Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Help Desk)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Help Desk
  • This page is only for questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia. For other types of questions, use the search box or the Reference desk.
  • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
  • We are all volunteers, so sometimes replies can take some time. Please be patient. Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.

  • New users: While this is a good place to ask questions, new users may prefer to ask for help at the Teahouse, an area specifically for new users to get help with editing, article creation, and general Wikipedia use, in a friendly environment.
Are you in the right place?
Shortcuts:
Search Frequently Asked Questions
Search the help desk archives and other help pages

Contents

April 15[edit]

Mickey Melchiondo/Dean Ween page[edit]

Hi, I am Mickey Melchiondo/Dean Ween. My wikipedia page is filled with errors and misinformation-- I would like to help to clarify and correct it. It says not to leave my email address but I am going to anyway as I have no idea how you will contact me otherwise. it is [redacted]

sincerely, Mickey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.13.66.237 (talkcontribs)

Hello, here are the ways that you can actually get help with issues about yourself in articles Wikipedia:Autobiography#Problems_in_an_article_about_you -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Dan Schneider (entrepreneur)[edit]

Good afternoon,

There is a Wikipedia Page for Dan Schneider (Enterprenuer) that may be false. I do not believe this story. He may have a college degree. I do not believe he made 35 million dollars in sales. He does lie alot. He lied to me about going to a Wedding because in high school, I had a part-time job at a country club. I believe that he is using my story or a false story, but I would like someone to ask him to prove his story. I don't believe it.

Karen Galie

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.5.165 (talkcontribs) @173.59.5.165: GermanJoe (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP before making additional changes to that article. If you can provide reliable published sources WP:RS for your allegations, it would be best to discuss your concerns at the article's talkpage. You should phrase your suggestions as neutral as possible, even if you disagree with some of the article's current content. GermanJoe (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Cebuano?[edit]

Hi there,

I've been having this weird issue the past few weeks. Whenever I come on to wikipedia, and I type something into the search box, my results come up in Cebuano instead of English. I've been looking through the help desk, but I can't find any reason this would happen or how I can fix it. I hadn't even heard of this language before now, I only know what it is because I pasted some text into Google translate.

I can normally bypass the issue by going back to the first page and clicking on English specifically, but it's really slowing down some of my quick searches for episodes names and it's really starting to get on my nerves now.

What's going on? Why does wikipedia think I speak Cebuano? How do I fix it?

Yours Truly,

PT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.143.243 (talkcontribs)

This likely has little to do with Wikipedia and probably everything to do with the cookie that your browser has stored on your computer. A cookie that thinks that your language of choice is Cebuano. If you clear your browser's cookies, then that should fix the issue. Dismas|(talk) 01:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you searching from the search box at http://www.wikipedia.org? If the box to the right of the search box says "Sinugboanong Binisaya" (meaning Cebuano in that language) then change it to say English. Or you can search from anywhere at https://en.wikipedia.org to automatically get the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Las Navas/[1]Education[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard Ocino Lluz (talkcontribs)

References
  1. ^ Leonard Ocino Lluz
Hello @Leonard Ocino Lluz: . You didnt really leave any explanation for what kind of help you wanted. please provide some specifics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Leonard Ocino Lluz: I fixed the reference error at Las Navas, Northern Samar. Is there anything else?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

How do you handle a case like this?[edit]

I've been working on trying to resolve a long-standing issue at Americans involving editor RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs). After weeks of discussions and suggestions I finally told him that I was going to take it to the wider community to resolve. His response was to put out this crude dog whistle and then this red cape was waved in my face at another article I've put very much effort into improving. (That second user – SleepCovo (talk · contribs) – looks like someone's sacrificial sock, based on his/her history.)

So what do you do? If I ignore them and move on, a couple of articles that I've put a lot of effort into will be in terrible shape and there will be a couple of editors out there who will likely continue to try to drive away many more fine editors off of Wikipedia. I've looked into the various dispute resolution processes, but just trying to figure out how to navigate that process would take a huge chunk of what little editing time I can afford to spend on WP. And RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs) appears to be well informed on how to play the system, so it would likely be a long, unpleasant experience. So, what can be done? Sparkie82 (tc) 04:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: Big disclaimer: I don't know a good answer to your question and I'm neither very familiar with the subject area you are working in nor with Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. However since no one else has tried, and I've thought about this problem myself, I'll weigh in and maybe others can add to what I say.
First, there's a lot to be said for having a nice cup of tea and a sit down. If you are seeing a "dog whistle" and a "red cape", it may be that you are thinking too much like an angry dog or a raging bull. I don't know much about the topic area and am not familiar with the dispute going on, but I don't see obvious provocation there. Others, looking at this for the first time, probably won't either.
Getting into the dispute resolution process can be messy, time consuming and unpleasant. It's also true though that if people don't stand up to bullies they will ruin the playground for everyone. (Again repeating that I don't know what's going on in this case and I'm not saying that @RightCowLeftCoast: is a bully.) If you do think it is worth your time and effort, then dive in, do your best and ask for help from others. Usually (but not always) the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia turns out well and people are reasonable.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Being accused of having a WP:SOCKPUPPET shows bad faith. I do not know whom SleepCovo is and was am commenting here as I was pinged. Accusing me of being a bully is also showing bad faith. I reminded Sparkie82 of making such claims and WP:BOOMERANG.
This is a content dispute that appears to have turned into a fishing expedition against myself, and I have kindly asked Sparkie82 to walk away and leave me alone. Instead Wikipedia notification informs me of this accusation. And it makes me feel harassed and does not make my editing pleasent knowing that I am accused of some thing I haven't done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, bringing up an unrelated edit from an active arbitration case could be seen as WP:WIKISTALKING. Please, I kindly implore Sparkie82 to please stop. Please, again, as I asked kindly before to leave me alone.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I kindly as un-involved administrators MelanieN and Wtmitchell for advice. If I stand accused, I trust both editors to do the right thing. If I am banned for something that I have not done by them, so be it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is the Help desk, which is for questions about how to use and edit Wikipedia. For dispute resolution, see WP:DR. For reporting user misconduct, see WP:ANI. For endless bickering, see user talk pages. ―Mandruss  18:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike and @Mandruss - Thank you for your advice and suggestions. Sparkie82 (tc) 17:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Scythian Languages[edit]

I made chaneges in Scythian languages supported by sources and refenrences, but in the next day all changes dissappered, What should I do so that the proposed changes are accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:86F1:71BA:4420:EAD7:383:3678 (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You can discuss the article and changes to it on the talk page for that article at Talk:Scythian languages. It is also important to explain your edits as you make them in an edit summary. That way people can see why you made the changes you did.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  06:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


Upload Error[edit]

I wanted to upload an picture, but it says, This is only available for (auto)confirmed and moderators, what can i do? (excuse my bad english) --Lukasz - Discussion 09:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You can ask someone else to upload it for you at this page. Yunshui  09:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Uploading of an image[edit]

Could you kindly advise how I can upload an image of myself on my wikipedia page ? Many thanks Xavier Rolet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrolet (talkcontribs)

@Xrolet: To upload an image, you can use the wizard at WP:UPLOAD. Since you have edited an article that seems to be about you, please take a few things into consideration. You have a conflict of interest. We are writing an encyclopedia which should remain balanced and neutral. People tend to be rather biased when it comes to writing about themselves. You can see our conflict of interest guideline at WP:COI. Also, it is not your Wikipedia page. It is an article about you. Please see WP:OWN about the dangers of thinking that you own an article about yourself. By pointing these things out, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just trying to urge caution as you work with the Rolet article. If there are problems about the article that you would like fixed, please follow the advice at WP:AUTOPROB. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 10:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with everything Dismas has said, Xrolet, I would point out that providing a good picture of yourself (as long as you own the copyright, and are willing to license it as required) is one way that you are welcome to improve the article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I should have pointed that out. Dismas|(talk) 11:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Help for a dance article, and confusion at the Dance project talk page[edit]

Dear editors: I was contacted by a new editor who is working on a draft article about a ballet company, Draft:Editta_Braun_Company, which needs some serious work to make it encyclopedic. Knowing very little about ballet, I added some sources and then suggested that she ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ballet. I noticed, though, that the talk page there was rather inactive, so I decided to cross-post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance in hopes of attracting a willing editor who would know what information should be in a ballet article (it all seems pretty subjective to me). I noticed, though, that the talk page there seems to be all mixed up, and I hesitate to post on it until someone who is familiar with the project puts things back the way it was intended to be. So, (a) can anyone help with the article, which needs a COI and essay-ness scrubbing? and (b) can someone look into the problem with the talk page? Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

at the project talk page, someone had transcluded another page using { } rather than just linking by using [ ]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah! I hadn't considered that. Thanks!—Anne Delong (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

LNP Media Group[edit]

I am attempting to place a new image of LNP - Always Lancaster on the page. That became the new name and design of the newspaper on Oct. 16, 2014. The current image, however, notes that it cannot be replaced. Can you direct me to replace the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.30.210.105 (talkcontribs)

Where does it state that "it cannot be replaced"? And what image do you plan to use instead? Maproom (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

How to add a map in any article?[edit]

exp.- I want to add a map of a town of any article then what is the steps to be followed by me? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmje1111 (talkcontribs) 15:54, 15 April 2015

@Rmje1111:Does the map already exist at Wikipedia, or will you need one created? --Jayron32 16:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Most (if not all) Wikipedia articles about towns already have a link to a map at top, in the form of latitude and longitude coordinates. (It's not very obvious that these are map links!).--Shantavira|feed me 07:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Is he a primary source?[edit]

I fail to convince another editor that "The former UN observer, is a primary source for the first half of the sentence: "Israel provoked most border incidents", but he is not a source of any kind for the later part of the sentence: "as part of its strategy to annex more land". The rule of Primary source says: : "Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary". This person had no personal knowledge concerning the Israeli policy, hence he is not a primary source. Which interpretation of "primary source" is correct? mine or the other editor's interpretation? thanks Ykantor (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not Jan Mühren's views are a primary source or not, this article by Daan de Wit would be a secondary source, and so the issue is a moot point. The real issue would seem to be whether his view is being presented as his view alone, if it is contradicted or not supported by other sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This is what I think too as Jan Mühren is quoted from what he said in a Dutch TV program and the quote can also be seen at that article. Only one part was attributed to him, not the second one, which I changed after Ykantor's edit. The section deals with border incidents were there are different accounts given. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
-@Ian.thomson:- The article by Daan de Wit is not a wp:rs. It is not verifiable, and the author is not an expert in the issue involved. Is there a peer review or any respected review? is there a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires? ( see WP:QUESTIONABLE). I participated in a lot of articles, and I have never seen such a low quality source used as a wp:rs.
- So, is the former U.N observer a primary source for the alleged Israeli policy? Ykantor (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I was going to argue about it being a journalistic source, but looking into it, that site includes 9/11 conspiracy theories. If it was a journalistic source, it would be fine to cite simply to report that that's what Mühren claimed. The Novatv article appears reliable, except that it doesn't support the quote. For that reason, the Mühren materal could be removed.
A primary source on Israeli policy would be something like government documents. Commentary about policy would be a secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You are right about about DeepJournal. However, it was changed only some days ago to that from an article after the former link was dead (I guess because it is one of the sites that shows up while searching for that quote), of which an archived version of it can be found for example here. Deutsche Presse-Agentur is mentioned in that one. I don't think you can base it on the Nova TV article as it is just have a short description of the program. The program there does not seem to work now. The video with English translations can be found here (by two different uploaders):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YorwoqFGCn4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgZQpHsfWNw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLVoSdg_AE8, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hrjTvWZkgY
So what Jan says there can be seen and also heard for those who speak Dutch. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- For the time being, the first part of the quote can stay in the article with a tag of citation needed. However, as for the second half of the sentence, it seems that the ex observer is not a source at all. Hypothetically, by the same token, he could have said that the reason was an alleged Israeli desire to expel the Syrian people to the moon. Does it make sense to rely on evidence of someone who could not know what the Israeli government wanted? Ykantor (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a significant topic about border incidents and who was to blame (it even has an own section). We can't only include one part of Jan's statements and exclude the other because as they are connected. Only mentioning who he thinks is to blame and and not why he thinks Israel did so is not representing the statement accurately. There are many who think Israel has a goal of expansion (it is hard to argue in this case when Israel says Golan Heights now belong to them) so comparing it to some very odd theory about expelling people to the moon makes no sense.
You also keep mentioning that he has no knowledge about what the Israeli government wanted but if we are going to have such an critera, few scholars, observers and others would be included as far from all of them knows what a certain government etc. wants but they make their own interpretation. That is nothing that goes against Wikipedia policy. It is editors who are forbidden to make an own interpretation but this is not the case here.
We have a video and an archived text version, though it is a news blog, so I am not sure a tag is needed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules should be obeyed by everyone. The rule says that a wp:rs views are allowed, but not the views of an uninvolved private individual. It is a pity that these rules are ignored. Ykantor (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You have misinterpreted WP:RS (and anyway RS is not policy for that you need to read WP:V). If your reading was true then no expert (eg historian's opinions and interpretation of an historical event) could ever be included in an article. In this case Jan Mühren is being quoted not as a random person on the proverbial omnibus but as a disinterested expert on border incidents in that part of the world. -- PBS (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: : Thank you for your advice. I will appreciate it if you elaborate. It is agreed that an Mühren is being quoted as a disinterested expert on border incidents (he said "Israel provoked most border incidents""). The problem is that he is quoted for the Israeli policy too, while for that purpose he is an uninvolved private individual (he said "as part of its strategy to annex more land""). The rule of Primary source says: "Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary". This person had no personal knowledge concerning the Israeli policy, hence he is not a primary source for the Israeli policy. Am I right? Ykantor (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding new symbols between text on a new page[edit]

Hi

I would like to incorporate new symbols between text while creating my page. These symbols are not available in the symbols option. It can also be used as images as long as they are between the words of the text (rather than on the sides)and are as same size as of the words. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijimathew (talkcontribs) 20:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks Liji

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. While in edit mode, on the editor toolbar there is a link that says "Special characters". It has characters from an array of scripts/writing systems. Does this help at all? What type of symbols are you attempting to add? Could you provide an example? Scarce2 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Noel Synnott[edit]

Birth information is incorrect - Noel Synnott birthplace Dublin 14 December 1951 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.113.187 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source so we can check it out before we fix it? --Jayron32 20:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

request edit to westerly RI history[edit]

nowhere is the history of the "Hall & Knight purchase", as it was how the town was bought from the indians on january 19 1668. The article states the town was founded by Babcock, he was simply a indian translator helping make the deal between Hall, Knight, and the indian tribe. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.103.172 (talkcontribs) 23:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The best place for this request would be on the talk page of whichever article it's about. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Climate data[edit]

I am editing Utica, New York. I want to make a nice sized historical climate data table for the city, but I can't find all of the adequate information from NOAA, or at least I think I can't. Does anyone know where else I can find WP:RS data on climate for Utica, New York? Buffaboy talk 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

How good is data from this government site? Buffaboy talk 23:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Marking a page as "unread" in watchlist[edit]

Is there a way to mark a page as "unread" in watchlist? I sometimes want to come back to a particular page later even though I have seen the changes. Is it possible to "undo" my visit? Kingsindian  23:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not possible as far as I know. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
A pity, seems very basic. Kind of like marking an email "unread". Thanks, anyway. Kingsindian  14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Visual Editor Adding New References[edit]

Hello WikiFriends, I feel silly. I've read the wiki edits page about 4 times now (I can't watch the video because my Java is being insane) and I've managed to figure out how to add in the footnotes but they aren't linking to the references. I am editing a page on a band for a class assignment so there are existing references and footnotes throughout the article, but when I try to add in my new reference the footnote reads 1 and the reference I added should be 8. If someone could walk me through a step by step of how to properly reference my websites and properly add in the footnotes that match those references I would greatly appreciate this so I do not fail my english project. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKovacsCat (talkcontribs)

Hey KovacsCat. First, I would simply not use VisualEditor. It'll be nice when it actually works correctly but it's full of bugs. Since having looked at your contributions I don't see what page you have edited where this is occurring, I suspect you are previewing and have not posted yet. Anyway, here's how to reference, at it's most basic.
  1. At the point in the text where you want a footnote to appear, place opening and closing ref tags, and describing in between them the source: <ref>Source detail</ref>
  2. Make sure the article has a references section at the end (== references ==), which has placed in it the template {{reflist}} (you can also use <references />)
Wherever you placed the ref tags with content in between, that will display as a footnote in the text (entirely automatically numbered; you will never need to enter or worry about the numbering), and what you typed in between those tags will show up in the references section, where you placed the {{reflist}} template. You should try to describe your source with some detail in the citation. For example a book, would normally have name of author, title, page number, isbn, year of publication and name of publisher. There are various citation templates that can be placed between the ref tags to help format the citation.

Here's a working example. If I wanted to add a footnote at the end of this sentence to an article from the The Onion I'd type this:<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Onion|title=Cat General Declares War on String Unwinnable|page=6|date=January 10, 2007}}</ref>

When I saved it would look like this[1]

References
  1. ^ "Cat General Declares War on String Unwinnable". The Onion. January 10, 2007. p. 6. 
I have placed just below a visual inline citation guide, which includes more detail on some of the things I've said above. Just click show. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

NEW ARTICLE: PHILLIP RODGERS (GOLFER)[edit]

I just created this article. I misspelled this golfer's first name--it should be PHILIP (only one "L"). Would someone please correct the spelling for me?

Thanks,

--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I could do it for you, but you can do it yourself. In the upper right there's the "Search" window and just to the left of that it says "More". If you click on that, one of the options below is "Move". Click on that and follow the instructions. There's more detail for controversial moves at Wikipedia:Moving a page, but no need to worry about that for this. If that doesn't work, or if you have any other questions, let us know.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Editor Tewapack helped me, but I appreciate your help also! --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Checkusers[edit]

Hello, I have a question regarding the editors who are checkusers. Why does it not work when the accounts are stale like at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nickaang

The checkuser utility has deliberate throttles set into to prevent abuse. For that reason, checkusers are not able to check or verify accounts which have not been used for too long. There's no technical reason why these throttles exist, but there are rules against the use on very old accounts. --Jayron32 12:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Jayron32: so they can't check if users over a certain age are the same? Is that not a little pointless? Or is it in case they happened to have the same IP as someone else a while ago?
You'd have to ask a checkuser directly, but my understanding is that they could technically (as in the data exists) but they aren't allowed to because policy has said they can't, so the software that lets them do the checkuser is deliberately throttled to not report IP addresses used by accounts over a certain age. --Jayron32 20:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Updating copyright info in order to replace photos previously deleted for "Carlisle Military School"[edit]

Under the "Carlisle Military School" many photos were deleted because I did not fully comprehend correct coding. Subsequent to being notified that these photos had questionable copyright notations I had gone to the only known source of any "original" owner of said photos - Colonel Lanning Risher (whose family owned Carlisle when it was in existence). He gave me full permission to use any photos of Carlisle that was used in a book published by and for Carlisle Alumni (of which I am one): Zemp, Lachicotte; Camden-Carlisle Alumni Association Centennial Committee (1998). Carlisle & Camden : A Centennial History of Carlisle Military School and Camden Military Academy. Camden, S.C.: Midlands Printing Co. p. 151. This book used the very same photos that are part of Carlisles archives.

Even before I obtained this specific permission, I had requested those "editors" who had nominated these photos for deletion to please help in providing guidance in what s[pecifically is needed to keep these photos. No assistance was provided.

So now I ask again what category of "copyright licensing" is needed for photos several decades old - that are owned by the institution the wikipedia page is all about - when the only living person who represents this defunct institution had given permission to use said photos.

There has to be some assistance for novices. So far it appears that "experienced" editors are quick to see fault, nominate for deletion, and not even answering a request made by a user for assistance. SandHills (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials explains what kinds of permission is needed, and how to properly document that permission so we can use previously published material at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 15:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines for identifying advertising[edit]

Apparently it has been more than a year since I logged into Wikipedia because it was not until today that I received a message about an article I had written (my only article) being proposed for deletion. So I'm way past the deadline for reacting to that. But I would like to understand more specifics about the guidelines under which the page for Scrolling Game Development Kit was deleted. The comment states that it was being proposed for deletion because it was "just being used as free advertising."

I see that similar pages for GameMaker and GameMaker: Studio have not been taken down on similar grounds, and am wondering if they should be, or if some aspect of those pages needs to be included in this page to make it similarly notable or reputable for inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, do I just need to provide links to external sources referencing the software? Would these suffice?

I could probably find more if I kept looking, but that's a start.

Is there any record of what the page used to look like or would it need to be rewritten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMonkMN (talkcontribs)

The article was deleted with the rationale "Absolutely no reliable sources to give any indication of why this should have a WIkipedia article. Article is just being used as free advertising"‎ [1] which suggests that a complete rewrite would be necessary. Though frankly, the links you provide do nothing to establish the notability of the software - we need evidence of significant coverage in third-party published reliable sources. Games using the software aren't third-party, and a passing mention on what amounts to a personal website is of no significance at all. If those are the best sources you have, you are wasting your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Then my question is, should GameMaker be subject to similar scrutiny? Scrolling Game Development Kit has counterparts to every link listed on the GameMaker page:
BlueMonkMN (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We have a policy called Other Stuff Exists which directly answers your question as to why the other articles have not been under the same scrutiny. However upon looking at the GameMaker article I can see no evidence to provide notability and thus have proposed it's deleted unless some proper sources are found. The GameMaker: Studio article however is referenced adequately. CaptRik (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is generally not a rational for justifying the existence of your article. I've added a notability tag to GameMaker, but GameMaker: Studio seems sufficiently referenced. Gamemaker is a decade old, and would probably get promptly PROD'd if it had been created today - policies were a bit looser back then. But since it has been around so long, I'll start with just the tag. Rwessel (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
And I see CaptRik has gone ahead and PROD'd it. Rwessel (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, with all the server hiccups that just seemed to be happening, I didn't see your tag get added - sorry. Still, 7 days seems enough to make a decision on the article. CaptRik (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@BlueMonkMN: In my personal opinion what happened to you and the article you wrote on Wikipedia is absolutely wrong. I am not a wp:admin and therefore cannot see the text of the deleted article. However all editors here are expected to assume good faith, but the implication of the wording used in of the deletion nomination are definitely assuming bad faith(Article is just being used as free advertising). The topic you are asking about is now hotly debated in the comments section of an Wikipedia Signpost OP ED. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright clarification[edit]

I uploaded a screenshot of a newscast displaying the flag of Utica, New York cut off by a podium. Originally the license for this image was non free symbol, and then later flag. An editor and I determined that non free news screenshot would be the most appropriate license instead of non-free symbol.

This image was used to create a flag, specifically using an SVG seal which was previously made from available information, and then using the colors within the news screenshot to create a flag based upon this screenshot.

Is there a copyright issue based upon our process? Can an SVG copy of this flag replace the low resolution PNG copy? Buffaboy talk 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has answered, I'm going to suggest WT:C. I'm not saying that is the right place, but maybe someone there can get you to the right place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I got a response earlier today, but thanks for reaching out anyways. Buffaboy talk 22:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference Citations for Sylvia Lewis bio page verification[edit]

Hello Wiki Help - T

The bio on this page:

Sylvia Lewis

...was created by the webmaster for the official Sylvia Lewis website at http://www.sylvialewis.net/ with Ms. Lewis' approval. All information on her Wiki page is documented on her website. Is it possible to use the website as the reference citation for the whole page and remove the warning box at the top asking for citations/verification? This box gives the impression the information on the page is not accurate, but in fact all information on on the page is indeed correct, coming from the biographical source herself.

Thank you for your help / guidance.

Appreciatively,

The folks at sylvialewis.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.100.172 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

No, you certainly can't use the subject's website as the reference citation for the whole page. You need to read about reliable sources, and to understand that Wikipedia is looking for published references independent of the article subject. Information from the subject is not acceptable, for reasons given at WP:Autobiography. If the page was created by the subject's webmaster, then they need to read about conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref[edit]

zindel segal I am unable to remove this error from my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.161.93 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

The clue is in the error message that says: "Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).". In case that isn't clear enough, the words "help page" are a wikilink, in this case to Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Back ground music[edit]

Hi, The actors on your program speak very soft and the background music drowns out their voices. The music is ok but I would like to be able to hear the story lines also. Thanks and I hope this is the proper place for this comment. Take care.... David

This is the help desk for Wikipedia - an online encyclopaedia. We are not a broadcaster of television programs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

passportland.com[edit]

I have a question, found a domain (passportland.com) which is used in 39 articles and it looks like the content is no longer available/maintained. what are the options for this? Howicus told me instead of removing the URL I should try to find the URLs in the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20120611170314/http://www.passportland.com/images/dassonleville-renee/dassonleville-renee.html but I have no time to do that right now. Just wanted to report it. Thanks!

Hello, Huggi. There is a template you can tag them with, {{linkrot}}. Everything about this topic is in the page WP:LINKROT. --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine, but I've been to: Wikipedia:Link_rot#Automated_tools where I found the note: "There have been bots..." this means there is no one doing the work for me, are there any other options, really don't wanna edit 39 articles manually? In addition to your reference, would be very nice to see some practical examples on the page of WP:LINKROT and {{linkrot}}, that might help to understand the concept better (just my 2 cents). AND THIS LOOKS REALLY UGLY NOW: see Belgian_passport --Never stop exploring (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC) sorry to: User:David_Biddulph, did not realize that I was deleting something.

The Face On The Barroom Floor[edit]

It is a great article. Mention is made of Tex Ritter's and Hank Snow's recording of this poem. At one time I had a recording on a 78 RPM record issued by MAJESTIC Records, Number 5004A narrated by Paul Douglas. Thank You

RfC building in a sandbox[edit]

Can I work on an RfC presentation in my sandbox, including the template, without it being treated as a real RfC? ―Mandruss  20:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There is {{Proposal draft notice}}, but even with that I don't think you can add the {{rfc}} template. When I did something like that, I mocked up a version of the template's output (see User talk:SchreiberBike/Workspace/Universe}} so it would look roughly right. Good luck.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, how about if I used only "Show preview" in my sandbox without saving? ―Mandruss  20:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, but I've done it a several times and it's never caused a problem.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Mandruss has the best idea, then once you have that section of text the way you want it you can set the template to {{tl|rfc|topic 1|topic 2}} until you start the RfC. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Outdated content[edit]

Hi, I have recently updated a page. At the top of the page there is a banner saying the content is out of date. How do I correct this?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.38.123 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

If you think the article is fully updated, edit it and remove the line that reads {{update|date=April 2015}} at the very top. Scarce2 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article??? How long??[edit]

I recently made an article but it was deleted and I wanna know why is it that when I type my namw DJ Beye in google search the same Article I posted that got deleted pops up? How long does it take for this article to go away? Dj beye — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJBeye (talkcontribs) 03:26, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

That's up to the search engines; we have no control over them. Your effort at self-advertisement of your stage name is now part of the Internet's historical record, and will probably cling to that name for years to come. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

School Page[edit]

Hi Volunteers, Thanks so much for donating your time. I'm a 3rd grade teacher and one of my students Wiki'd our school and noticed there was no article listed. I thought this would be a tremendous writing opportunity for my students. I'm looking for articles to use as models, but I can't find any articles about elementary schools. Is there a policy against such a thing? I don't want to have my students put forth the effort only to find out it's not allowed. Thanks again! Lynette M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.44.69 (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (schools) - while there is an assumption that secondary schools are notable by default, this doesn't hold for elementary schools, and we'd need to see evidence of significant coverage in third-party published reliable sources for an article on your school to be accepted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia "Sandbox"[edit]

If I create a Sandbox page, is it public? Is a sandbox-like place available that is not public? Thanks. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Anything you post on Wikipedia is publicly viewable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Wayne, but like Andy says, it's all publicly viewable. We have no interest in providing secret workspace, since Wikipedia is not a provider of web services, but rather a place for the spread of knowledge. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You can quickly setup a local server on your device with an AMP stack and then just install MediaWiki on it if your content requires Wikipedia-like formatting. It'll be offline though so it won't be accessible by devices not on your network (AWS is cheap and easy if you need that). Scarce2 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

asking a question in the humanities section of the reference desk[edit]

I have never had any difficulties asking a question, and receiving helpful advice - until now. When I click on humanities then Ready Ask a question, I am sent to a page headed Permission Error. This appears to apply to making edits. I do not want to edit an existing article. I want to ask a question. What am I doing wrong please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.12.62.210 (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

You aren't doing anything wrong. The reference desk is now protected, meaning that you can only make edits there (including asking questions) if you have a registered account with a history of making contributions to Wikipedia. This should be temporary, and was done to prevent disruptive editing. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Someone else asked this question a couple of days ago, and the situation's the same, so please let me copy/paste my response. Let me clarify a little. The edit protection is temporary, due to a guy abusing multiple editing accounts to commit lots of vandalism (example), and hopefully he'll get bored soon and allow us to end the protection. Unless we want to spend hours hitting "undo" every couple of minutes, we have to choose between protection and having no Reference Desk content at all. Nyttend (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There are many good reasons for creating a Wikipedia account and logging in. This is one of them. After just a few legitimate edits, your account will be confirmed and you'll be able to edit semi-protected pages. Registering takes just a couple of moments and is free of charge. It also greatly helps you follow content that you are interested in, and enormously aids communication. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It is also more anonymous than editing without an account because right now anyone can see [2] information about where you are editing from using the Whois and Geolocate tools at the bottom of that page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding web Links for non linked references to fraternity magazines.[edit]

Let's say I've got an article about the fraternity and that there is non-controversial information referenced to issues of the fraternity magazine (among other references). This fraternity has recently put all of the fraternity magazines online. Going through and adding the url for issues of the magazine for each of the references, is that a good thing, a bad thing, or a "Hey if that's how you want to spend your time, have fun"?Naraht (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Using the now online magazines to make verification of content already existing in the article easier is a good thing. However, the article should be primarily based on third party sources, so adding a lot of content based on their magazines is not really appropriate. Third parties will be looking at all aspects of the subject , while the subject's media will only be focusing on positive content leading to an inherent WP:UNDUE weight of the "good" stuff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)\
Thanx. I'm not talking about adding magazine references, just upgrading them. I know that they'll be positive rather than balanced, but 'Where the 2nd national conference was held' strikes me as rather neutral. Also, in some cases I'm running into one fraternity's magazine verifying what happened in another fraternity.Naraht (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How to request an unmerge ?[edit]

Hi, I'm a little lost on the forum jungle here, so pardon me if I'm not at the right place to ask :)

I'd want to request the unmerge the article Eigenclass model, whose content seems simply to have been lost in the fusion process (the term does not appears at all in the target article, which is what personally annoys me the most in fusions on Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the fusion was not about the content of the article, but more on his title. His name seemed to be attached to a particular implementation of the concept, but the concept is real and has an history. Plus there is a lot of book in which the term is used. So this is not a source problem, nor a notoriety one. I don't really understand why the article was merged, especially because this implied a loss of content, and the redirect does not really make sense as is. The terms power types Powertype (UML) and singleton class seems to exists in literature in the metaclass context. So there if it's just a question of rewording and neutrality, this is totally doable.

I just see the issue has been controversial and a suubject of edit warring, so I want to do this especially carefully and right.

I want to assure I was not part of the previous controversy, and that I discovered the subject on a connex article I'm working on Metaclass (semantic web). This article's content seems very interesting, even if some other more generic like metamodeling are as well. TomT0m (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You would first have to establish that the concerns raised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eigenclass model have been addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll continue the discussion on [[talk:Eigenclass model @TheRedPenOfDoom: seems hard condidering the problem was "the topic was too much expanded", how to removed content from a deleted article ? would have to restart from the beginning ... Luckily it's just a redirect and the content can be retrieved :) So pure procedural question, if the original content was restored with some parts remove, would that qualify to reopen the discussion or for an immediate revert ? TomT0m (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It was "too much expanded" based on no reliable source coverage, failing WP:RS and WP:OR and WP:NOT. If there are reliably published sources that cover the subject in a significant manner which were not part of the article or the discussion, then creating an article on the appropriately source material might be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

History of edits[edit]

How can I find out when and who removed text from an article? I am trying to find out what happened to this 2010 edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louisville_Male_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=362608025

Thanks in advance, 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You can usually find such things by using the 'Revision history search' tool (linked at the top of the article history page). Note however that the removal was undoubtedly legitimate, given that it cites a wordpress blog as a source for serious negative content regarding a named living person - a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply, AndyTheGrump. Actually I already tried using the 'Revision history search' tool, but when I ticked Look for removal of text (binary only) I got this message: No differences found in searched revisions. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah - if the text has been added and then removed again during the period being looked at, a binary search may not find it. You may need to use the linear search option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech:Or the old manual method - X201 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The relevant diff JFTR. I've tested a sequential search from your diff (clicking next, next, etc., until the text was gone), and that's really a bad idea. Normally you could try bisection, go to the history, check something in the middle, if the text is gone check something in the middle of the older edits, otherwise check an edit in the middle of the newer edits. Instead of an average of 250 "next" for 500 changes bisection will only take about eight checks. OTOH I found an important change after this diff, in the direction of "principals are generally not notable", i.e., just adding the old text again isn's a good idea, discuss it first on the talk page if you want it anyway. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I found it by checking the last edit of 2010 to see if the text was still there, the last edit of 2011, the last of... etc until it disappeared, then go back to June in the relevant year and narrow it down on a monthly basis from there. - X201 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation/Reference, House of Mystery[edit]

Hello.

I just made a minor edit to the House of Mystery page, adding citation 14 and a bit of related info, but I've done something wrong because the corresponding reference at the bottom of the page is wrong. Any help in instructing me as to what I've done wrong is appreciated! Thanks!

House of Mystery

J Daulton (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed sorry didn't notice your post here :P Mlpearc (open channel) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Referencing errors on Harry A. Hoffner[edit]

Reference help requested. ON VE citation forms, what does "title" mean? Is it the title of the book, newpaper or magazine or the title of the article in one of those?Kdammers (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Kdammers (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The title is what is linked when the source is online, so it is generally the article title . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

About the meaning of "Wasakaka"[edit]

Dear Wikipedia staff,

I love wikipedia, thank you for keeping us informed. Recently I found a mistake that I would like you to fix. It is the meaning of the word "Wasakaka". Wasakaka is a Venezuelan sauce, it is not from the Dominican Republic like it is stated in Wikipedida. It also says in the article that Wasakaka shares the same ingredients as the Venezuelan Chimichurri wich is wrong because Venezuelans don't have chimichurri at all. Chimichurri is from Argentina. I would recoment to check if the rest of the info in the article is correct.

Thank you so much, I really hope somebody reads this!

Best.

Maria Zurita (a Venezuelan)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasakaka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.207.18 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? If so, feel free to edit the article yourself. You should also consider creating an account. Scarce2 (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The Spanish Wikipedia article on this sauce is, as you might expect, better informed than the English version. It has two references which may be relevant (I can't tell, as I can't read Spanish). You can use non-English sources in English Wikipedia, if nothing in English is available. Maproom (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref April 18[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechkaboy (talkcontribs)

The bot seems to have cleaned it up. It looks like you hit the "ref tool" button a couple of times and did not enter any data between the tags. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

When, if ever, should a reference or citation link to a file on Wikipedia?[edit]

This is a question I have, and one which I encountered during a recent discussion. The title says it all, but I'll elaborate:

What policies, if any, are there regarding the citing of a file on Wikipedia? For example, let's say we have the full document and transcript of a court hearing saved as a PDF file. This transcript is relevant to an article and the full transcript is either not readily available anywhere else, or runs the risk of link rot. Would it be appropriate to cite this transcript, assuming all relevant parameters are filled out, and link to the PDF file hosted on Wikipedia? If it would not be appropriate, why not? Are there certain policies prohibiting this, or certain concerns which may be relevant? If the PDF file is available elsewhere not on Wikipedia, but that exact same file is hosted on Wikipedia, which would take precedence? The external link, or the link to the file hosted on Wikipedia? The former runs the risk of link rot, whereas I doubt the same applies to the latter; however, there may be some other policies of which I am not aware, or concerns I have not considered. This is all assuming the PDF file is not under any sharing restrictions and is available for public use, of course. As an aside, the file in question doesn't have to be a PDF file, though this is the most likely type an editor would have to deal with.

If you check the short discussion I linked to above, you can see where I got this example from. Naturally, it doesn't apply to that particular instance since other issues (such as the file not being the full transcript) have rendered the file inferior to the one hosted externally, but as a matter of future policy, what should be done in these circumstances? Any elucidation on this matter would be appreciated by me and, perhaps, by future editors wondering the same.

Also, apologies if this is the wrong place to be posting this. If a more relevant place is available, I have no problem moving over to there. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 13:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

In other (and fewer! ;) words, is |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:248128351-Darren-Wilson-Testimony.pdf acceptable usage? ―Mandruss  13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know Wikipedia does not host source material, so uploading the document here is not allowed, Wikisource is the apropriate venue for such material. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That file appears to be a blatant copyright violation. Its licensing as a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties is incorrect because the case and transcript is state and not federal (it's a Missouri Circuit Court). It is possible there's another reason it falls in the public domain – specific states for instance have statutes exempting certain types of documents from copyright protection, but the specific PD tag it's under is on its face invalid. So in this particular instance, you should not link to it (WP:ELNEVER), and the file should be nominated for deletion or a different, valid license tag added.

Putting that aside, say there was no question about the PD status. You might have complaints on other grounds such as that it's a primary source being used for interpretive claims in a BLP. etc., but I see no reason why the simple fact that it's a file at the Commons is problematic at all. (I myself have uploaded portions of the U.S. Census and other PD docs and then cited them.) As for which to cite, I'd link both, maybe putting the link to the local in parentheses "(archived copy)" or something like that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a copy of my message at the other discussion.
"Re 'This exists' — This was uploaded by a Wikipedia editor and it may or may not be a true copy and shouldn't be used as a reliable source."
I would add that in this particular case, the item is not an obscure one and there are various linkable reliable sources, for example [3], and for archived copies of this reliable source, there is the Internet archive [4] [5]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What is your opinion with the questions I posed below, if you don't mind me asking? In this particular case, it's pretty obvious that it's not a good idea to use the file for a number of reasons. But what about in general? Or do you think it's more of a case-by-case issue, and thus could not be adequately summarized in a general policy or guideline? ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Nøkkenbuer, In general, such uploads should not be linked to as reliable sources. However, they might be used in some way if there is not free internet access to the reliable source that they come from, the authenticity of the copy is not questionable, and they don't violate Wikipedia policy in some way such as copyright infringement. A somewhat similar situation is when it's helpful to quote in citations the parts of books that are reliable sources that aren't accessible on the internet, but are available to the public. However, I think that linking to Wikipedia uploads as if they were reliable sources should not be acceptable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit, I honestly don't know what to do about it if it's copyrighted, or what procedures should be done. I didn't upload it (I don't even know how to!), but I can help remove it if necessary. Seeing as my knowledge in this area is close to nil, however, it's probably better if someone else handles it.
As for your comments on whether to link to files on Wikipedia (or Wikisource): is it safe to assume that, so long as the citation is filled out with the appropriate publisher and title, it is safe to cite a file (including a PDF file) that is hosted on Wikipedia or Wikisource? Or would you advise against it? As for placing the file link in the archive parameter, do you think this would be preferable over, say, using archive.org to retrieve an archived copy of the file? This is assuming your answer to the first question is "yes", of course, since "no" would mean that even using it in the archive is probably not a good idea. Naturally, I don't think this implies that we should start using Wikipedia or Wikisource to archive PDF files (which is probably a really bad idea); but if one is available, would this be preferable to an archived copy per archive.org? There's always the possibility of adding both archives, but at that point it may be redundant. I hope I'm making sense, by the way. I feel my questions are worded a bit awkwardly, though I'm not sure how to improve them. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Maureen Carter (Author)[edit]

Hello there. Over two months ago I submitted a page for inclusion about Maureen Carter, the English crime writer. It seemed fairly innocuous, factual and workmanlike - and you said you'd get back to me within 30 days to confirm it was suitable for inclusion. As it IS so innocuous I could see no reason why it shouldn't be included - but all this time later I have still heard nothing, and no entry for Ms Carter has been forthcoming. Anyone there know why ?

Thanks, Morriss Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.237.205 (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Because you are not logged into Wikipedia with an account and instead are using an IP address, you didn't get the notification about the article. This is a common occurrence, most internet providers give users a new IP address at the start of each session, we've even seen them change by-the-minute during discussions on this page. I'd urge you to register to avoid problems like this (its also has a host of other benefits). The article was declined on 21 February 2015, the notification was posted to this user page. A brief scan of it makes it look like it was declined due to lack of reliable sources that define the author's notability. - X201 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Draft:African University of Creative Arts[edit]

Reference help requested. Please I am trying to include the "governing board" to the Data fields in Infobox University template but I can't seem to be able to do it. I've tried to edit it but it doesn't show on the Infobox. What do I do? This is the link I'm trying to edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_university Thanks, Bola.coker (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Bola.coker:, I had to revert your change to Template:Infobox university/doc for now. You can suggest "new" fields at Template talk:Infobox university, if needed. Most high-usage templates are edit-protected and should only be changed (by template editors or admins) after discussion and consensus on the template's talkpage. Before you suggest a new field, please check if you could put the information into already existing infobox fields (to avoid adding more and more fields to an already large infobox), or you could ask editors of other university articles at WT:UNI for advice. GermanJoe (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello @GermanJoe:, Thank you. Am I able to change the "free_label" on the Template:Infobox university/doc to "governing_board"? Is this allowed? If so how do I do it? --Bola.coker (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Bola.coker:, that works from a technical point of view (just tested: the display seems OK). But I am not editing university-related articles usually, members of WT:UNI may have better suggestions based on their experience (and may be able to give you other university-related tips for your draft if needed). GermanJoe (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That was misleading, sorry. I have simply made the change in your draft now (not in the template itself) to clarify the usage. Please check if it's OK. Regards. GermanJoe (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with music sample[edit]

I have loaded, and used a number of music samples at Wikipedia with very few problems. Recently, I have been having issues with File:Ayers Rock - Lady Montego wiki.ogg, in that the play control buttons do not appear within the music sample box in the article on some platforms. This has caused a lot of head scratching (dangerous at my age). The only thing I can think of is that there is a filename conflict because my filename is too similar to filenames employed by other internet entities such as I tunes. Could an editor with the appropriate rights, please change the filename by removing the dash and a space, so that the name becomes "Ayers Rock Lady Montego wiki.ogg"? Could they also let me know when they have done that, or change the code at Ayers Rock (band), please? The music sample is located in this sub-section: Ayers Rock (band)#Big Red Rock. Many thanks in advance. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Question about 'Not here' template tags[edit]

I have a question: when is it OK to place a {{Not here}} tag on an editor's Talk page, especially if said editor is also an Admin? I'm asking this question because I've come across a few Admins in the last week or so who haven't shown any editing activity in the last 3–6 months, and I'm wondering if/when it is OK to put a {{Not here}} tag on their Talk pages... TIA! --IJBall (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The guidance on the page says "a considerable time", and there's some discussion of what that means at Template talk:Not here. I'd suggest trying what seems right to you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)