from personal websites, biographies, press releases, film credit listings, et al to establish notability; and focus on finding interviews, reviews, awards/nominations and articles that spotlight WP:NM for the subject. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    List of compositions by César Franck

    Hi all, Happy New Year.
    Some time ago I drafted a table, User:MinorProphet/César Franck - List of works to combine the contents of two previous articles dealing with the same subject from a different perspective:

    I proposed a merge on the relevant talk pages and at César Franck, and since there has been no feedback I have moved the text in my draft to List of compositions by César Franck, which was previously a disambig for the two articles. I haven't changed anything else. However, I'm not entirely sure how to deal with the old articles:

    1. Should I blank them (with justifications, of course) and turn them into redirects?
    2. Furthermore, the talk page of List of compositions by César Franck now appears to redirect to List of compositions by César Franck by genre: I think it was moved to reflect the page content some time ago. If you open the talk page and then click 'Article', it takes you back to the old page, List of compositions by César Franck by genre.
    3. Do the talk pages need combining - or perhaps blanking - so I can post a message to show what has happened?
    4. I imagine that it wouldn't be possible/practical to combine the two previous articles' histories.

    Although I'm quite happy with editing pages, my brain can't quite cope with the logic needed to untangle these redirects. Any ideas, please? MinorProphet (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • MinorProphet hi. Redirect all other lists and their talk pages to your list and your new list's talk page respectively. Remove the current redirect at your new list's talk page and place a template that may be appropriate for rating the class of the list et al. If someone throws a fit at what all you've done, well, that's when the fun starts. But don't worry. Do this and see how it goes. Lourdes 17:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Lourdes, for your swift and helpful reply. I shall Boldly™ go where no man etc... MinorProphet (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

    I am trying to add information to Patricia Elliott's page in Early Life. From personal knowledge, because I was in her class, Patricia Elliott went to the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art (LAMDA) for a year, 1963-64.

    I can't figure out all the gobbledegook about "referencing."

    Dana Ivey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariv (talk • contribs) 18:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, the last edit by an IP, presumably yourself whilst not logged in, left multiple 'stray' ref tags on the page (now removed) but added no content. To add the information, add your text, followed by a reference thus 'Elliott text etc.<ref>ref content</ref>. The reference must be to a reliable source...please see WP:RS and personal knowledge is not of any use as it is WP:OR. Please see WP:REFB for a guide to adding references. Eagleash (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dariv hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. Adding to what Eagleash has mentioned, you should read up on our verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline to know why any material that you add to articles on Wikipedia needs to be supported by reliable citations. Referencing for beginners is a good place to start, to understand how to use citation templates. In simple terms, add <ref>http://<<<the actual link>>></ref> after any statement that you add. Please also read why your personal experiences and knowledge are not what may be accepted. Come back if you need more help. Thanks. Lourdes 19:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Vaillancourt

    Steve Vaillancourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    By coincidence, I pulled up an article about me. While I could quibble with certain points, there is one out and our error. I ran in both 2002 and 2004 and won both times, putting my service as from 1996-2014 and again starting with the past elecetion.

    Rep. Steve Vaillancourt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.241.29 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The easiest way is if you can point us to some reliable sources. We don't go on hearsay which as you are no doubt aware, is non admissible. Yet, if you know something is amiss, then you are one of us (an unpaid contributor) and will have to do what we do and find reliable references to correct it. Please read this: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Aspro (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dueling notabilities

    What to do (if anything) about somebody who doesn't have an article but is arguably more notable than somebody having the same name and an article? Dab? Hatnote? ...or... Nothing? Frankly, its a sad state of affairs that this Martin Voráček has an article, but this one doesn't. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:88A3:6217:E1F4:239C (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    P.s.: here's a mainstream secondary source: [9]

    A dab or hatnote is only made if an article exists. Otherwise there is nothing to direct readers to so no reason to do anything. If you want to submit an article about the psychologist then you can use Wikipedia:Articles for creation and call the page "Martin Voracek (psychologist)". Just ignore the existing article about the footballer. If your submission is accepted then the reviewer will deal with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I redlinked PrimeHunter's suggested page for convenience. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:88A3:6217:E1F4:239C (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, this Martin Voráček may need a serious looking at to see if it even merits inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He appears to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Association Football criterion No. 2: "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable", as he plays for a team in the topmost Czech league. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.95} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do what you would do even if the athlete did not exist. Find sufficient reliable sources for the scientist establishing his notability--if they exist--and create an article. It may be unfortunate that a mere athlete has an article and a scholarly researcher does not, but, as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia doesn't care. We can only follow the policies that regulate article creation. DonFB (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    January 3

    Afghan names

    Dears; I posted a topic on Afghan names pronunciation and proper spelling but cannot find, even the draft one. I know it was waiting for the review but may I know the where about of my post please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beissed (talk • contribs) 01:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear, many things could have gone wrong. One is that you did not click on 'save' or you you saved to a non English version of Wikipedia. You do not have any edit history on English Wikiedia. Lets keep things simple before mentioning sandboxes. Which articles were you attempting to up date. We may then be able to follow the paper trail.--Aspro (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beissed: User:Beissed/sandbox was deleted. We are an encyclopedia. Your page was not something an encyclopedia would consider to include. The former contents of deleted pages can only be seen by administrators. Do you want a copy for use outside Wikipedia? @Aspro: You cannot see deleted edits but the bottom of user contributions has edit counters which include deleted edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Help

    1. Is there any guidance at when to use first person (Obama) and third person (he) particularly in biography article?
    2. What kind of reference is it? ---> Obama (1995, 2004), p. 12.

    Hddty. (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "Obama" is not "first person." Not sure what you mean by "What kind of reference is it?" In general, good practice is just to use either his name or the third person pronoun to ensure good language flow. If the text you're writing refers to a time when Obama is president, it would be good practice to say "President Obama," not just "Obama." But if the text refers to his pre-presidency life, then omit "president." Read the passage, and then read it again to make sure the wording is not overly repetitive either way or confusing, especially if another "he" appears somewhere nearby in the sentence or paragraph. DonFB (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Obama (1995, 2004), p. 12 is a (poorly-formed, in my opinion) short-form citation. If you look at Barack Obama §References, there is a matching long-form citation:
    Obama, Barack (2004) [1st. Pub. 1995]. Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-1-4000-8277-3.
    The short-form, refers to the long-form.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing a page

    Tracey Browning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hi there

    I have tried editing my page as the birthplace is incorrect. It says Mackay but it should say Melbourne. How do I contact the editor of my page? Its Tracey Browning basketball

    Many thanks Tracey Browning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.141.76 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see there has already begun a reverting of edits on this page. One simply cannot change information on a WP page without providing a reliable source to support the claim. Otherwise, it will keep being reverted. Please provide a WP:RS to back up your claim of birth. Best. Maineartists (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you are the subject, Wikipedia strongly discourages editing a page about yourself. I would recommend leaving a message on the article's Talk page. Click the "talk" tab at the top of the article page and ask an editor to help. It will almost certainly be necessary that an editor will be able to find the information you want to modify in a published reliable source. It won't be sufficient for an editor to make the change based solely on your message. By the way, multiple people have been contributing to the article (click "History" at the top to see); there is not a single editor. DonFB (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tracey, the problem is that there is a published reference which gives the Mackay location (Reference number 1 in the article), and no references that say differently. I realize this must sound bizarre to you, as you obviously know better, but an encyclopedia goes by written sources rather than by word of mouth. That is why the editors above have emphasized the need for finding a reliable source. In the meantime, I have marked the birth-place as disputed in the article, with a link to the article's Talk page for discussion about the issue. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Wikipedia just summarises what sources say, so your argument is really with FIBA if they have published incorrect information. The page is about you, but not "yours", so the best way to correct the error is to find an accurate source, as recommended above. Unfortunately, Google here in the UK doesn't seem to bring up any reliable sources to counter FIBA's inaccuracy. Scobo also have the wrong place of birth. I have found some limited evidence that suggests that these sources are wrong, but not enough to make the correction. Perhaps you will have more success searching from Australia. Facebook and LinkedIn do not count as reliable since they are user-created. There must be some articles in Australian newspapers that we could reference. Dbfirs 10:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the article is a BLP and the reliability of the source has been called into question, the information should simply be removed. It's better to be silent than wrong, particularly in BLPs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor had offered to send me proof, but I pointed her to OTRS (again) and gave her the specific email to use. I agree with removing the birthplace completely in the meantime. Meters (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Referencing music charts

    Dear editors: I was called to an RFC at Talk:Revealed Recordings, and as a result I have been editing the articles of some of the musicians signed to Revealed Recordings. Many of them have multiple references to various music charts, all in the same format, as for example THIS ONE. A lot of these references have been added by the same now blocked editor. In the example, the musician has one single which placed on one of the charts, but there are references to all of the charts on which he did not place. Also, the name "Steffen Hung", who I am guessing is the owner of the chart company, is listed twice in each reference, even though the charts are computer generated from a database. He's not mentioned in the Ultratop article, bu Ultratop chart pages mention "Hung Medien" as copyright holder.

    Of course I've seen plenty of references to music charts before (they are often used to show notability of musicians or albums), but this is the first time I've seen it so extensive. Am I correct in identifying this as an example of WP:CITESPAM? In this case the effect of the extra citations, which cite lack of chart performance, is to drive traffic to the charting website. Is there a guideline somewhere for correct use of music charts in references?—Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Access

    Is there a way for editors to access books or journals cited in articles without actually finding the physical book or buying access to the journal?

    It seems nearly impossible to actually verify many obscure references, as they are often magazines or books unlikely to be kept by typical libraries. You could easily fake an obscure reference if you know of a book with a title that seemingly pertains to the subject matter, but you know that the book had a printing run of less than 10,000 copies.

    Benjamin (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Try WP:WRE - X201 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hey Benjamin. I would check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and see if they can be of help.
    And yes, it would be possible to fake information by using an obscure source, or for that matter, simply making up a source with a convincing sounding name. Unfortunately, most of what has been written throughout history was done prior to the internet, and only a fraction of that has been digitized and made available for public access. Restricting the encyclopedia to only online sources may likely remove half or more of our content. The only thing you can do is assume good faith and verify when you can, expecially if a claim seems outlandish, of apparently contradicted by other sources you do have access to. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For paywalled articles (common in articles related to scientific research), the resource exchange project folks have access to a lot of stuff, but for out-of-print editions of pre-1900 books, you are mostly out of luck.
    The one time I used a really hard-to-get source, I put an exact quote supporting the inline cite, and I would encourage others to do similarly (the harder to find is the source, the most precise a reference you should use). The basic idea is a tradeoff between the ease of access to the source and the ease of access to the specific material - lots of people can see online newspapers, so as long as it is somewhere in the linked article it is bound be checked by someone with an attention span long enough; but the one librarian that can access the original editions should not have to read 1500 pages of a phylogeny treaty. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Article name Vs real name Vs referred to in article as...

    What is the policy regarding people who are primarily known by their stage name, rather than a real name? Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be consistent - just these few examples from my watchlist present different approaches:

    The preference seems to be to refer to them by the same name that is the article title, yet that is contradicted by the Visser/Ninja - both are on equal standing with regard to notability and AKA, yet one has an article for her stage name, and the other for his real name.

    MOS:LEGALNAME seems to cover it at first glance, but only describes how a person should initially be introduced, not how they should be referred to throughout the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pitbull (rapper) is a disambiguation title based on WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for a type of dog. While I cannot really assess the other cases, the rule is to use the name under which they are most commonly known, which is usually the stage name, for the title - see WP:COMMONNAME. I am not aware of any such guideline for the use inside the articles (I feel one should use the title name, but the guidelines are apparently silent - the article the MOS uses as an example, Slim Pickens, mostly calls him Pickens). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Manual of Style has this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Subsequent use which says subsequent references generally by surname. RJFJR (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Electrostatic discharge

    The link to the Estonian translation is wrong.

    It redirects you to an Estonian Wikipedia page covering "Gas solutions" or Gaasilahendused in Estonian. I tried to correct it but couldn't find the right place to do so.

    Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.176.1.82 (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It was right at the foot of the article, where inter-wiki language links used to be placed before Wikidata. I removed it in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Clean slate

    Hello! Thank you for looking into this. I have been a user of Wikipedia since 2014, but recently I was accused of sockpuppetry. I admit to my mistakes of using multiple accounts. After being blocked indefinitely, now I realise that I want to make a fresh start. Is there any scope for this on Wikipedia? I am willing to be fully transparent in my approach in editing articles and fighting vandalism. I tried to look this up on Wikipedia's guidelines, but couldn't find an answer. Additionally, I understand that my account and contributions will be under constant monitoring, but that's okay, as I admit to my past mistakes and am ready to dive again. Can I get a clean slate? Thanks 1.186.38.86 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Standard offer. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) You are not permitted to edit as an IP to bypass your block. Your user talk page tells you how to appeal your block, and see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Wikipedia:Clean start, which specifies that a clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions (...) in place against the old account. Getting a "clean slate" is in addition to the unblock request. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    2017 in music

    Well can you move the talk 2017 in music to the 2017 in music article right now can you do it for me because 2017 has started. 2600:8803:7A00:19:8411:5797:7BA9:1305 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, a "prepared" article like this probably belongs at Draft:2017 in Music rather than on the planned talk page Talk:2017 in Music, but I moved it, no harm.Naraht (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And to avoid confusion if anyone is looking for it, it's a lower case "m", so it wasn't Talk:2017 in Music but Talk:2017 in music. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Picture sources not loaded on the internet

    Good day.

    I want to know if pictures which are not loaded on the internet can be used as references for articles, i.e. they are found on a local device such as a camera or mobile phone. Also, how can I reference such a picture because the only reference to awards given to an individual in an article I am writing is a picture on a camera. There are no publications online about the giving of the awards.

    Thank you very much for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallydate (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Vallydate. If you do indeed mean "reference" (i.e. a source to verify information in an article), then all reference sources must be published (and so at least in principle available to every reader, though they might have to order them through a major library for example). An unpublished source, whether text or a picture, may not be used as a reference.
    It's relatively unusual to be able to use a picture as a reference, because pitures don't usually make statements. It may be that a picture of two particular people together would count as a valid source for a claim that they met; but I'm not sure even of that - it smacks of original research. Similarly for an award. But certainly unless the picture had been published by a reputable publisher, it could not be taken as verification of anything - pictures are easily manipulated nowadays.
    If you wanted to use a picture to illustrate an article (not as a reference), then provided you hold the copyright, you are welcome to upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons (releasing it under a suitable free licence as you go), and then use it in an article. So if it is on your phone, then you may well be able to do that. It would be common to describe the event in the caption to the picture - but it should not appear in the main text unless it is supported by a published reference, and I'm not sure it should really appear even in a caption. --ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add a little to this answer: I don't believe it would be possible at all for an article to avoid deletion if it were created with a supporting reference of nothing more than photos (or only one). Policies on reliability and verifiability do not contain provisions for this method of content verification. Sources must be published and reliable, as in textual, but as you've said, they don't exist for this event, so I'm pretty sure an article, if you created it, would soon be deleted. DonFB (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vallydate: Clarifying: I believe the article you're writing is a biography of a living person, not a description of a single event, as I initially misunderstood. Articles about living persons have considerably stricter requirements than other types of articles on Wikipedia. For the article to remain, it will need published reliable sources that establish the person's notability. You should understand that references to sites like Facebook and LinkedIn are not accepted at Wikipedia as valid sources. DonFB (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Poor teacher needs help

    Hey all--I'm setting up a Wikipedia class, and could do with some help. I want to devote two class periods to research into and discussion about Wikipedia; I'm thinking of topics like representation among editors (gender gap, race, other demographics), coverage of topics (pre-Internet documentation, developing nations--and the rather voluminous representation of typical male, white topics), and accuracy. I'd love to get some links to some (online) articles that I can incorporate. Thanks! Dr Aaij (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • You might start at WP:BIAS. I suspect you and your students can go forward from there. If your research prospers, you can also edit that page to improve it. -Arch dude (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You should also look at WP:Education program first as well, Dr Aaij: while I don't think you are intending to get your students to edit Wikipedia (which is what that is mainly about) you should be aware of both the resources available and the guidelines about how to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    January 4

    Please help, our draft has been deleted, but the reason why i did not work on it recently is that i got cancer

    After more than half a year of treatment, it seems i have managed to battle most of it, but it has been hard, and i had no energy or mind to follow up the declined draft

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:COOLympics

    Now when i wanted to start looking at it again i found it has been deleted....Please, can you please help me get that back? I spent so much time on it before i got ill :(

    Thank you VERY much if you can help fix this, and make the draft editable again!!!

    Best regards

    Liv Storli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolliv (talk • contribs) 00:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Coolliv:: Please follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. Also, in future, please sign your messages with four tildes (~) to make it easier to reply! Thanks for editing Wikipedia. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Exclude all subpages from search

    Is it possible to exclude all subpages from a Wikipedia search? Help:Searching gives only a way to restrict your search to subpages. I want to search the WP namespace without sifting through a thousand results for WP:Articles for deletion/Foo and the like. Is this possible? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know a way to eliminate subpages of all pages but -intitle:"Articles for deletion" or -prefix:"Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" should come close to your specific goal. It still includes "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion" and others you may not want. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    X for deletion, featured picture candidates, sockpuppet investigations, WikiProject Spam, tips of the day… I don’t think they could all be excluded that way. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This came up at WP:VPT recently, and there was no easy answer: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 152#Complex searching. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Permanent link?

    Is there a simple way of creating a kind of permanent link for a section that will be filed?--Hubon (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For a section? No, those can be changed without notice. But you can get permalinks for any given revision from the edit history, and you can link to sections of those. But can you be more explicit in what you’re asking for? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Inaccuracies

    How can I stop another user repeatedly altering an entry with the wrong information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feelgoodbingo (talk • contribs) 08:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this seems to be about a content dispute over The Chase (UK game show), there should be a discussion at Talk:The Chase (UK game show), per WP:BRD. †dismas†|(talk) 08:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The other user has left you a polite message on your talk page. In addition to the links provided there and by Dismas above, you might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 08:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "New" editors with suspiciously advanced knowledge of Wikipedia

    I have several times come across "new" editors who suspiciously hit the ground running displaying advanced knowldege of Wikipedia procedures etc. Yet the SPI process is based on the prerequisite that you have worked out which previous identity that editor is likely to have had. But what happens if you just dont know who the previous identity is likely to be. Surely any new editor who hits the ground running is intrinsically suspicious.--Penbat (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious != Harmful. Some people do in fact lurk, or have rebooted their online presence for legitimate reasons. We don't pry into it unless they're actually doing something that hurts the project or articles. --erachima talk 10:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=758251864"