Help desk
< December 14	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 15

Administrator edit summary deletion requests

How can I request an Administrator delete or edit an edit summary to remove the name of a person who is semi-anonymous and would not be named in the body of an article on Wikpipedia? Omnibus (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:OVERSIGHT is what you're looking for. Dismas|^(talk) 02:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a second article using my sandbox

Hi, I've written an article and this has been accepted. When I click on my "sandbox" I am redirected to the published article. How can I create a new article on a different subject and use my sandbox to do this? (Or is there some other way?) Thanks. Arjaysmith (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the redirected page, look at the top left of the page. You will see "Redirected from". Click on the link and you can edit the page. -- Gadget850^talk 02:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne (album)

There's unreliable sources like hardrockhaven.net, guitarsweepstakes.com and Muumuse (see References section below). Somebody remove please. 183.171.181.213 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you see an issue with a specific page, it's always best to just hit the "Talk" tab in the top left of the article and post a message there. You could also consider just being bold and remove the sentences/paragraphs that are sourced with these problematic sources yourself. Scarce2 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how to know if somebody replied to my questions in help desk?

how to know if somebody replied to my questions in help desk? i mean is there any notifications & also how to get that notifications to my email? Ram nareshji (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ram nareshji: - The best way is to check back here within 48 hours after you posted your question. Other methods are people using your name, like I did, which will leave a red notification on the top of your screen next to your username. Click the red button. Some people will also inform you on your user talk page, which will also leave a red notification, and a message that someone edited your tal page. If you want these notification to also be by email, you can click at the top of your screen on the button "Preferences". Cick the section "Notifications". Here you can select for what type of message you want an email send, and you can save these changes by clicking the save button. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Government work copyright

Hello. I am aware that works produced by the United States Government are, in most cases, not subject to copyright. Also, state government works are usually copyrighted. But what of works produced by the District of Columbia government? I'm wondering in general. However, the issue that brought this to mind was possibly adding a map of DC Streetcar proposed routes. DDOT has such maps on its website. (If they are copyrighted, I could probably draw my own.) Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 08:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. claims copyrights.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It seems odd, because D.C. is federal territory. But it is what it is. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 18:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lingaa

Hello,

Below link from Wikipedia is actually owned by admin or private person, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingaa

i thought Wikipedia, allows "Anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles", but why private pages are provided and with false information, request to administrators with useful links doesn't seems to be appearing and still the page claims with false information.

I would expect above page link should be made public and allow anyone to edit the information with possible links. not with private false information to be there.

Thanks, Siva Prakash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheosiva (talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not 'owned' by anyone - it is currently protected against editing by anyone except administrators due to persistent vandalism. If you wish to make a proposal regarding changes to the article, you can do so on the talk page. You should note however that article content should be based on published reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get this uploaded?

Hi,

I would like to include this image http://www.google.com/logos/2011/hundertwasser11-hp.jpg on a wikipedia page - the point being that it was displayed by google.

Is this image permitted for that purpose?

Eileen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.212.31 (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is almost certainly copyright, and accordingly almost certainly not suitable for use on Wikipedia. The only justification might be under fair use criteria - but that would require evidence that the image itself had been the subject of significant commentary, and inclusion in an article would likewise require that our article discussed it, rather than just used it. We would probably also have to reduce the resolution of the image. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are already a number of Google doodles shown at Google Doodle. I don't see a reason to add yet another. Dismas|^(talk) 11:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I work on multiple books at the same time

How can I work on multiple books (collections of Wikipedia articles) at the same time. If I am reading the instructions correctly, if you want to start a second book, you have to purge the first book you started. I am trying to assemble reference books for two courses that I am teaching. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearey (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fearey: Yes, if you are using the Book Creator tool, then you can only work on one book at a time. But the banner at the top of your saved books also has an option to edit the "Wikitext" of the saved book. If you click that, you will see that the formatting of the chapters and included articles is really rather simple. If you edit your books that way, you can edit several books at once in different tabs of your browser. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fearey: I'm not sure what you mean by "at the same time" and "purge". John gave a way to work on two books at the same time by editing the Wikitext directly instead of using the book creator. The book creator cannot work on two unsaved books at the same time but you can always save one book and then open another previously saved book and work on that with the book creator. You can work on a saved book by clicking a link to the book and then clicking "Book Creator". You can for example find saved books in your account by clicking "Contributions" at the top right and then "Subpages" at the bottom. If your book is visible in "Contributions" then you can also just click it there. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

Answered on the talk page --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is there a wiki-rule that says that a unique page title should not also contain a country-name as a qualifier? For background please see: Category talk:Economy ministries#Moving non-country specific articles to country-specific. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

How do I unlink a Wikipedia page from appearing with a Google result? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.47.166.167 (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand the question, but from the heading it looks as if you saw a red error message in the reference list for Henry Moskowitz (real estate investor). This appeared because your edit today removed the reference where the ref name ArgoAbout was defined. (I don't know why you would do this, when the link still works and still supports the statement it was referencing). I suggest you revert your last edit and make a fresh edit for the change you want, without removing this reference: Noyster (talk), 16:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOINDEX, adding __NOINDEX__ will do the trick. However, it should not be; and does not; work in the article space. If you want certain websites from not appearing in your Google search results, this can be done by logging in to your Google account and going to http://www.google.com/reviews/t. However that service seems to have been discontinued, and provides a link to some Google chrome extension. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Questionable BLP

How do I deal with a posting, that only exposes a living person's dirty laundry, in a cascade of half-truths, in a way to purposely and misleadingly discredit that person? The structure of wikipedia seems to make this a legally daunting task, and not just a simple matter of user editing. Could I post a rebuttal page, that the authors of the original posting must link to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.69.240 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't state which article you are concerned about, so the answer can only be in general terms. Please look at our policy about articles on living people, which will show you that the course to take depends on references to reliable sources to support what the article says, and on the balanced presentation of what all the available sources say.

If the material you object to is unsourced (not supported by any reference cited in the article) then you are encouraged to remove it by directly editing the article.
If the case is less clear - the material is referenced but you doubt the reliability of the sources, or you consider that it is presented so as to misrepresent the balance of views published in reliable sources - then you may either comment on the article's talk page, or post to this forum where your concerns will be investigated by experienced editors. When posting to either of these venues, please remember to name the article, and sign your posts with ~~~~.
If the material you object to is supported by reliable sources and the article presents what all the sources say in a balanced way, then it must remain, regardless of your own opinion of the subject: Noyster (talk), 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the advice given by User:Noyster but will expand on it. Unsourced material in biographies of living persons should be removed. Wikipedia does not have "rebuttal pages". However, if there are issues about the facts, with differing facts cited by different reliable sources, the issue can be reported. It is best that any disagreement be discussed on the article talk page. That is what talk pages are for. As noted, disagreements about biographies of living persons should be taken to the BLP noticeboard to involve other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing out of print scientific book by Carnot and Kelvin by image and/or upload. Advice and guidance asked.

I would like to add content regarding Carnot Cycle and Reversibility. It already references the original work by Sadi Carnot, but does not list specifics. In some cases the existing content, although consistent with current textbooks, is not supported by Sadit Carnot's book, "Reflections on the motive power of heat", and in fact the original contradicts the article (and contradicts some material in physics texts). As the book is clearly the source for information cited as from the book, I would like to post a few pages as images, which show the correct quotations from the book. Also, the book was last printed in the 1800's, a version scanned from original may be found at www.archive.org, but there appears to be no way to create a direct link. One must go to archive.org and do a search.

My questions

A) Can I post scans of 3 to 5 pages from the book as images? As it is from the 1800's, copyright is long since past. I have found through experience that simply quoting the original is generally met with skepticism. I believe showing the original quotes in context alleviates that.

B) Can I upload or post the book in its entirety (a PDF scan of original document, which is also searchable). Although wikipedia is not an archive, the original book is not generally available anywhere.

The book is quite important as it is Sadi Carnot's only work, literally started the field of science of heat engines and of thermodynamics, and is co-authored by Lord Kelvin (Kelvin scale) The book is quite illuminating, and in many ways gives a clearer understanding of heat engines than modern texts. My thinking would be to upload it, and credit www.archive.org as the source.

I believe A) is within guidelines as copyrights are clearly expired. I find (for B) no posted way of uploading PDF, although perhaps the image upload may accept it.

As you may guess, I have not yet contributed wiki articles, although I have offered a few errata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William A. Kelley (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite sources, even out of print ones, by uploading scans - that would almost certainly be a copyright infringement. You should use the {{Cite book}} template, completing as many of the parameters (see Template:Cite book for the full list). Then anyone who wishes to, has enough details to locate the book in a library and verify that it supports the material for which it is being cited.--ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that we don't upload scan of out of print works, but in the case in point that is not because of copyright. The works to which the OP refers were published in the nineteenth century and are in public domain. Other than that, I concur with the advice of User:Ukexpat. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility - the source does not have to be on line accessible (and someone's scans would not be any "better" verification as it is trivially easy to create a fake book and scan that) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also caution about making observations/commentary based on the primary sources rather than what current third party scholarship is actually saying about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: red pen- I'm uncertain what relevance forgeries have. One could make paper from electronic or vice versa, one could checkout an original and check in a forgery, so finding it in an actual library is insignificant to the sufficiently paranoid. William A. Kelley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) re: How, when every source points to this book as the source of Carnot's work (It is in fact Sadi Carnot's only published work), could third party scholarship have superior knowledge of what the book says or what Carnot said? I am really not following your comments. So citing the original source is inferior to citing the other peoples opinions of what the source might have said that were passed from person to person over 150 years?William A. Kelley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am glad I asked. While copyrights have limited time, just as patents do, I want to stay inside the policy not just the law.William A. Kelley (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC) This is not just out of print. Everyone who wrote it died over a hundred years ago.[reply]

According to Wikipedia Term of protection[edit] Previous copyright law set the duration of copyright protection at twenty-eight years with a possibility of a twenty-eight year extension, for a total maximum term of fifty-six years. The 1976 Act, however, substantially increased the term of protection. Section 302 of the Act extended protection to "a term consisting of the life of the author and 50 years after the author's death."[6] In addition, the Act created a static seventy-five-year term (dated from the date of publication) for anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire. The extension term for works copyrighted before 1978 that had not already entered the public domain was increased from twenty-eight years to forty-seven years, giving a total term of seventy-five years. In 1998 the Copyright Term Extension Act further extended copyright protection to the duration of the author's life plus seventy years for general copyrights and to ninety-five years for works made for hire and works copyrighted before 1978.

So the copyright ended some time before 1950, as both the authors died before 1900. It is definitely not a copyright law infringement. (I wrote this before the previous post. I agree it is public domain)

So, follow up of A), if the policy is never to show a scan even for non-copyrighted material, public domain material, are quotations allowed? Cited of course? Follow up on part B) The last publication of the book was around 1890, which was why I asked the upload question. It is not possible to locate in the library, except for a very rare book library. So it is unavailable to almost everyone except the electronic version.

And although one can point to a site that has it, it is somewhat clumsy and certainly not standardized as to how to reference it. I could place a copy on another web site, then a URL, but that seems odd, even though pointing to www.archive.org is basically that.

I came across this dilemma myself, when I first tried to follow this reference. It took me several days of searching to find anything but really fragmented text copies with all illustrations missing. Surely there is a better way to do this? (Because the book is not just out of print, its long past being in any libraries us mere mortals have access to.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by William A. Kelley (talk • contribs)

All I can do is reiterate the advice to use the {{Cite book}} template and not worry about uploading scans. If these book are available on Google Books, I think the template has a parameter for adding the URL.--ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do my best. William A. Kelley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) And yes, it is in google books! Thanks for the suggestion!William A. Kelley (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I think this satisfies my concerns about quoting an unimpeachable source.[reply]

If Carnot's book supports statements in the Wikipedia article, then use {{cite book}} to cite the scan at Internt Archive (archive.org). For |url= include the url for the appropriate page at archive.org. For example, assume that the fact that you want to cite is on page 57 of that scan, then do this:

{{cite book |first=N.-L.-S. |authorlink=Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot |last=Carnot |title=Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat |editor-first=R. H. |editor-last=Thurston |page=57 |url=https://archive.org/stream/reflectionsonmot00carnrich#page/56/mode/2up |date=1897 |location=New York |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |via=[[Internet Archive]]}}

Which renders like this:

Carnot, N.-L.-S. (1897). Thurston, R. H. (ed.). Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat. New York: John Wiley & Sons. p. 57 – via Internet Archive.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked Wikisource, Carnot's book is not available there. I think such an historically significant work ought to be uploaded. (Sometimes we forget that Wikipedia is only one part of a whole family of interrelated wikis, we should use them more.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point Roger (Dodger67).--ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

Hi I need help with the references for Walking With Our Sisters, the message I receive is that the reference name :0 was invoked but never defined. So I don't understand how to fix this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amay542 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing_sources explains how to cite sources in an article. Help:Referencing_for_beginners does the same, and is easier to understand.

I see that the article appears to be a copyright violation of this page, and have tagged it accordingly. You may be able to deal with the copyright violation by re-writing the article in your own words. Maproom (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Format

Where can I find an example outline of the format to write an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc2015 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article wizard which is part of the articles for creation process. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-setting Password Help

I would like to get back into editing articles on Wikipedia, but have long since forgotten my password. On several occasions, I've tried using the "Forgot your password" link on the login screen. I've tried entering my Username, email address or both. I've never received a password reset email.

Advice? Ideas?

Thank you, Randy

BTW, my user page is still up (User:Rocketmaniac) 65.130.196.16 (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the spam folder for your email? Is the email account that you were using in 2013 the one that you are still using? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert.... Yes and Yes. This is why its so puzzling. 65.130.196.16 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently registered an account at Wikimedia UK, and did not receive the verification email until I'd added that domain to the "safe senders" list of my hotmail account. Wikipedia password reminder emails are sent by "wiki@wikimedia.org", so you could try adding that as a trusted sender. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The account was created in October 2006. Did you have the same email address back then, or have you received mail for your Wikipedia account at your current email address? For privacy reasons Special:PasswordReset does not reveal whether an entered email address belongs to an account. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, as far as I know, Wikipedia is among the "trusted" emails

PrimeHunter, Yes, Oct 2006 sounds about right for the creation date. I can't remember what my email was then and if I received any emails after the creation date. This could explain the trouble.

So, if this is the issue..... what is the solution?

65.130.196.16 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some websites allow users to retrieve lost passwords online using "secret questions". However I don't believe Wikipedia is one of those websites(?) Ottawahitech (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a "secret questions" feature. We cannot see when an email address was stored in the account or whether it has been changed since then. We can only see the account was created 22 October 2006.[2]. If an old email address is stored and you can no longer retrieve mails sent to that address then you cannot get access to the account without remembering the password. Passwords never expire. You can create a new account and mention on the user pages that it is the same person. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter. I now remember the old email address. LOL, but it was closed down by my ex-wife when she changed internet providors. So, I will now create a new account and start over.

Thanks for everyone's help. 65.130.196.16 (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am i doing the fixes wrong??

I'm going on few pages fixing the broken links and reference, and i notice my points in the contributions are negative am i doing the changes wrong? the all idea for me to volunteer here is to help and fix so if I'm doing it wrong i hope i can be guided. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDonly (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not points. That is a counter, showing whether the article is net longer or shorter and by how many characters. So if you correct "doug" to "dog", it will show -1, because the article is now one character shorter. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so, same applies to watchlists, see WP:+/-.

Smashburger Wikipedia Page

Hi there,

My name is Christine Ferris, I am the PR & Marketing Manager at Smashburger. I came across our Wikipedia page yesterday and found that much of our content that had previously been on the page had been deleted. The page also contains information that is incorrect and out of date. So, I created a username and password in order to log in and make changes. I tried to use the username "Smashburger" but someone had already created that user name and I was unable to do that. So, I created a username called CCPSmash. I went into the page and made edits (all that were factual, nothing was plagiarized) and it has just been removed. I received the below message. "Hello CCPSmash, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Smashburger has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here."

Can someone please let me know why we are not able to write long content about our own brand, a brand that WE own copyrights to? And how we can immediately get this updated to include the right content?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCPSmash (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christine. Please read WP:ORGFAQ, and understand that a Wikipedia article is required to be a neutrally-written summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject. If your company meets Wikipedia's requirements of notability (which it probably does) then we can have an article on it. You do not have any more control over this article than any other of our thousands of editors; and in fact because of your conflict of interest you are strongly discouraged from editing the article at all: you may request edits to the article on its talk page, but they should be carried out by people uninvolved in the company. The text from your website would be permitted from a copyright point of view only if you irrevocably licensed it for any use by anybody (see donating copyright materials) but it is very unlikely that much of it would be appropriate to a Wikipedia article, since your website is for promotional purposes, and Wikipedia forbids promotion of any kind. --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]