Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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?
Search Frequently Asked Questions
Search the help desk archives and other help pages

July 24[edit]

Seperated tables by decades and proof-reading[edit]

I am sending this again since I did not get any responses, and I don't want this to be archive before I could get an answer:

Hello, I have a question regarding award pages such as the Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, which have one single table for all the multiple decades the award has been presented (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s). The tables were split from one another by decade previously, however when I nominated those pages for a featured list, I was told to merge them into one table, (with no explanation/or reason why). I find that the way those pages are right now is very difficult, especially on mobile devices when it takes a long time to scroll to reach a specific year a reader might be looking for. I want to split them, in all the different decades such as pages like the Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Game Show Host, and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series. However, before I start doing it, I want to make sure that I am not violating any Wikipedia rules by doing so and want to know if this is even a good idea? Should I leave it as is, or make a table for all the different decades! I want to start soon on this, so a fast answer to my question(s) would be truly aprreciated! Thank you!!
I also have re-vamp the Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Game Show Host article, and was wondering if I can get some help in proof-reading the page (correct grammar, make stronger sentences, more phosticated words etc). My first language is not English, thus the grammar may be off hhaha! Thhanks again!  — JJakathestrength (talk, contribs) 00:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
JJakathestrength. The place to ask this is on the talk page of the article. If you propose it there, and leave a reasonable time (several days) and nobody objects, then be BOLD and do it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Referencing errors on Draft:Osama Chandio[edit]

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Osama chandio (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)which referance link is broken in my draft

Osama chandio. Please do not try to write an WP:autobiography on Wikipedia. If you are notable - that is, several people who have no connection to you, have written at length about you and been published in reliable places - then somebody will write an article about you. Otherwise you are wasting your own time and ours. --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Search suggestions list - typo there in 'entry type', but not in article body[edit]

I was searching for the entry on the Gleise 667 star system. It is a triple star system. The search suggestion list, and Wikipedia iOS App, but not the mobile website entry, both refer to "Gleise 667 Tripple star system". I don't know your terminology for that 'type' that is in the search list and overlaid on the main image in the app. I couldn't find it when I tried to edit. Regards, C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The article is Gliese 667. The desktop version has a "Wikidata item" link in the left pane, going to wikidata:Q143821. The description there is used in some mobile searches. I have changed tripple to triple. Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleting my own article[edit]

Resolved: Article now deleted as requested. Joseph2302 17:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


I set up an autobiographical page about three years ago and would now like to delete it. I have written {{db-author}} at the top of the page and just wanted to check that this was the right thing to do, and also wanted to ask how long it will take to delete?

Many thanks,

A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjamison1 (talkcontribs) 14:19, 24 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Assuming that no other editors have made substantial changes to your autobiographical page, adding {{db-author}} to it is the proper way to get it deleted. There is no specific amount of time it will take - it will be deleted when an administrator decides to delete it. If other editors have made non-trivial edits to the article, you can't request deletion. Pppery (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Andrew Jamison has now been deleted by Huon. Joseph2302 17:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No response on Talk Page[edit]

I asked a question here on 20 July but have had no reply. Any ideas on how to get a response, or better still, can you answer the question I pose? Johnalexwood (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Johnalexwood: There isn't much you can do. Sometimes talk pages just aren't very lively. One of the issues you raised was addressed without responding to your post (diff). So, people are paying attention to what you say; they're just not responding explicitly on the talk page. If you'd like an answer about the affidavit as a reliable source, you can try asking at WP:RSN. However, as a primary source, I think it would be tricky to cite an affidavit. It's probably best to stick to secondary sources; if it's important, a journalist or academic has probably already analyzed the affidavit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I responded on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The Malaysian Insider[edit]

The article on the website The Malaysian Insider's title font is in italics. I believe that website names are not italicised. If I am correct, how do I fix the title's font? Thanks! Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

When the title of a Wikipedia article is also the title of the published work which it is about, it should be italicised. See, for example, David Copperfield. Maproom (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The title is italicized because the article is using {{infobox newspaper}}. If this is not a newspaper, you can change the infobox to use {{infobox website}} instead. The title will not be italicized any more in that case. MOS:TITLES is a bit vague as to when website titles should be italicized: Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized ( or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis. So, I guess use your best judgment as to whether to use italics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
{{Infobox newspaper}} was missing documentation for an existing italic title parameter. I have added the documentation. Use |italic title=no to avoid the automatic italics. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

July 25[edit]


My God, Ya'll must work for the US federal Govt. I just want to write an article describing the Lubbock Tx Memorial Arboretum and IO have been working on it half the day. I'm beginning to think I'm stupid. I read and comprehend English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Tuttle Arborist (talkcontribs) 00:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh, OK, you're on to us. Is there something specific we can help you with? We would welcome an article on the fine Lubbock Arboretum, but I don't see any edits by you yet -- this message here appears to be your first edit? I have left a message on your talk page that might help you get started.
It can be a little hard getting started. We sympathize. Wikipedia:Your first article might help. It contains a link to the "article wizard" which might help. I sincerely would like to see an article on the arboretum. You can come here (or message me privately if you like) with more specific problems you are encountering. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would a list of Wikipedia articles have red links on it?[edit]

I just ran across this page: Index of Albania-related articles. So, I gather that this is a list of articles. Why would such a page, then, have red links on it? Many, in fact. A red link indicates no article. Why would they appear on such a list? Is there any valid reason or explanation? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Some of them are articles that existed at one time, but have since been deleted. You can see a notification of this if you click on e.g. Arjan Celami, Emin Celami, Hava Rexha. I assume that others such as Albanian Center for Art Studies are articles someone would like to see written. Rojomoke (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
So should or should not those red links remain on that page? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
See also WP:REDLINK, if you did not read it already. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I have read that. What section was pertinent? Or are you just suggesting it, generally? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Also often editors are planning to do articles and have not gotten to it yet. However, without having read the guidelines, a list of wikipedia articles should not have red links for very ling. Carptrash (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

IP address[edit]

Would my IP address be open to public if I make a contribution on Wikipedia after logging in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litqforviki (talkcontribs) 05:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Litqforviki - one of the good reasons to log in with a username is that your IP is hidden from everyone - except a limited number of specially authorized users who deal with security and related issues which require access to IPs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I am trying to add Mirna El Hage biography as a Lebanese designer, but i faced a problem of "tag" issue which i do not know what does mean and what should i have to do to tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriette El Hage (talkcontribs) 11:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Henriette El Hage: and welcome to Wikipedia. If you are connected to Mirna Elhage in any way, you probably have a so-called "conflict of interest" in this topic. Please read up on Wikipedia's WP:COI guideline. Aside from this point, you should also check some of the basic informations for new editors, that have been linked on your talkpage (regarding notability, reliable sources, etc.). GermanJoe (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Custom flag links in a template[edit]

I'm doing some work on the "Template:IPSC Regions", and want a flag beside each country name. Is there a neat way to do this? I've found that with for instance Australia the following method worked fine. From this: Australia To this: Australia

However, this presents a problem when the association has a name in a different format, i.e. China. From this: China To this: Template:Country data Practical Shooting Association Practical Shooting Association

Any ideas? Sauer202 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Sauer202: First of all, you mixed up the arguments in your request (country name goes before link), but {{flag+link|China|Practical Shooting Association}} fails the same way in my preview.
For some reason, changing the template name to "Flaglink" (instead of "flag+link") works for me:  China
Notice also that you can change the displayed text, according to Template:Flaglink, by the "name" parameter, e.g.   Country of chocolate and cheese. Depending on the context, maybe you would prefer  Practical Shooting Association or  any text, really . TigraanClick here to contact me 13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Tigraan, thank you very much for the detailed reply. I would like to go with the flag plus a simple country name. However, what do I do when the country name is in the middle of the association name, or perhaps not even there? I.e. "Irish Target Sports" for "Ireland"? Sauer202 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sauer202: I do not know, as it seems the template needs the wikilink to start with the country name. (Disclaimer: I almost discovered the template with your question.) You can always just call Template:flag and make the link separately in standard wiki markup. As David Biddulph mentions below, it may be that the flag is unnecessary altogether. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Best to leave out the flags. The template is clear and readable without them. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ormoc City[edit]

On November 8, 2013, the city was largely destroyed by Super Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan)

This statement is far fetched and plain wrong. Ormoc City was not 'destroyed' by any means. The typhoon did hit directly at category 5 because the eye did pass over. The damage was extensive but not destroyed by definition. A large number of structures lost parts of the roofs and windows. I had roof damage and a door blew open as the wind was strong enough to destroy the door bolt. Probably near 100% of the power lines was off the poles along with any other utility that used the power poles in this area and along the path of the storm.

Ormoc is the lazy name. Ormoc City is proper. I think an encyclopedia would be most accurate using the proper name. Look at Government pages.

I moved to Ormoc City September 2013 and I reside in the same apartment today. I have first hand knowledge of these facts. (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced "destroyed" by "extensively damaged". As for the name of the city – Wikipedia articles use the name that the subject is normally known by, rather than the officially correct name. See, for example, United Kingdom. Maproom (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Change company page logo (ITE Group, File:ITE_Group_(logo).png)[edit]


My company (ITE Group) wants to change the logo of their wikipedia page, as I'm not currently verified user can somebody update it for me?

This is the new logo:

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itegroup-weinberger (talkcontribs) 15:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I copied parts of my previous answer to a similar question. I also added a link to the page in the thread title.
Hello Itegroup-weinberger and welcome to Wikipedia (WP). The answer to your question is below, but please do read the whole post.
First of all, ITE Group is not your company's page. It is Wikipedia's page about your company.
If part of your job is related to marketing your company, your edits on WP most likely qualify as paid editing. These must be disclosed, as part of the terms of service. Read the link to "paid editing" to know how the disclosure is made.
Even if it does not qualify as paid editing, you certainly have a conflict of interest in this area of edition. One should usually refrain from editing articles in one's domain of COI, but strictly factual corrections such as uploading a new logo are probably fine.
Moreover, since the logo of your company is most likely copyrighted material, there are licensing issues. There are two options:
  • Either ITE Group, via an authorized person, allows Wikipedia to use the logo under its license (CC BY-SA), which roughly means anyone (not just Wikipedia) will be allowed to use it. Details about the implications of the license and the procedure to follow are outlined here. If you upload the file outright, it will be deleted, because anyone could upload the file and claim to be you - you need to prove who you are.
  • Or you can upload a non-free image, in which case it has to follow the criteria of WP:NFCC. In practice here, it means that you must upload a low-resolution file.
If you need someone to upload the image for you, let us know once you have read the previous.
TigraanClick here to contact me 16:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Itegroup-weinberger I'm not seeing how this logo is any different to File:ITE Group (logo).png? They look the same to me. Joseph2302 19:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the new logo has a uniform red-orange color in the bottom right (when the old one was a color gradient). Not a huge difference, for sure. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Tigraan — Thanks for the information! We would like to choose the second option, and publish a new logo as a non-free image in a low resolution with a tag ITE Group (non-free logo). To confirm that ITE Group holds copyrights for this logo, please refer to this website: Can you please update the logo for us?

Before I make a real mess[edit]

how do I add a wikilink to Article A (let's say 12th century) from a section of Article B (let's say Valencia) so that the section of Article B [[1]] can be used to get red of the red link for Señorio de Valencia in Article A? So, you can either give me a fish or teach me how to fish, but I believe that this will improve the article and maybe I can learn something. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

[[Article name#Section name|pipe (if required)]]... or have I missed the point!? Eagleash (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It sounds as if you want a link from article A to a section of article B. Try [[Valencia#Middle Ages|Señorio de Valencia]], which renders as Señorio de Valencia. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
, thanks all, Señorio de Valencia is now a blue link in that article. Carptrash (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Download-only sources[edit]

(Cross-posted from WT:Citing sources.) Are download links (PDFs, zip archives, executables, etc.) acceptable in citations? Or else if a source is only available in the form of a file in a zip archive or something, what do we do? I can’t find anything in project space about this, or I don’t know where to look. — (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I would infer it is okay from my reading of Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Links_and_ID_numbers (the format target is irrelevant as long as it "helps editors locate the source"). At least a .pdf download should be acceptable (there are plenty of links to in-browser pdf reading). Maybe .zip links are forbidden by technical means for security reasons (though pdfs are hardly better...) but in the rare case they are helpful, I do not see why not.
  • you still need to be reasonably sure that the website is not copyright infringement etc.
  • if you find a (legit) .zip of 1,000 books, I do not think it would be correct to link to it in every article about a relevant book. I think the source needs to be reasonably precise still. But of course, that is my gut feeling, not longstanding consensus. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, sources don't have to be readable on line anyway. Many academic journals don't allow free access, and I often give book pages as refs, which may or may not be readable using Gbooks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
On a related note, we don't accept links to what purport to be scans of newspapers or magazines if they are not on the website of the publication itself, because we have no way of verifying that these have not been altered or completely faked. If content was in a print publication, cite the print publication and don't link to a supposed scan thereof. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you please indicate the location of the policy that you just said? If I'm referencing an article from the Chicago Tribune from 1864 and there is a scan at the University of Illinois, I shouldn't link it because it could be faked?Naraht (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The rules about reliable sources aply there, Naraht. If the scan is hosted by a somebody regarded as reliable, you can link to it. Orangemike's really talking about scans randomly found on the internet. --ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
ColinFine: Not doubting that, but Orangemike's statement seems *considerably* broader.Naraht (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Nah, Colin pretty much nailed it. I've seen folks try to use a bunch of purported clippings (some of them not even showing page numbers, etc.) hosted on the subject's website; that's more the kind of thing I'm talking about. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Orangemike, ColinFine as long as we've made that clear.Naraht (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Debbie wasserman schultz[edit]

Someone has hacked the page for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and changed her last name. Please change it back; it is an affront and insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it has already been fixed. Feinoha Talk 17:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Already reverted and the page has been move protected by NeilN. Joseph2302 17:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Point of clarification: The page was not “hacked.” Moving pages (to change the name) is a normal Wikipedia process. All you need to do in order to move most pages is log in and click Move. — (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

New page[edit]

How can I add a page, for my own books that is? I have been published widely by small and university presses, fiction all--3 short story collections and two novels. I have won the USBook Award for literary fiction, have been reviewed in the NY Times, have written articles for Writer Mag. I may want a Wikipedia page. Can I create it? Do you need links to verify my books? Please advise.

Mary Troy


Joe Baker is dead, University of MO press, 1998 The Alibi Cafe and other stories, BkMk Press, 2003-reviewed NY Times, books in brief, december 2003 Cookie Lily, SMU Press (now out of business) 2004--winner of Devils Kitchen Book Award for best book of prose in 2004 Beauties, BkMk Press, 2010--US Book award for literary fiction Swimming on Hwy N, Moon City Press/U of AR Press, 2016.--due out Nov 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marydelphine (talkcontribs) 20:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Mary, I've left a welcome note on your talk page which may explain some things about Wikipedia to you. In addition to that, I would like to point out our conflict of interest guideline as well as the notability requirements for authors. Dismas|(talk) 21:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Marydelphine. From your description above it sounds as if you may meet the criteria for notability, in which case Wikipedia could have an article about you. To be clear, this would not be "your page": you would have no control over its contents. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what anybody (or any company or organisation) says or wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with a subject have published about the subject. If there is enough such reliably published independent material about you, then we could have an article about you. You are discouraged from writing it (see WP:Autobiography but not forbidden. If you wish to have a go, please read Your first article carefully, and expect your efforts to be closely scrutinised. Separately from yourself, it is possible that one or more of your books are notable (in Wikipedia's sense) and we could have an article on them - again, not "a page for the books" but "an article about the books", neutrally written and based solely on independent published writing about them. What Wikipedia is not, ever, is a vehicle for promotion of anything, and attempts to use it that way tend to be fiercely resisted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You may also want to consider Wikipedia's "Law of unintended consequences":-
"Once an article is created about you .... you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually." - Arjayay (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

New page problem[edit]

Hi I recently set up my new page on Wikipedia. I am currently experiencing some issues trying to post something. The page got deleted however I linked the website and wanted to put some basic facts about the company just like Walmart and Canadian Tire Pages.. Is there anyway I can out my information without it being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PirabaKishan (talkcontribs) 20:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi PirabaKishan. No there isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of mainstream knowledge, and so proper subjects of encyclopedia article entries are topics of mainstream knowledge, as reflected by reliable and independent sources out in the world having previously published significant material about the topic, sufficient to demonstrate that. As such, they cannot contain entries on businesses that the world hasn't taken note of, with significant publication about them in the types of independent and reliable sources I referred to. Having just searched, I can find no indication that such sources exist (quite unlike, for example, the thousands of sources that exist to demonstrate notability and verify the information in an article on Walmart). In any event, Wikipedia is not a proper place for promotion by insiders but for neutrally written articles on topics of knowledge. The page you posted was a blatantly promotional advertisment for the company. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
However, the above edit is your only edit under this account, and you do not have any messages about having a page deleted. Did you create the page that was deleted under a different account name? If so, read the policy on multiple account names. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: The edit filter log shows the deleted edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

Glen Affric[edit]

Ref number 10 is a PDF and it's citation is done all wrong. I have failed - please fix. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talkcontribs) 04:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed - I placed the URL in the url parameter and the publisher in the publisher parameter. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Glen Affric[edit]

I have completely ruined refs number 14 and 15. Please leave in quotes. This is what ref number 15 originally looked like: [1]

I also added and mucked up ref number 14 - it is from The Scots Magazine Sorry and Thanks (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Long, Phil; Palmer, Nicola J. (2008). Royal Tourism: Excursions Around Monarchy. Channel View Publications. p. 76. ISBN 9781845410803. 
I've reverted the edits for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

False comments[edit]

Hello, I am a registered user with some years standing, but am choosing to ask this question anonymously as I feel it is more appropriate to do so. Another editor has made comments about me that are false and potentially damaging, and I am wondering what the best way would be to ask for assistance in resolving the matter. I mentioned the incident at WP:ANI last week, but the discussion was archived earlier today without resolution. Should I contact an admin, or senior member of staff such as Jimbo, or is there somebody else that deals with this kind of thing? Thanks. (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Without looking at the precise problem in the ANI thread:
  • In really, really urgent and dangerous cases, contact the Wikimedia foundation directly at emergency"at", or even your local police if you have substantial reason to fear for your "real life" safety.
  • If the issue has potential huge repercussions (e.g. you were WP:OUTed) but without an emergency response needed, WP:DWH says you should contact ArbCom.
  • If you just want closure of the ANI thread, you can try listing it at WP:ANRFC. This is probably better in theoretical terms than getting in touch with an admin directly because then you cannot be accused to have picked a friendly admin. In real terms, your request might hang in the limbo for some time.
In any of the cases, need I mention that if there is actually no pressing need for action, you will attract some nasty comments or worse?
I would also mention that "anonymity" is fairly relative given the amount of information that you give in your comment. I have not tried to identify you, but I have some confidence I could do it if I wanted, or at least considerably prune the candidate list (to 2-3 people max.). TigraanClick here to contact me 14:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tigraan:, thanks for the advice. It's certainly not a police matter. The editor has accused me of being part of a smear campaign, and it's something about which I'm not very happy, particularly as the user would not withdraw the comments, and they will now be on the web for all to see. Sadly though I fudged the ANI report. Would ANRFC be the place to take it? (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of this situation, and looking at the two diffs you claim are painting you as being part of a smear campaign, I don't consider that a reasonable interpretation. You added a questionable story sourced to the The Independent—which when it was a genuine newspaper was a respected news source but in its current incarnation is just a slightly posher version of Buzzfeed entirely owned and controlled by Alexander Lebedev—and were called out for giving undue weight to a questionably-sourced story about a living person. That isn't "painting you as being part of a smear campaign"; this is how WP:BLP is supposed to operate. I'd urge you not to escalate this to any of the above-mentioned venues, as the risk of boomerangs is high; if you do want further input, the best thing to do would be to write up a formal Request for Comment at the talkpage of the article in question regarding whether to include the incident in question and if so, how much weight it should be given. Bear in mind that the page in question is highly sensitive and has been the subject of lengthy recent debate, so ensure any RFC you draw up is a genuine request for comment, and not anything which could be seen as pot-stirring or trying to reopen recently-healed wounds. If you want me—as someone who really doesn't care about the issue—to draft an RFC for you, ask me on my talkpage with a summary of the questions you want asked. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I hesitated to link WP:BOOMERANG from my reply, and thought it would feel pointy if the issue was genuine, but yeah. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have calmed down considerably since last week, but remain deeply unhappy about these comments. I take the sentence "And you have participated in that smear" to mean exactly what it says, and feel that by accusing me of participating in a smear I have been unfairly labelled.

In the real world I am an author currently seeking a publishing contract, and have cited my work on Wikipedia in my CV. Imagine for a moment how Gravuritas's allegations could be viewed by a potential publisher or agent. Disagreements are par the course, accusations of smear tactics are not, and carry with them the possibility of doing great damage to my reputation and career. I feel that Gravuritas should at least withdraw the accusation.

Indescent, you make reference to the strong feelings surrounding this topic, so it may surprise you to learn that I have no particularly strong feelings about it, other than keeping the article up to date. However, while I accept that the information was questionable I feel that Gravuritas's reply went against the principle of Wikipedia, and beyond what could be considered a justifiable response in an edit dispute. As I pointed out during the ANI discussion, comments of this nature would not be acceptable from a newly registered user, and they should not be acceptable from an experienced one, i.e., someone who ought to show better restraint.

Turning to the suggestion of an RFC, there seems little point opening one on whether or not to include this particular item. Please do clarify, however, if you think there is something else I should be asking.

Finally, I am being urged not to take this matter any further because the repercussions could reverberate back at me, so maybe all I can do is cease to be an editor. I have been here for eight years, have contributed much and enjoyed my time immensely, but I fear the atmosphere is becoming increasingly toxic. Comments such as those made by Gravuritas do not help the situation.

I will think this over for a few days, since I know that if I do decide to go I won't be back. (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

One possibility I don't see mentioned above is to seek oversighting of the edits as defamatory, explaining, just as above, that you reveal your account name in your CV so the edits are not unlikely to come to the attention of a person vetting you, and your belief that they "carry with them the possibility of doing great damage to my reputation and career". I am not sure they would agree to act on your request, but the process is confidential so making the request should result in no attention drawn to you or any "boomerang" effect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: thanks for this suggestion. I must confess it hadn't occurred to me to ask them, but it seems like a good idea, and as I don't particularly want to leave, I'll put together an email. I do believe the comments amount to defamation, but wanted to avoid describing it as such on here because of our policy about not making legal threats. Reading up on that policy I came across an email address for reporting defamatory material, I guess it's primarily meant for articles, but would they be the people to contact in this case? (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What are the notability requirements for the Current events Portal?[edit]

Today, an item was added and deleted from the current events portal. I was about to delete it myself before somebody else did. Are there any objective criteria for current events notability requirements? If not, doesn't it become rather easy for individuals or groups to push their agenda? --Gerrit CUTEDH 14:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Some instructions are on Portal:Current_events/Edit_instructions. Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How does one re-list an RfC to seek further input?[edit]

This RfC seems (IMO) to have formed a consensus, even though it ha only been open about a week. Is there a way to re-list? I've seen this done at AfD, but I've never done that so I wouldn't know where to start. I was thinking of asking for a SNOW close, but since I started the RfC maybe that's not a good idea. I don't know, what do you suggest?That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you want to relist it. An RFC runs for thirty days, and the RFC has been running for six days. Do you want more input, or do you want a snow close? If you want more input, you can publicize it neutrally at appropriate WikiProjects, being careful not to appear to be canvassing. If you want a snow close, you can ask at WP:ANRFC. The fact that you originated the RFC doesn't, to the best of my knowledge, prevent you from asking for a snow close; it only means that you shouldn't provide one. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I advise against asking for a snow close at WP:ANRFC. See point 1 on that page, or this drama which erupted when one editor listed tons of discussions (maybe overzealously).
It says that some discussions do not need closure. While I think this is one of them, it would also mean that the issue should stall for three weeks (waiting for the RfC to expire). I thought I could as well close it, so that's done. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the responses. Sorry if I got some of the terminology incorrect. I was reading about the 30 days, and something staid that was just the default length it runs before its de-listed. I'll squirrel your hints away for the future, if needed.That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the 30 days should be clarified. Two things happen to an RFC after 30 days. It is "de-listed", but that only means that the RFC header is removed by the bot; it doesn't mean that the RFC is deleted or inactivated or anything like that. It also does mean that the RFC is ready for formal closure. (Editors disagree as to when formal closure is expected or desired. Some editors think that it usually isn't required, and some think that, while not required, it is usually helpful. I belong to the latter camp, because I think that, even if there is a very solid consensus, there is sometimes one stubborn editor who dislikes the consensus and insists that it wasn't really a consensus and edits against it, so that formal closure defining consensus takes away any stupid arguments.) In this specific case, I suggest just letting it run for the remainder of the 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources ?[edit]

Problematically, Wikipedia itself is NOT allowed as a 'source'.

This contradicts the very notion of 'traceable source'.

Consider that in the Electronic Equipment business, 'standards' are maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. When you want to know what a 'meter' or a 'second' is, NIST is the place to go.

Since labs cannot always go to NIST, there is a way to make 'secondary standards' - that is, to calibrate e.g. a meter using the NIST standard. This e.g. 'measuring stick' then becomes a 'secondary standard', traceable to NIST.

In this way, accurate and traceable measurements are made; and in fact, these secondary standards are often used to make 3rd standards of end-user equipment by the labs that have the secondary standards -- ALL of them are traceable.

By stating that Wikipedia itself is NOT useful as a 'secondary standard' -- Logically, you are basically saying that, for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia should never be trusted.

This is a fascinating take on the whole point of Wikipedia.

For the particular segment I suggested, about Datapro, I did include the URL of the company: ---- which is now absorbed into Gartner. However, although datapro CLEARLY existed, and was CLEARLY a very important part of the birth of the Computer Industry, the fact that is doesn't NOW exist as a separate entity does not mean Wikipedia should ignore it.

I am truly astonished and shocked at Wikipedia's decision.

What's the point of having Wikipedia if new articles are dis-allowed? I don't understand.

Thank you for your assistance,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP does not trust itself as a reliable source since it can be vandalized. Also, WP is a tertiary source and references should be to secondary (or in rare cases, primary) sources. But if you are trying to reference to a WP article then that article should have references to and those references are what you should be using. In other words, if you want to use a WP article as a reference then copy the references that article uses as references for the new article. RJFJR (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Another problem is that Wikipedia is a WP:USERGENERATED website. So a person could add an item (true or spurious) to an article and them use that article to support info in another article. Over the years there have been some elaborate hoax articles doing exactly that. MarnetteD|Talk 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • By stating that Wikipedia itself is NOT useful as a 'secondary standard' -- Logically, you are basically saying that, for all intents and purposes, Wikipedia should never be trusted.
This has been the subject of numerous essays by contributors of Wikipedia (WP), but I will try to summarize.
First of all, you are committing a blatant logical fallacy. WP is not considered a reliable source because some of its content at any point of time is wrong, misleading, or poorly written. It does not follow at all that all or even most of its content is unreliable. For instance, Good Articles, in the version that granted them the status, could be considered reliable sourcing IMO.
As a result, whether you can really use WP depends on what you want to do. If you vaguely wonder who the first Byzantine emperor was, you probably do not care if the date of birth is off by five years. But if you are a diplomat for the Israel-Palestine conflict, you probably need rock-solid sources for the history of the conflict. What matters is the subject and the cost associated with wrong information; I would probably accept a 1% chance to catch a cold if it can save me an hour, but not a 1% chance of violent death.
If you insist on 100% accuracy, or even "significantly better than WP", you also commit the nirvana fallacy. There was a much-publicized Nature study in 2005 that concluded that WP was on par with the Encyclopedia Britannica in scientific articles, in terms of reliablity (link), and WP has improved a lot since 2005. I will grant you that scientific articles are probably Wikipedia's strong suit due to the demographics of editors, but the point is that you should have an objective reference point before claiming that "WP is unacceptably inaccurate".
Finally, note that "verifiable" information from "reliable sources" does not mean true information. It is probable that all newspapers that are considered "reliable sources" by WP have published factually wrong information at some point in time. It has also happened countless times that they publish wrong information while a WP article existed that disproved it. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Rich Riley[edit]

PLEASE HELP, I KEEP GETTING FLAGS AND ALL THE CONTENT IS SOURCED: See the talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rampage45 (talkcontribs) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

First, don't SHOUT. Second, answer the question on the talk page as to who "we" is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Unknown topic[edit]


I tried to make an entry regarding this explosive new genre of books and it was deleted. I would like it reinstated please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LitRPG (talkcontribs) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

LitRPG: this question is the only contribution you have ever made to English-language Wikipedia. Without knowing what you are asking about, it is difficult to know how to help you. Maproom (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Only administrators can see edits to deleted pages. The user created an article at LitRPG. It was deleted as indicated by User talk:LitRPG#Speedy deletion nomination of LitRPG. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Comparison between Wikipédias[edit]


I would like to ask if there is a bot or some tool to compare, for example, in aviation, which articles are created simultaneously in and and get a list about those that only exist in but not in Or, for example, the aviation articles on that does not have the interwiki about Does anyone think there is a tool or a bot that could build a list like that? Tuga1143 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


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

I'd like to ask this page be locked to lower users as the Supernatural fandom continually edits it to be about a fictitious angel Castiel from their show, & not about the biblical angel Cassiel. I realise this will lock me out too (I made the last edit). But it's gotten to a point where several of us have had to remove their idiotic edits constantly now. There was no talk page, so I am putting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monroe St. Charles (talkcontribs) 22:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you would probably need to go to WP:RFPP (unless someone with the appropriately authority sees this thread). Please sign your posts on talk-pages by typing four tides (~~~~). If there is no talk-page you coould always start one. Eagleash (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, sorry, I didn't know how to create a talk page or that we could. Thank you for that knowledge and about the signature. I did post it in WP:RFPP as it looks like this is already escalated to them several times & I missed the code at the top. Thank you again. Monroe Charles (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems the page was protected one minute after your post at RFPP so, unless it was a coincidence (maybe someone saw this thread) they were very quick off the mark. There is a talk-page at on the tab at the top-left...also click there to start a talk-page in the future if one is necessary. Eagleash (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

deleted page, wasn't given options to fix[edit]

I recently made a page about a new Mobile phone company, I tried to fill in as much detail as possible just so that it was created but I was stuck with a warning that my page would be deleted, I tried to delete any part that may have promoted advertising (which was not intentional) but it was too late, no further comments were exchanged and I was left in the dark, I want to make this page existent because as a poor country, having any documentation of the use of the Welsh language is crucial in it's survival, there are news articles showing that the company opened and how they help use the Welsh language so having this included would be great for reference, I tried to follow other mobile phone network pages in order to keep it within guidelines but it seems it was not enough, could anyone help restore the page and help fix anything that stops it from staying up? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talkcontribs) 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hogyncymru: If you go through the optional articles for creation process, you can take your time to get an article right without the constant threat of speedy deletion. You will also have an easier time getting feedback from experienced Wikipedia volunteers. From looking at the Google cache of the deleted article, it was basically just a quotation from the CEO. That made it look like more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. If you went through AFC, you would hopefully receive advice on how to make it seem less promotional and adhere better to our policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Make the text bigger or smaller[edit]

How do you make the text bigger or smaller — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If you mean for yourself without registering an account then Ctrl++, Ctrl+-, Ctrl+0 will make text and images bigger, smaller and normal in most browsers. Does that answer your question? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)