Help desk
< April 24	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 26 >

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.

April 25

Empty sections with subsections

Is it a concern based on the Manual of Style or anything else to have a section that has no content, but has multiple subsections with content? Specifically, with Falcon 9 ocean booster landing tests, a page I've converted from a redirect, the article has 3 sections in a row with no content, just layers of subsections (Test flights -> Ocean water descent tests -> Falcon 9 flight 6). Is that a problem? If so, how should it be resolved in that article?

Thanks for the assistance! Appable (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem, plenty of articles have sections without content between a section header and the first sub-section. See Exoplanet, Foreign relations of the Holy See and Munich for a few random examples (although the latter does have "main article” links in those spots). Using the subsections to group things is common, and if there's nothing to say that the (sub)section heading doesn't say, why add something redundant? Ultimately the goal is clarity and a coherent organization. I don't see that "Test flights" or "Sport" (in Munich) really are lacking anything or need to be expanded upon. Rwessel (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter, look up a few lines and note the lack of anything between the April 25 and the start of this section. Rwessel (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subsections are the main section's content. What we should avoid is a main section that contains only one subsection, because then nothing is actually being subsectioned. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to insert pictures at wikipedia's page?

Hey guys I am from the country of mt. everest and lord buddha i.e. Nepal. I am a new user at wikipedia and has about 50 edits but i am confused to insert images at pages.. So, would't you mind to help me for knowing the processes of uploading a picture???--Thitojhapali (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Scarce2 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you weren't hurt by the earthquake. --87.123.139.168 (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for article about my father

good afternoon i have made a page about my father mhd adnan utayim , and you want references and i dont have ,and i was notified that the page will be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhd hamza utayim (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhd hamza utayim: In order for a subject to qualify for a stand alone article, the subject must meet certain sourcing requirements. Without those sourcing requirements being brought forth, the page will likely be deleted - you need take no further action nor will a single instance have any impact. *

Another issue to consider is that you have a conflict of interest in writing about your father. Please follow the guidelines for people writing about such topics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*on the other hand, repeatedly creating/recreating articles about subjects that fail the criteria would demonstrate that an editor is not here to be productive contributor to the encyclopedia and may may lead to restrictions or block from editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above remarks, I'd like to say that articles furthermore require notability. In other words, what makes your father notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia page? Has he been recognized at a national level? Is he an important figure in your society? Is he important enough to be searched for on Google by people who don't know him? Of course, it's more than just that, but those are just some examples. Your father is obviously important to you, and probably important to many people. He may be a great man, and did things you and others admire or find noteworthy.

As an encyclopedia, however, we seek to accumulate the world's knowledge about all notable people, places, events, and things in humanity. There are a lot of things Wikipedia is not. If you think your father deserves an article of his own, and he meets the criteria for a valid article, then you'll need to substantiate it with reliable sources and relevant information about him that makes him notable. If you can't, then however great a person your father may be, an article about him is probably not what's best for Wikipedia or its readers. I hope you understand. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the purpose of the help desk? Who manages it?

I was stumbling over the Wikipedia help desk and noticed the following issues:

consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#sound_card: Why does it take more than one day to remove such a question which is obviously no contribution for anything? Who monitors new questions? Who triages them? How can I contribute to removal of such questions?
Topics on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing are completely unsorted and chances to attract authors who write quality answers are therefore low. How are questions sorted and displayed in a readable format (all on one page is obviously not very useful)? How can I contribute?
There's almost no question on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing which isn't a reference to an already answered question in article. How manages duplicates?
Almost half of the questions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing don't show any research effort. How refuses low quality questions?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgh (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that the Reference Desks (not help desk, which is this page) are not managed or controlled by any person or group, but by the entire community, with rules and guidelines that provide a wide range of discretion. This is by design and part of Wikipedia principles and culture. The inevitable result is that things are often "messy", and seem wrong to people who are used to more structure and control in a website. For longer answers, you can wait for more responses here, or you can become autoconfirmed and ask these questions at WT:RD. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster can ask these questions at the Reference Desk talk page now. The Reference Desk talk page isn't currently semi-protected. Making a few more edits to get autoconfirmed is good advice to the original poster in general, in order to be able to edit other semi-protected pages, but the semi-protection of the Reference Desks and their talk page has expired. Questions about how the Reference Desks are managed are what the Reference Desk talk page is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As for the first of your questions, the question about the sound cards is asking for an opinion. That, as clearly stated at the top of the RD pages, is not the purpose of the reference desks. That is likely why it has gone unanswered.

The questions on all the desks are archived, so there is no need to remove them. The original poster (OP) might come back after the archive date and then go searching in the archives for their question. It's more helpful if they find that it was not answered than to not find it at all and wonder where it went.

I don't see the correlation between having topics sorted and the quality of answers. I've received many quality answers from the desks, as I'm sure many other people have as well, without sorting necessary. And the archives are searchable.

And lastly, why concentrate on the Computing desk only? The points that you bring up apply to all the desks. Dismas|^(talk) 15:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to Dismas's last question is probably simply that that is the Reference Desk that the OP was looking at. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malwarebytes

In regards to Malwarebytes, it has no meaningful support. No phone number, nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.238.154 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article's infobox contains a link to their website, www.malwarebytes.org, which provides support information. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misconstruing the purpose of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article about Mawarebytes with a Malwarebytes help and support page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of subsections

The subsections of a talk page section often reach archive age at different times. Do any of the archive bots ever archive a subsection separately from the rest of its section? It seems clearly undesirable, therefore unlikely, but I need to be sure. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: No, I'm pretty sure they work by looking for level two headings, never level three or greater. The only exception I can think of is this Help Desk and the Reference Desks, where a different bot is looking for level one date headers. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen a level three subsection of a thread get archived without the level two section. You could check the user page for the bot or ask the bot maintainer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of an inappropriate and inaccurate article

NAC: Closing discussion that is not about how to edit or use Wikipedia. Read the dispute resolution policy, and either follow one of the content dispute resolution procedures, take a conduct dispute to WP:ANI, or give the issue a vacation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2015 (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.

The page on The Steve and DC Show WAS inaccurate and misleading as well and is VERY damaging to my professional life. I'm not going to tolerate it. This article is supposed to be about the radio entertainment programs that I have hosted. The radio programs were and are successful. The facts about the SHOWS are now available in the article and I want it to stay that way, as I have had prospective employers inform me about things on Wikipedia about me that have caused the employer to recind the offer to me. The most recent was a major radio group in Chicago, Illinois (the 3rd largest radio market in America) that offered a contract to work for a radio station in the Chicago market and the Wikipedia information caused a stir and ultimately the decision was made to not risk it, in the event that the personal information about me on Wikipedia was true and could be a subject of an article in the Chicago Sun Times by Robert Feder, who was in the process of writing a story about the radio station bringing me on board. I'm not going to continue to ignore the false information. The article is accurate now. I want to keep it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.215.194 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please lease read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Secondly, please note that Wikipedia in an encyclopaedia, and not a means of promotion. I can see little that could be perceived as objectionable in the article as it was before your edits, and you have failed to tell us what the problem was. I suggest that you do as our conflict of interest guidelines require, and discuss issues with the article on the article talk page. If you persist in editing the manner you have been, you are liable to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about you read WP:BLP Andy. I mean gee whiz: "had prospective employers inform me about things on Wikipedia about me that have caused the employer to rescind the offer to me"... "the Wikipedia information caused a stir and ultimately the decision was made to not risk it, in the event that the personal information about me on Wikipedia was true and could be a subject of an article in the Chicago Sun Times"... I mean holy shit.

Right? Is "holy shit" a reasonable take on this? Isn't that kind of a bad outcome for a Wikipedia article? Like, the subject losing his job and stuff?

So let's look at this. Well, the OP removed three links (and, presumably by mistake, two categories also -- he's not an experienced Wikipedian after all, is a regular human being who is freaking the fuck out so let's cut him some slack). One of the links (this one]) seems anodyne, One doesn't work but going by its intended target its a St Louis Journalism Review article, which the St Louis Journalism Review is good source I suppose and the article is gossipy and certainly unflattering but not libelous... the third is a blogspot.com page which says some really really terrible, destructive, and potentially libelous stuff. (I'm not going to repeat the links or the material.)

Did the Wikipedia article really cost the subject the job offer or would the prospective employer have found the page anyway? If the prospective employer had found the page, would he have shrugged it off as being too obscure to worry about since it was just some blog and not a line item in an article in Wikipedia, the world's most popular encyclopedia and one of the world's top-ten web sites (in terms of views).

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Do you know? Are you sure your know? If you don't, are you willing to take that chance with this guy's life?

Do we really want to be using the Wikipedia to amplify, magnify, and broadcast what some random person with a bug up his ass wants to write on his blogspot.com page about somebody?

I would say "no".

This is supposed to be help page, Andy. Not the unhelp page. Not the fuck you page or the go pound sand coz we don't give a rats ass a'bout you and your stupid career page. OK? Is that something you can "get" with a little bit of thought and effort. If not, could I invite you to contribute at some other page, Andy?

The page is OK now. After the OP removed the highly objectionable material (which was added to the article in 2012 by User:Jihadcola), User:Bamyers99 decided to restore it. Yay Baymers. The OP, his head by now presumably exploding, removed it again and also made a bunch of edits which granted are overly promotional and stuff (remember, he's not an experienced Wikipedian, just someone who is, you know, trying to save his career and all) and removed the {{reflist}} by accident and so forth. User:Mlpearc restored it all, including the highly objectionable material. Yay Mlpearc. The OP -- I imagine his hair was actually on fire by now -- redacted that, and AndyTheGrump restored it again. Yay Andy. I'm not going to go through every edit, but after a while User:Theroadislong removed the link from External Links and tho it stayed in the refs for a while it's gone now.

This was a clusterfuck. This is horrible. This cost some dude his job, or at least he believes that and, apparently, with reasonable justification. And our response is "Firstly, please read such and such, then fuck off"? I just literally want to reach through the screen and throttle the whole heathen lot of you. Herostratus (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who should have known better were restoring a link to a blog. I understand the anger. Maproom (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simple facts of the matter here are that the IP repeatedly replaced the article entirely - with unsourced promotion. Yes, we eventually figured out what the issues were, with no real help from the IP. The statement that "The page on The Steve and DC Show WAS inaccurate and misleading", and the claim that "things on Wikipedia" contained damaging material was highly confusing. There was nothing in the article itself which could be seen as remotely harmful to anyone, and I repeatedly asked the IP to stop edit-warring his unsourced promotional material into the article, and to explain what the issues were. Instead, we got abuse, confusing and contradictory claims about who the IP was, and at one point, a legal threat. If it was a 'clusterfuck', this was almost entirely due to the IP's refusal to communicate, and his insistence that his unsourced promotional version of the article take the place of the existing one. A simple indication that the existing sources were the issue rather than the content itself would have saved us all a great deal of wasted time. And no my post above does not say "please read such and such, then fuck off". It is a perfectly reasonable request for dialog with someone with a COI who appeared to be edit-warring promotional material into the article. Certainly with hindsight this could have been handled better, but I'm not a fucking mindreader, and if people won't explain what the problem is, it isn't surprising that it takes time to figure it all out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I looked at the text and didn't see anything and I never would have figured out it was about the sources. RJFJR (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump:: ENHHHHHHHHHHH. Wrong answer. Look, I understand you (and the other editors) made a mistake. We all make mistakes. We're human! God knows I've made mistakes. When I went to person's talk page and abjectly apologized on behalf of the Wikipedia (which is your job, but whatever), I explained that things happen fast here, we are busy, we don't have time to analyze each situation properly, and we make errors.

However, your answer seems to be "All I have is a hammer and all I see is nails, and I have no intention of changing." You need to learn from this. If you won't learn from this or can't you need to be helping out in some other way. Herostratus (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2015 (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.