Wikipedia:Help desk

Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)

• For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
• Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
• Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
• For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
• New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners.

Ask a question

July 8

Tried but failed to move a template

In this edit, I attempted to move a talk header template on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. However, as you can see by checking the before and after oldids, the only changes were that the box became a couple of pixels wider and a few pixels closer to the top of the screen. Why didn't my edit cause it to go on top? Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I futzed with it. If what I did isn't what you want, revert it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Firefox and script errors

Hi. Recently I get a lot of script errors in Firefox when browsing, editing, or comparing diffs (Non-responsive script error). That makes Wikipedia browsing slow. I use Firefox 21. This error appeared one week ago and still occurs. How to fix it? Thanks. Zyma (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your issue is likely caused by VisualEditor. Report your problem to them and try disabling it by going to Preferences, then Gadgets, then checking the first box under Editing. I hope this helps.  drewmunn  talk  06:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, this issue is caused by the Universal Language Selector, and it is a known issue. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it solved or not? Is using an alternative browser like Chrome helpful? Zyma (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled VisualEditor. Cleared my browser's cache and installed new version of Firefox (22.0). But the errors occur again. Also I've checked VE talk page. Some users reported similar problems (slow browsing and unresponsive script warning when browsing with Firefox). Zyma (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiding VisualEditor will not help, because the problem is with an unrelated extension called "Universal Language Selector". ULS is the thing that puts a gear-shaped tool in the sidebar next to "Languages". There is no point in turning off VisualEditor: it won't solve this unrelated problem. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF) and TheDJ, you are right. The problem is not related to VE. I changed my browser to Chrome and started Wikipedia browsing with VE and without VE. It works well. But with Firefox, the error happens with VE and without VE. Zyma (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the error messages (script address)

Script: [1]. Zyma (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Solved.. By using Google Chrome. Zyma (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor

Is the Visual Editor supposed to be available for all skins? I use Cologne Blue, and nothing changed for me last week. The "Remove VE" option is not ticked in my preferences. Thanks. Rojomoke (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that only Monobook and Vector are supported - see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 06#Skins. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Grievance against title upon searching 'Ishrat Jahan'

Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

If I goole 'Ishrat Jahan' it takes me to the 'Ishrat Jahan Fake Encounter Case'. I have serious reservation against Wikipedia putting this case as fake encounter. It is not confirmed by the highest court in India whether this case was indeed a fake encounter. So I would urge you to omit the word fake. What is going to be your position in case the courts fail to prove that the case was a fake encounter. Until that is proved, we can go with the assumption that the encounter was genuine.

Thanks, Reader

Hi there. This sort of thing should be discussed at the article's talk page, as that is where editors with expertise in this subject will be reading. Thanks — Richard BB 09:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The order in which articles appear when using search engines is not something Wikipedia can help you with. You would need to contact Google themselves. CaptRik (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of those not familiar with the terminology see Encounter killings by police: "An encounter is a euphemism used in South Asia, especially in India, to describe extrajudicial killings in which police or armed forces shoot down suspected gangsters and terrorists in gun battles". Ishrat Jahan was one of four people whom were killed in what has been claimed to be such an 'encounter' possibly fabricated by the police, in June 2004. As for the actual circumstances of the case, it will need someone with better skills than me to make sense of the complexities of it all, with arrests of police officers, convictions, allegations of links to terrorist organisations, allegations that the allegations of links to terrorists are based on fabrication, and who knows what else. The article title probably needs changing, for clarity as much as neutrality, and the whole article could do with a rewrite to try and make some sense of it all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting fact about "encounter". I wonder aloud why we are entertaining euphemisms instead of calling it the Ishrat Jahan killing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The title is discussed at Talk:Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case#Requested move to eliminate word "Fake" till judicial verdict. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Late" individual

The use of the word "late" (i.e. dead) is particularly common in articles about people and places in the Indian subcontinent, where it is a form of honorific prefix.
I thought there was a specific guideline against the use of it, but WP:HONORIFIC only deprecates the use of honorifics relating to title, position or activity, especially in relation to clergy and royalty.
Is there another guideline, that I have missed? does it come under "Honorifics" by inference? or is it an acceptable use?
Arjayay (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I found this - WP:MOSIN which says that honorifics should not be used in the article body, or in the name. Does that help? CaptRik (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - but I'm sure I've seen a specific reference to "Late" somewhere. Arjayay (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:EUPHEMISM?--ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I've consulted various style guides but they don't have much to say about the use of "late". You might try bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've raised the question on your behalf at: MOS:BIO. I think it's useful to get clarification on this, and since MOS:BIO hosts the honorifics shortcut, I thought it reasonable to ask on the Talk Page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

How on earth do I edit a citation?

I'm struggling to edit a citation - so to take it from a cited web-source to properly citing the names, dates etc of the supportive document. WLunnR (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You might want to consider using a citation template to format the citations, see Wikipedia:Citation templates. You can simply place them between <ref> tags to make a footnote like this:

<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = | archiveurl = | archivedate = }}</ref>

You can paste the blank code from the page I linked. Then all you have to do is fill in the values for the parameters like this:

<ref>{{Citation | last = Cahalan | first = Paul | last2 = Owen | first2 = Jonathan | title = Terror in Woolich: Internet is the vital frontline in a war against extremism | series = The Independent | year = 2013 | month= May }}</ref>

-- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you used the Edit tab at the top of the article. If you click this, you will be using the VisualEditor. In that case, you can simply click on the little number like [6] and click on the little icon that appears. Then you can make the changes you like to the citation. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

christianity

Smith Wigglesworth's biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.159.83 (talk • contribs)

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

Hello - Did you need some help with something? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Standort

Sirs, If I geotag a photo when I upload it to wikipedia I can add location. If I try to add the location later I often run into difficulties. I have just tried to add ((Location dec |+++++++|+++++++)) to an image and it did not work.

Sometimes ((location possible)) works but more often than not it does not

What am I doing wrong?

Dr John Studley— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorjaynima (talk • contribs)

Your image uploads seem to be at commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Object_location_dec may help or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas O'Toole.

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.

---

Hello.

I have written an Article that merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but I am told the subject, a person, is not properly noteworthy. I understand the wish for secondary source references, but those just don't exist for most newspaper reporters, whose job it was to be invisible as they report their stories. Thomas O'Toole wrote over 2500 articles for The Washington Post over 20 years, after writing first for The Cape Cod Standard Times, The Wall St. Journal, TIME magazine and The New York Times. He wrote a major book forecasting the future with Marvin Cetron, which didn't become a best-seller only because John Naisbitt's Megatrends scooped it by a month and was lavishly promoted. Thomas O'Toole's desk was photographed and reproduced for the set of All The President's Men. He was THE contact person in Washington for NASA over most of his 20 years at The Post. A google search reveals how one article written by Thomas O'Toole in 1983 (Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered) was taken by the conspiracy community and paraded across the internet as a chink in the armor of cover-up of a Planet-X story. Some people would like to see his memory rescued from such false history. Can someone help me edit the article properly and move it forward? Thank you.

Here's the piece as it stands:

Collapsing draft text

Thomas O'Toole was a science reporter and editor at The Washington Post from 1966 to 1987. His main subject was the space program, in particular the Apollo program to land men on the moon. He extensively covered Skylab, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program, the Grand Tour probes to Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, and the space shuttle program. O'Toole wrote many articles on energy, including the burgeoning nuclear power industry in America. He also covered significant espionage stories, from Cold War subjects to Watergate and the hunt for Nazi figures hiding in America and elsewhere after World War 2. O'Toole was born in 1931 in Jersey City and he attended high school and college at St. Peter's Prep (Hoboken) and St. Peter's College (Jersey City). After doing military service in France, he earned his graduate journalism degree from Boston University and then worked at The Cape Cod Standard Times in Hyannis, reporting on the Andrea Doria ocean liner sinking of 1956. O'Toole returned to New York City, finding work with The Wall St. Journal (1957-61), TIME magazine, and The New York Times (1965-66). He was a partner in the 1962 aerospace and culture magazine USA1, which published five issues before folding. He married Vitaline O'Connell, of Hartford, in 1958 and they had four children. In the summer of 1966, Howard Simons and Ben Bradlee of The Washington Post hired Tom O'Toole as The Post was growing into a paper of national prominence. O'Toole immediately began covering the Lunar Orbiter program from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. From there, his work covered every imaginable aspect of the space program. His articles were frequently featured on the front page of the paper. O'Toole was twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize and he was awarded the National Space Club Press Award in 1970. Around 1980, O'Toole was invited to work with Marvin Cetron on Cetron's first book about the future, titled Encounters with the Future. Cetron and O'Toole were both contributors to OMNI magazine, which collected some of the best science news and writing of the time. Cetron's sweeping predictions, largely gained from his insider position at the Navy Advanced Research Laboratory, were put into context and prose by O'Toole, who brought his own working knowledge of science to the project. The book was published by McGraw-Hill in 1982. O'Toole continued to cover space and energy, among other subjects, for The Washington Post. He visited Three Mile Island during the 1979 crisis at the Pennsylvania nuclear facility. He detailed the space shuttle program from its infancy, although he was in Pasadena covering deep space probe Voyager's encounter with Uranus when the shuttle Challenger blew up in January of 1986. O'Toole worked for several years at public relations firm Powell-Tate in Washington. He was also an early editor and contributor to space.com. He married a second time, to Mary-Kate Cranston of Washington. They had one child. Tom O'Toole died in 2003 from complications from diabetes.

Owen Sinclair — Preceding unsigned comment added by cosmonaut61 (talk • contribs)

Draft is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas O'Toole. I see you have asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk which is the appropriate place to deal with your request for help.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

New User: Page Edit Suggestion on Sign-up Needs Work

Created a new account on Wikipedia and was offered option of editing an article 'for clarity'(assume this is not a 'live' article). In addition to the editing for clarity, the article needs research. Ex: Date of birth provided spanned a period of 53-years. Does one just ignore the research question, if he/she has offered to edit for clarity? May I do both - in my spare time?

Thank you, Shannon M. Kulik

It looks like an error in the article http://www.library.yale.edu/MapColl/oldsite/map/globes.html has him dying in 1773 not possibly born then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to create links on page about me - Michael Berk

I edited the article about me to create a factual, accurate page. I tried using the double brackets [[ ]] to create links on certain words or titles like Baywatch or Thunder in Paradise, but when I save the edit, the brackets were still there and no links. What am I doing wrong? Also, can pictures be added to the article? If so, how? Thanks you Michael Berk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Jerome Berk (talk • contribs) — Michael Jerome Berk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is a prime example of the reason why people are discouraged from editing articles about themselves. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. The material you added is full of glowing adjectives that don't belong in an encyclopedia article. I have reverted it back to the earlier version. If there is material you feel is missing, I suggest that you present it on the article's talk page (Talk:Michael Berk), so that other editors can take a look at it.

Regarding the question that brought you here, you made your edits using the "Visual Editor", a new editing method that was only introduced a few days ago, in hopes of making things easier for new editors by not requiring them to know all the arcane wiki-symbols. The Visual Editor has a different way of creating links -- you do it by selecting some text and clicking on the icon at the top that looks like a chain. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• No disrespect, Mr. Berk, but you kinda took it over the top there a little bit, and by a little, I mean a lot.  :) Wikipedia isn't a resume, it's an encyclopedia. So as awesome as your career has been, the reporting of it here has to be balanced, has to take a neutral point of view, has to be backed by references, and has to sound like an encyclopedia. Industry specific jargon such as "the highest rated MOW of the year building to a 52 share over three hours" should be avoided, as should completely subjective phrases such as: "The warm and moving prime time series", as should folksy expressions such as, "the rest, as they say, is history." I agree with Looie496's suggestion that you issue your edit requests on the talk page, and my strong supporting suggestion would be to provide reliable sources along with your request, to make the job of prospective editors easier, otherwise, you're gonna get a lot of declined edit requests. Also, not every award you've won will be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Not trying to step on your achievements, just giving you a heads-up. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if someone round here doesn't like to be given advice. He's just reverted my removal of his promotional spam (yes, Looie496, the history seems to show me making that edit, not you - weird?). So what's the next step? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the earlier version. What happened (to explain) is that you and I both did an "undo" at nearly the same time. When that happens, the server doesn't show an edit conflict, instead it just acts as though the edit was accepted. So without looking at the history I had no indication that you beat me to it. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I guessed as much; but was perplexed that neither of us saw an edit conflict. I don't think that has happened to me before. Thanks for doing the revert and placing the additional warning. I was looking for a level 2 uw-coi template when you did so. I didn't find it. Is there one? Should there be one? I'd hoped to find something like "please don't do it again; if you do, you risk being blocked", that is, pretty much what you said in your own words. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Man, tried to use smileys and everything. I'm sure you guys also noticed that User:Michael Jerome Berk and User:Bayberk have edited this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You only get an edit conflict when the two simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) edits are different. When you agree, there is no conflict. Maproom (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Two BLP's about the same athlete

• David Grayson (American football)
• Dave Grayson

What are the steps to remove the least informative of the two? ```Buster Seven Talk 22:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

They don't seem to be the same athlete, as they were not born on the same day. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The names need revising, as they were both American Football players, but they are definitely two different people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

um, in the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind!". I saw the Lincoln HS part and jumped to a conclusion. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd venture to say the one could actually be the son of the other. We'd need to find reliable sources to make that connection before injecting it in either article, but I notice one was born in the 1930s and the other, named Jr., was born in the 60s, and both were American football players. For now, our best course of action may be to simply move David Grayson (American football) to David Grayson, Jr. (and then look up some reliable sources to help these articles out a bit). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. A quick search didn't seem to find anything, but someone more familiar with hand-egg might do better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I would bet at odds of 100 to 1 that they're father and son. David Lee Grayson born in San Diego, and David Lee Grayson, Jr. born in San Diego 25 years later. But we do need a source, unfortunately. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That assumes that 'born in San Diego' is actually correct for both, and someone hasn't added the place of birth to the wrong article. Actually, the same goes for 'Lincoln High' too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any move history for the article. Anyone see any harm in boldly moving David Grayson (American football) to David Grayson, Jr.? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd have though it would be better to move them both - to Dave Grayson (American football, born 1939) and David Grayson (American football, born 1964). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I could go either way on it, but I thought moving to , Jr. was an elegant solution. It's no more precise than necessary and employs natural disambiguation. Are we even certain about those birth dates? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Football-Refernence seems to confirm they are separate players, though not (as yet) father and son. It would be a reasonable inference, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not built on inferences but references. Pro-Football-Reference also confirms that the younger one is David Lee Grayson, Jr. while the older one is merely David Lee Grayson. --Jayron32 03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. The Pro Football Hall of Fame maintains a database of fathers and sons who have played NFL football. They confirm that These two are father and son. --Jayron32 03:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As usual, the whirlwind of activity that a simple question asked at the help desk creates is always impressive. A moment ago, I left a request at the Lincoln H.S. article talk page asking if, perhaps, someone affiliated with the school might know. I had no idea that you fine editors were still working on my original request which has led to better information for our reader. Thank you all. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 9

Italics in title

Hi, regarding the article Nintendo Network, the article's title is in italics. Other aricles such as Xbox Live that use the same infobox template don't have italicised titles, and Nintendo Network doesn't seem to have {{italictitle}} written in it. I was wondering how this situation could be solved, because the article shouldn't be in italics per WP:ITALIC, see the talk page. I also tried previewing using the Template:DISPLAYTITLE, but that didn't seem to work. I'm probably missing something obvious here, but your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, DarkToonLink (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't blame you a bit for not finding the issue. It was a template much farther down in the article, and it took me a while to find it. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! DarkToonLink (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you guys familiar with your browsers' find function? I ask because it would find something like this in about one second (by hitting ctrl+f oder ⌘ Cmd+f on a mac, and searching for italic), and I recently learned that apparently about 90% of people are unfamiliar with it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a good place to start! But when the italic setting is hidden, then put {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} }} near page end. -Wikid77 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I did try searching the page, but didn't find the italics template there, as I noted in my original request. I also tried the DISPLAYTITLE template, but was unable to use it properly. Thanks, DarkToonLink (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• In general put {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} }} near end: The prior comment gives good advice to search for "italic" just in case there is a parameter to set italics to none. However, when the cause of the italic-mode is unknown, then the sure-fire fix is to put {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{PAGENAME}} }} near the bottom of the page, such as after "==See also==" when other templates try to force the italic title in the upper text of a page. Using DISPLAYTITLE requires the exact pagename to be specified; otherwise it will leave the former italic title in place. -Wikid77 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I started by using the find feature (using Firefox on my Mac if anyone cares), looking for italic, but I ended up resorting to a manual scan of the page for infoboxes and other templates, since there are quite a few of these that can cause the title to display in italics. It turns out in this case {{Infobox television}} was the culprit, and it was quite a ways down in this very large article. I'd say searching for italic oder display using the find feature is normally good advice (title would hit on every citation in the article), but it doesn't always find you what you're looking for. If not, try finding infobox. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a disconnect between my post and what happened, because of my error. When I glanced at the diff of your fix, obviously too quickly, I saw "italic" (in "italic_title = no") and so thought "they should have (and must not have) used find", but of course I reversed it; your change was to add that, not modify something with italic in it that preexisted and was the culprit. My post was based on this misunderstanding. Sorry bout that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that's ok. But yeah, it was the absence of that italic field that led to me not really knowing what to do. Thanks, DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 23:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

BRICK WALL

I understand that Wikipedia has strict protocols to verify articles. However, not accepting conclusions from original research and investigation as references exclude reference to ALL knowledge. We accept that Capt. Cook discovered Australia by reference to a Log Book. We accept that the USSR sent a dog into space from their report and a few grainy film strips of a dog in a container. We accept that man first walked the Earth in Africa from research into bones. Yet Wikipedia will not accept conclusions from a Commonwealth of Australia, (Australian Army History Unit), professional 22-page investigation into verifiable, (alive today witnesses statements), from numbers of military officers signed off by the Australian Army's most senior officer, The Chief of the Army. Wikipedia calls for increased patronage of its publication yet discourages this by requiring participation only by those who have advanced computer skills, have knowledge of an editing language which require a pre-course of learning, (example HTML's), and then denies acceptability of a verifiable, provable, conclusive weight of evidence from unimpeachable sources, (commonly called fact). One can only conclude therefore that Wikipedia is more intent on insisting on its inflexible, bureaucratic standards than recording historical truth. So be it! Laurie nicholson (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Where was this investigation published? How can we verify what has not been published? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

" ...have knowledge of an editing language which require a pre-course of learning... ”

I should point out that WP:Visual Editor just launched, so you could try using that. DarkToonLink (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Laurie - I've had a look at your contribution here and can only guess that your concerns relate to the article Australian Army Training Team Vietnam. Am I right? I can't see where you have experienced rejection of an Army report as a suitable source. Can you elaborate a little please? HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Laurie. As per my responses to you here, here and here, if you can tell me how to find the report (for instance show me what web page it is on) I will help you include it in the article. There is no need for you to learn HTML etc. as I am offering to write the code for you, but I need you to provide me with the information to enable me to add it for you. If possible, please provide the following information relating to the report: author's name, date/year of publication, title of publication, publisher, location of publication, ISBN (if it has one), and the web page where it is uploaded (if it is available online). Please respond on my talk page, which you can find by clicking here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The log books of HMS_Endeavour, Sputnik_2 are themselves considered excellent primary sources, but neither are cited as reliable sources for the articles in question. The Soviet logs are unpublished and currently unverifiable, if they even still exist. The events described are included in Wikipedia because the general contents of both these sets of logs have been reported by external secondary sources, some of which are considered reliable. If the reports you are trying to cite haven't been published and aren't available to the outside world, its difficult to include them here. If they have been published (even obscurely) please provide us with ISBN or some equivalent identifier. If access is available through some other means, please describe how someone might gain access to the documents for verification.--R.S. Peale (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Joseph Snowden article

I don't begin to understand the intricacies of how you do things, nor do I wish to waste my time learning them.

I only wish to question the use (or mis-use) of a word. What you do with my question is your business.

In the Edward Joseph Snowden article, he is described as being a "former technical contractor".

How can that be? How can he be described as a "contractOR"? Whom did he hire?

Is he not a "contractEE"? Is he not a person others hired to do a job?

Since you don't want to know who I am, -----------— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.226 (talk • contribs)

It means he is an Independent contractor. RudolfRed (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What's with the denigration of our volunteer work, -----------? Geez. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick Answer - Guild of Copy Editors

Hello all,

I had a quick question for any of you who are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I find that the responses at the Guild of Copy Editors portal seem to be relatively delayed, so I was wondering if any of you could answer my question here --JustBerry (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Embarrassing Wikipedia edits

Is it possible to remove the embarrassing revision/edits? Especially if on an Ip address. I found some embarrassments from 2008-2009, and I would like to get them deleted. If possible, how? Note that I moved the house during that period, so the Ip might change.

Ps. I'm NOT very serious about it.--49.231.103.152 (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What's stopping you removing them yourself? Also, if you register as a Wikipedia user, all connection with your IP address disappears. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Edits can be hidden from the page history, but they won't be hidden just because they are "embarrassing". The valid reasons are given here and here. But I wouldn't worry about it - anyone reviewing old edits will know that IP addresses can change, and there is no reason to suppose that edits made in 2008/2009 are made by the same person using the IP address today. In any case, there are no other edits recorded for the IP address you have used when posting here. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

no. I mean that can an admin delete a revision in case I am embarrassed of my edits? I know this is a lame question and I'm not serious about it. I know that I already deleted them by myself or otherwise it has been reverted already, but is it possible to delete an OLD revision?--110.49.225.35 (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

John of Reading answered your question: Any admin could hide your edits, but no admin would do so just because you are embarrassed. —teb728 t c 08:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is my IP changed again?--110.49.225.35 (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your ISP, Super Broadband Network, is responsible for that. If you don't want to have a changing IP shown, register and login when you edit. —teb728 t c 08:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you had not asked this question there would have been no reason for anyone to look. See Streisand effect. Britmax (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How to know whether an article has been created without knowing the exact title?

I'm thinking of trying an article about that monkey, Darwin, who wore a coat outside an IKEA in Toronto. I think his story might have actual notability, not just a lot of attention.

Anyway, I've searched a few possible titles (Darwin the Monkey, IKEA monkey, 2012 IKEA monkey incident, others) to see if I could see "A page with this name has previously been deleted", but no dice. How else might I find out?

It seems unlikely that nobody tried, seeing how Googling "darwin monkey" gets me nothing about Charles Darwin in the first ten, everything about this fellow. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

It's a very good idea and i wish you much luck in it. I tried a quick Wikipedia search but even the IKEA article doesn't mention him. What about IKEA monkey? Seems the most obvious to me. Thanks and good luck ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ikea Monkey and IKEA Monkey were deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikea Monkey. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd tried "IKEA monkey" (lowercase). That AfD is exactly what I was looking for. There's been much more about him since then, including a high-profile custody battle. Worth a second shot. Is there a way to have an article undeleted, given the lasting significance that wasn't there yet? It'd be easier than starting from scratch. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Another option is to have an admin userfy the old version so that you can add to it in your user sandbox. Then move it out when it's ready. Dismas|^(talk) 04:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did. Worked perfectly. I've always wanted a sandbox with a monkey in it. I renamed him "Darwin (monkey)" and groomed him a bit. Wasn't in the best shape when he was deleted, but he'll be fattened up and ready to return to the Wikiwild in a day or two. Thanks, people! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

form F125-01 - Declaration for racial category

We have been asked by the Department of trade and industry to completed the above mentioned form. Please can you advise us of where can we download the form from

Kind regards Tinky

Sorry, this doesn't seem to be related to Wikipedia. As that's our area of expertise, we can't help you. Try asking the DoT.  drewmunn  talk  11:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Or at the Reference Desk.--ukexpat (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding a reference which is a hyperlink

I want to reference legislation which can be located via hyperlink, how do I do this without errors onscreen?

The page I am trying to edit is Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland. (COPNI)

Use the cite web template, and the information will appear correctly formatted. I hope this helps.  drewmunn  talk  11:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Notable People

I would like to add a very notable person from Lafayette,LA

They'd need to pass certain criteria, and we can't tell if they do without you telling us who they are!  drewmunn  talk  11:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BIO for the guidelines.--ukexpat (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm very confused about copyright

I can't work out if what I have done is right or wrong! I have put quotation marks and put all the references. I am very new to this! This page Highspiritswow (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's wrong. We don't accept articles made up from quotes, no matter how you present them. See WP:QUOTES for information on this; the odd quote may be necessary in a review section, for instance, but all of the content you've quote can be expressed in a less bias manner that does not infringe the copyright of the references' authors.  drewmunn  talk  11:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like an experienced editor has done some cleanup of the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Correcting template markup

Resolved

I created a template in my userspace at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:NFCC below TOO, which I modeled after {{File page NFCC concerns tag}}. It doesn't display correctly, probably because I missed some curly brackets somewhere or have too many of them. Can somebody take a look and tell me where the problem is or correct it? That would be appreciated. For where this template is coming from, please see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review#Spamming with possibly free files. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Notepad++ is good for templates, as if you select an open/close bracket it highlights the matching close/open bracket for you. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding Notepad++, I really didn't think of this possibility. It's a good tipp. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Update on submited info

Good morning

Months ago we submited information on our Dr Ariel David Soffer and we have not gotten an answerr on it yet,

Please let me know our phone number is (REDACTED)

Thanks

Tainet Gonzalez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.86.65 (talk • contribs)

You never submitted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ariel Soffer. The template for submission, {{subst:submit}} is shown at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and should be added to the top of the draft. Dru of Id (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And who are the "we" that you speak of?--ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is Soffer notable? Because he's been a TV consultant since 2012? Because he runs a health institute that bears his name? What's a "healthcare application"? Does that mean an application for a medical-related patent, or a piece of software? Or is it jargon that is only understood by people in his related field? We don't need his entire educational history here. Wikipedia is not a resume. Titles of books should be italicized (Wikipedia DOES have a Manual of Style). The text wall under Books and Publications should be clarified somehow, assuming any of it is relevant. The languages he speaks is not relevant unless it somehow ties into his notability, ex: if he's giving medical advice on TV in three different languages, making him the first person to do so, that's great. Where are the independent articles that have been written ABOUT Soffer? That's what's going to really establish whether or not Soffer deserves an article on Wikipedia. Also, please read WP:COI. You probably shouldn't be writing about "your" Dr. Ariel David Soffer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Texas A&M articles with to-do lists

Hi, I tried to create the page for Category:Texas A&M articles with to-do lists after noticing it was missing. But it wouldn't let me. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

IPs can not create pages. You would need to sign up for an account to create it. CTF83! 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. I won't be contributing then. I thought anybody could edit. Sorry for the inconvenience. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Article wizard has an option for editors who wish to create a category without registering an account. Follow the "Create something else" link on the first page of the wizard. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about it. I tried and I can't so I'm not going to spend a bunch of time figuring out wizards or workarounds. Thanks for the help you can mark this as closed or whatever you do. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Its always a shame when the policies we have in place drive off potential new users because we don't have trust anymore. I don't think VisualEditor is going to fix that. I created the category mentioned above as well as several other related ones. Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A little mess on "Defiance episodes"

Hello... Џонаја brought this up on the talk page of Defiance's episodes list and I think they are right. The word "episodes" should not be written with a capital "E". I searched it a little to see if I could move the page to a new one with not a capital "e" but I found a little mess regarding the episodes :/ If anyone can help..?

First, there is already a page named List of Defiance episodes with no capital "e" that redirects to the main article of the series Defiance on the episodes' section. And second, there is also a page named Defiance episodes that redirects to the List of Defiance Episodes with capital "e".

I don't know if the second "issue" is wrong, but about the first one...how can the page get "deleted" so the list with the capital "e" can be moved under a new title? What about the second part though? Is that needed to be changed too? In case the page will be renamed? If anyone can help with this little mess we would really appreciate it! Thanks! TeamGale (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The correct title would be "List of Defiance episodes", but since there is already a redirect in place you will have to g via WP:Requested moves and have an admin perform the move. However, I think the best option here would be to redirect the page to Defiance (TV series), Defiance (TV series)#Episodes already contains all the information needed (even the lead is just copy-pasted from the Defiance article), and until there's a second season there's not really any need to have a separate episode article. Яehevkor ✉ 15:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read the page and see what I can do there :)

The story of why the "list" was created is kind of long. The episodes' section on the main article had long summaries for each episode and there was a suggestion to make a new page about it or shortened the summaries. Since there was no other place for a detailed summary, to not lose the info about the episodes, the list was created. When I personally added it on the main article as "see also: Episodes of Defiance" in the episodes' section and removed the table, it was reverted because as they said, the show was only one season and that it's not necessary. So, people just started shortening the summaries to make the section "not that long" and few other people complained that there were so many things cut from the summaries that they were not informative. Anyway, at the beginning, the "list" page was including the detailed summaries but since then, each episode has its own page with a full summary. That's why the long summaries on the "list" page were also replaced with short ones. What I want to say is that there was already a lot back and forth about the subject and a new redirect, when we know there will be a second season in the future and the redirect will have to be removed again, won't be "helpful"...I don't know. But if the redirect is necessary then it should be done.

I'll read the page with the request moves to see how I can ask for the move and see what will happen. Like I said, if the redirect is necessary then no problem at all. Thank you again for the help and for providing me with the link :) TeamGale (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Queen's Remembrancer

Fact: Ian Scott Warren succeeded Bickford Smith as Queen's Remembrancer and preceeded Topley Sent in by Warren's step daughter, Priscilla Newman 81.107.129.92 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

 Question: Can you provide reliable sources to support this information? ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If so, you should post at Talk:Queen's Remembrancer and ask to have the list amended. Unfortunately we cannot accept your unverified word for this alone. Rojomoke (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

editing of articles

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

Hi My name is Alpay..I am working as an artist manager and wanted to update the page of my artist Waldemar Bastos. since may I am trying and trying again and again and my chan ges don´t appear! What am I doing wrong?

Please help soon as the infos needed to be changed immediately!

thanks in advance

alpay— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.194.143 (talk • contribs)

Your edits have been reverted as copyright violations, see WP:COPVIO. Even if appropriate permission was obtained to use the material (see the process at WP:IOWN), the tone of the material would probably still be inappropriate. As you have an obvious conflict of interest, please read WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI. You are strongly advised not to edit the article yourself, but to use the article's talk page to request edits, supported by reliable, third party, sources.--ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if my article has been submitted!

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and keen to learn how to write an article. The article that I have written has been rejected due to its sources and tone, and I have now edited and saved it. But on previous submissions it showed where the pending article was in a ranking and now I can see no evidence of this! Please be gentle, am new to this...thanks! Claire— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairejones19883 (talk • contribs)

The draft is not yet in the queue for review. Please add {{Subst:Submit}} to the top of the page and click save - this will add it to the queue. Please note that the queue is severely backlogged and it may take a week or longer for one of the volunteer reviewers to get to it.--ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

ODS Activation Step Failed

Request REQUUEST has not or not correctly been updated— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.201.54 (talk)

Please explain what this is about. Were you trying to edit an article in Wikipedia? If so, please explain. If you were doing something other than in Wikipedia, then please be aware that the Help Desk is for help in editing Wikipedia. However, if this is a non-Wikipedia technical question, you might try the WP:Reference Desk instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe it might refer to this typo, which I have now fixed, ([2]). CaptRik (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Duxs

why has my addition, the duxs not permitted and how do I go about fixing this— Preceding unsigned comment added by Headquacker (talk • contribs)

If you can tell us what addition you mean, we may be able to help you. Maproom (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What addition are you talking about? Where did you make it? I would normally look at other contributions you have made to try to work it out myself, but your post immediately above is the only one you have made from your "Headquacker" account. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I now realise that a question by "Headquacker", that mentions "duxs", is probably Technoquat trolling again. Maproom (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Duxs was deleted as a copyright infringement of http://theduxs.com/. The copyright issue could be dealt with but there would still be other reasons for deletion. There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

IDP

In IDP , it says there are 210000 IDPs in Cyprus , the all population is 865000 in the island , 265000 in the south , north part is in EU, then where are the IDPs? Its a political problem , island was divided into two after a violation , now every people has their house , please delete this part... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.116.187 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What is IDP? HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

GIYF: [3]. (I realize the question was a little cryptic, but he is probably not native English speaking). This should be a Help Desk, so a little more effort to help before deflecting questions or sending people to other desks would be useful.TCO (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WTF? I DID Google it, and the question became no clearer to me. I don't care what languages the OP speaks, it's pretty silly to use unexplained abbreviations in any language. I would never do it. Would you? And mine was a completely innocent question! So keep your attacks to yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Here it must mean internally displaced person. That article says "Cyprus has about 210,000 IDPs". Maproom (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

But if you read the question carefully, this is not a request for information or clarification, this is a political complaint about the content of an article. Original poster: in general you should put this sort of question at the article's talk page (here, Talk:internally displaced person) but in this case I have edited the article to add a reference, and to mention that there is a dispute about whether there continue to be displaced persons in Cyprus. --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

name references tab works intermittently

Why does the named refs tool work sometimes and then very often not? TCO (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions on how to edit (questions not answered on "Help" pages)

When inserting a reference, one puts <ref> in front of the reference and </ref> (with added slash) where the reference ends. But does "ref" instruct the editor/writer/reviser to insert a sequential footnote number (e.g., <3>, </3>)? Or does the Wiki software automatically number the notes (starting with 1), in which case "ref" and not "3" goes between the <> marks?

Why does the preview page (shown in response to clicking the "show preview" button, omit almost all to the revised text by sending it out of sight off the right hand margin? How do I get to actually see the results of my editing?

Why can't I backspace from preview (back arrow at upper left of screen) without losing my edits? When I hit the back arrow I get this message: "Data you have entered may [meaning will] not be saved." This seems to mean that if you want to preview the results of what you have written, you must subsequently go back, start over, and reconstruct your original edits -- because they were not saved.

Atticusattor (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The wiki software automatically generates the numbers.

To see the reference that you have added, edit the whole page, rather than just the section where you are adding the reference.

There's no need to "backspace" from preview. There's a copy of the edit panel at the bottom of the preview page. At least there is if you are using the old-style editor; I can't advise on the new "Visual editor". Maproom (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

When you talk about "sending your text over to the right", do you mean a line that looks like this?

Misformatted text that will scroll across to the right to the amazement and befuddlement of anybody that hasn't dealt with Wikipedia before because it makes no rational sense and no editor would have ever wanted this to happen so there's no good explanation as to why our software does it.

If so, the answer is simple: don't use a space as the first character of a line. Ever.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To add to the answer for the first question, does Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners help you? Dismas|^(talk) 23:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "To see the reference that you have added, edit the whole page, rather than just the section where you are adding the reference", this is certainly one option. Another option is to add {{reflist}} or (to show how long I've been editing) </references>, temporarily, do a page preview, and then - before saving the page - remove what you temporarily added. This isn't perfect - if the body of a citation is in another section, and only a <ref name="whatever"/> tag is in the section you're editing, the software will complain (I find this easy to ignore). And you have to remember to remove the text you added to get the references to show. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(Tag: VisualEditor)

Is there a way to eliminate this from revision history, watchlist, and anywhere else it appears? It's not particularly useful given how many editors are apparently using it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There's probably some fancy Javascript way. I'm not sure how to interpret your comment, though: my watchlist shows that about 4% of edits are using Visual Editor. Are you getting a dramatically different percentage?—Kww(talk) 22:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My gosh, Kevin, you counted? I'm not going to count, but I can safely tell you it's less than 25%. But what good is it? Am I supposed to suspect editors who use it more than those who don't? The tags are supposed to be useful (e.g., BLP tag) - more like a flag than a tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I can count to 46 pretty rapidly: not a big effort. The purpose is to have people review them so that they can fix articles that Visual Editor has chewed up. It's actually better to look at Filter 550 for that, though, as it shows all the articles that are getting corrupted by VE's mishandling of an editor inserting Wikimarkup.—Kww(talk) 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If the intended goal is to prevent corruptions, mishandling and chewing, wouldn't it be simpler to disable VE altogether? I can think of a good lot of (former) editors who've been indef'ed for less serious offenses than Visual Editor commits every single day. Maybe a nice 6-month Wikipedia:Wikibreak, to let VE get his/her/its act cleaned up? Failing that, Wikipedia:PREVENTATIVE --R.S. Peale (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I too have been wondering lately why I care if the edit was made with the VE. As Kww points out, I figured it had something to do with checking for the VE chewing up articles. Dismas|^(talk) 01:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I care. The VE still has some major bugs, so I check those edits pretty carefully when they show up on my watchlist. Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding the following to your CSS page:

.mw-tag-marker-visualeditor { display: none; }

Will remove all Visual Editor tag labels, but leave other tags in place. It has the side effect that the parentheses around the tag section are still shown. If you prefer instead to exclude all Tags, parentheses included, you can use ".mw-tag-markers" rather than ".mw-tag-marker-visualeditor" to hide all Tag reports. Dragons flight (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

July 10

uploading a picture

To whom it may concern: Hello. I recently tried to upload an image (a logo of an organization for which I've written an article Secret Society of Happy People), but, as I am new on Wikipedia, I don't understand why I can't connect it to the article, or wether the file is uploaded. Can you, please, help me? Thanks

Ruzhica (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it for you with this edit. Dismas|^(talk) 01:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Milicent Bagot

Regarding your article on Milicent Bagot, I believe there is a reference in The Fourth Protocol, a novel by Frederick Forsyth. Thanks. Ravi

Hi! I'm sorry, but what's your question? Do you want to add something to the Milicent Bagot article? I can help you with that, if that's what you want to do, but I need just a little more information about what you have in mind. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia No Longer Honors User Preferences

About two weeks before the new editor was brought online, I went into my preferences and ensured the preference for the new editor was off. In fact, I cycled it to ON and then OFF to ensure OFF, NO, or FALSE was written to my preferences.

Lo and behold, I am forced to use the new editor. The new editor is broken, so I'm befuddled why I am forced to use it despite my preferences. (To test the broken editor, simply try to wikify a link by adding '[[' and ']]' and see what you get out of the damn thing.)

+1 to the idiots who thought it was a great idea to force the broken s**t on us. And great job on trying to fix something that worked great to begin with... (-preceding unsigned comment by Noloader 05:31, 10 July 2013‎)

Disable wp:VisualEditor under Preferences > Gadgets > Editing ([x] Remove VisualEditor). It is puzzling how the "idiots" imagined 100,000 monthly prior editors wouldn't go beserk changing from the wikitext editor to VE. Thanks for suffering with the rest of us. -Wikid77 09:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The clue's in your question: "two weeks before". When it was brought online, everyone was given access to it automatically. Go to your preferences and disable it, and you'll be fine. The option to disable it before was for the test version, not the final version that has been pushed out project-wide.  drewmunn  talk  05:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if it is on, I still get an "edit" and "edit source" link next to section titles. Is this not what you're seeing? And the box to turn it off is now at Preferences > Gadgets > Editing. It's the first in that list. Dismas|^(talk) 05:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No, with that first box checked, the edit source button should (and does for me) disappear, and the edit button should direct you to the original interface. What browser are you using? I've tested it on the latest versions of Chrome and Safari, and both operate in the manner I've described.  drewmunn  talk  06:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Noloader: In some interfaces, when you check a box, the change is automatically applied. That is not true with Wikipedia preferences. You must save your changes (button at bottom of the page) for them to stick. After you do that, you can confirm that the change is in place by exiting preferences, then going back into it: at that point, the checked box (at Preferences > Gadgets > Editing, as noted above) should still be checked. If you confirm that VE is checked to be off, and you're still seeing that as an edit option, then definitely let us know. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know why you can't disable it from your preferences but, VE doesn't work with the code the first editor had. So, if you try to use the brackets to make a link on VE, it's normal that it won't recognize them and won't make the link. To make a link, you have to click on the link icon from the toolbar. TeamGale (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Preferences → Gadgets → Remove VisualEditor from the user interface --  Gadget850 ^talk 09:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Where do I go to suggest that the preferences entry should be changed to "Nuke VisualEditor from orbit have a goat perform physically impossible actions with what's left"?Naraht (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"Opt out" of VE needed under preferences the English Wikipedia has already shown support for an option to really remove VisualEditor instead of merely trying to hide its interface, but the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to make the required change to the software. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What should be done with this problem article?

Dear editors: I came across this article: Genuine wealth assessment which has several paragraphs which are copyright violations, a large section which is promoting a point of view and presenting original research, has been heavily edited by a person with a conflict of interest, the co-creator of Genuine Wealth, Inc., and also has no independent sources. My question is, should I delete the copyright violations and propose the rest for deletion, or should I send the whole thing to Speedy deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest sending the whole thing to speedy deletion. The content is horrifically bias and nothing more than marketing speak. Also, a quick bit of research on my part calls the notability of the subject into question; almost all results are either from the official site, their Facebook page (which includes information from this article), and a few other, not particularly reliable sources. A speedy delete under copyvio, followed up by a non-notable subject defence should anyone try to reinstate it is, in my opinion, the best way forward currently.  drewmunn  talk  06:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks line someone did this for me already. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)thanks

Policy on settlements.

I am trying to find what Wikipedia policy on the notability for settlements. At present it seems that Wikipedia has a different way of dealing with the issue for different countries. Is it logical that settlements in the U.K. or Germany are entitled to articles and similar settlements in other countries are not? Is this not a discriminatory system which implies that some countries are better than others? What can be done to eliminate such discrimination and to adopt the same policy for all countries? Afil (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you point us to where it says we have different standards for different places? That's not my understanding. I believe all settlements are deemed inherently notable, wherever they are, in the English wikipedia. Other language wikipedias may have different rules, as is their right, as each sets their own policies. Of course, that doesn't mean that a particular place is as likely to be written about as any other, as we are all more likely to write about what we know. Rojomoke (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Most likely the notability of a settlement will derive from it being mentioned in a state-sponsored census or such like. If that's true then it should be fair game for an article here (using the census as a reference of course). CaptRik (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As an example. Articles for villages in Romania are not accepted. Any reference to any village in Romania is redirected towards the commune (district) in which the village is located. We thus have the situation in which totally similar villages in neighboring countries such as Serbia or Hungary are accepted, but not the ones in Romania. Also, there are villages in Romania who have articles in other language Wikipedias (hungarian, ukrainian, esperanto and others), but not in English. If some Wikipedians write articles on certain villages there are deleted or merged into the articles of the district. Please look at the talk page User talk:Gexge79 for the Padeş article, in which the user gets the answer:

"Second, while I wouldn't say there is a single approach for every country, I do know that editors on English Wikipedia interested in Romania (and Moldova) have concluded it makes more sense to cover all the information about a commune in a single article, rather than dividing up the article into several tiny, disparate articles and leaving it to readers to guess how the information is related. It's easier to manage (~2800 articles instead of ~13000 ones) and there's more potential for coherent, well-developed articles on communes rather than on villages"

It is not true that this is a conclusion of "editors interested in Romania and Moldova" and the entire statement is a fallacy. There definitely are villages for which well-developed articles can be written. It is absurd to state that this is not possible for any village of Romania and Moldova. The same argument could be made for any other country. And it still does not explain why there is a different policy for some countries and a different policy for others.

If this is done for Romanian villages, we could have a different policy for Hungarian politicians (for instance merging all references to them in the article of their political party), for the mountains in Mexico (merging all references into the article of the mountain range) and there would be no end to such differences.

And this leads to my initial question: What can be done to eliminate such discrimination and to adopt the same policy for all countries?Afil (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, let me state that Afil and I (he doesn't name me, but he's talking about me) have gone through this before at great length (see here) - by now he's both beating a dead stick and forum-shopping. However, I will engage the argument.

In rural areas of Romania (and Moldova), the administrative unit is the commune, and these are further divided into villages - sometimes just one, sometimes a few dozen, usually around five. Currently, every such village is accessible through a redirect or a disambiguation page. Someone who wants to find them is able to. And every commune article lists the component villages. So they're there - no one is suppressing information.

Having said that, it simply makes more sense to cover everything under one heading than to chop up 2800 commune articles (mainly stubs) into 13000 village articles (which, for the most part, would be permanent sub-stubs). For one, the villages have no administrative powers - they are informal districts of communes. For another, rather than making readers chase around various village articles and guess how the information in them relates to the other articles, everything is presented coherently in one place. And third, if one creates articles on villages A, B, C, D and E of commune A, one must also have an article on commune A as a whole (in addition to village A) - this is the solution ro.wikipedia found, and it's a pretty awful one, given that the "commune A" articles are destined to remain shells containing only the most basic data. Like I've said, it's far better for everything to be in a single place.

Now, to the objections raised.

I did indeed write that comment to new user Gexge79. Oddly, Afil fails to quote his reply, so I will do so myself. "OK, agree with you about villages problem". Seems like a pretty sensible fellow with no interest in dredging up years-old pointless disputes.

"There definitely are villages for which well-developed articles can be written. It is absurd to state that this is not possible for any village of Romania and Moldova." How about starting with well-developed sections in commune articles, and if they really get too big, spinning out new articles? I don't see Afil attempting that. Sure, there is material out there, but as of now, all the expansions I've seen fit nicely into a single article. (E.g., Coronini, Bazna).

"What can be done to eliminate such discrimination and to adopt the same policy for all countries?" For one, Afil is fond of throwing up this "discrimination" charge against me, as if I'm on some sinister anti-Romanian mission. Of course that's absurd and should be disregarded. For another, there is, I suppose, a single policy for every country. That doesn't mean the application will be precisely the same. For Romania and Moldova, it's quite clear what works most smoothly. For other countries, well, let involved editors sort that out.

I hope this clears matters up a bit. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion quoted above, simply indicates that there has been an exchange of opinions on the matter. The debate has not addressed the general policy regarding settlements. Also there has been no consensus reached. If any one Wikipedian has a certain opinion, there is no reason to impose it without a debate in which several Wikipedians present their argument and a consensus is reached. This is not the case.

I raised a general question and mentioned the case of Romania just because user Rojomoke asked me where I identified such discrepancies, without accusing anybody. I did not use discrimination in a pejorative sense but simply indicated an example of differential treatment of settlements in various countries.

I have only asked a simple question. Does Wikipedia have different policies regarding articles for certain countries? Should the policy not be the same for the entire world. What is the rational of singling out one or two country for which Wikipedia has a different policy that for all the other countries in the world? For what reason are the arguments presented applicable only for Romania and not for Turkey or Bangladesh where upazillas also include several villages? I do not attack anybody and do not want to make this a personal issue. I simply request that o policy should be defined an that the same rule be applied everywhere. Afil (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume you're asking in good faith, and I will answer accordingly. There is no universal standard on which geographic locations should have separate articles and which should not - Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) was proposed, but never adopted. Nor is a policy likely to be adopted any time soon.

No one is "singling out" one or two countries. The Barangays of the Philippines generally do not have articles. Neither, as a rule, do French villages. In fact, our approach to France is quite similar: we have articles on the French communes and stop at that point, even if they happen to be subdivided into several smaller quarters. As I've stated many a time, that just happens to work better for Romania and Moldova as well. "Smallest administrative unit", the status quo standard in this case, has a nice, clear, neat, neutral ring to it, try as you may to portray it as arbitrary or unequal. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that we have different positions. The administrative units can be counties, districts, communes or have different names. They are not localities. Villages, towns, hamlets etc. are localities whether they have an administrative independence or not. Let us not confuse the issue. I do not attempt to convince you and you cannot convince me that it is logical to accept an article (stub) for a small village in Germany and not for the Republic of Moldova. Assuming you are right and your rule makes sense, applying not applying if for all countries constitutes a preferential treatment of Romania and the Republic of Moldova, which is also inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia. Neither of us has the right to impose his views on the other. This should not be a dialogue. I suggest that neither of us continues this dispute until other wikipedians express their views on how this matters should be solved. I simply try to generate a discussion so that a solution can be reached by consensus following this discussion. Afil (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but let's clear up two points. First, "smallest administrative unit" seems to be the general rule for Germany as well. We stop at the level of municipality (Gemeinde); that is the smallest administrative unit in Germany.

Second, you seem to have trouble grasping that, for better or worse, there is no single policy saying either "every populated place, regardless of administrative status, must in all cases have a separate article" or "every populated place that has a separate article must have administrative independence". Well, neither of these is policy, nor will they be in the near term. Different models work best for different countries - it's not that difficult a concept, and there is no "preferential treatment" or "discrimination" involved; it's simply a matter of ease of organization. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

New text section vs. existing diagram

On the The Breast Cancer Research Foundation page I just added an External links Level Two heading and a link to the Foundation's official website. The way the page now appears (with my present display settings, anyway), the header is off to the right of a large diagram, and the text falls below the diagram. Is this unavoidable? Any action to take? I have little experience and no success with text wrapping. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've resolved this for you. For future reference, add {{clear}} at the end of the section containing the image to force later headings to appear after it.  drewmunn  talk  06:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's slick! And I hadn't mentioned above that also the previous section heading was similarly affected. I'll try to remember the {{clear}}. - Cheers! -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between <ref> and {{Cite}}?

So far I've just used <ref>. At first I was under the impression that {{Cite}} was mostly used for proper books and periodicals, not random webpages, but I've now seen several pages use {{Cite}} where I would've thought <ref> was to be used. My question is this, what is the difference between the two? Are there are specific cases where I should (not) use one of them? Cake~talk 08:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

For webpages, the cite web template should be used to ensure you get all of the information in the reference that's required. I personally don't like bare references that don't use a cite template, and I believe they're frowned upon more than if they used a cite template. Also, as a side note, I've fixed your content here as your text invoked the reference and citation templates by mistake! I hope this helps.  drewmunn  talk  08:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So, there are no circumstances in which <ref> is preferred over {{Cite}} (or {{Cite web}})? Thanks for fixing it up, I had completely forgot to escape it Cake~talk 08:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

They do different jobs; {{cite}} formats a citation and <ref> creates a footnote. If you want a citation to appear in the body of the article you just use the {{cite}} template or one of its {{cite xxx}}cousins; if you want to put the citation in a footnote you put the {{Cite}} template inside <ref>...</ref> tags. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They are two parts of the referencing systems. You create the Footnotes using <ref> tags(which is just one way of doing this). You optionally format the content of Footnotes using templates such as {{cite web}}, which is part of the Citation Style 1 series. {{Cite}} redirects to {{citation}}, which is a similar template but uses a different style, the it should not be mixed with CS1. --  Gadget850 ^talk 08:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. I hadn't realized <ref> only turned the text into a footnote. Lastly, just to be sure I understood this properly, I'd like to ask that you look at this edit I just made. Thanks! Cake~talk 09:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit looks good. Note, the Swedish article on this person looks much more complete. You may want to check there for additional information and references. I've added the expand Swedish template to it.Naraht (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Name

Hi I created a page on wikipedia. But now, when its appearing in results it shows with a term 'User'. Suppose the name was XYZ so it shows as 'User:XYZ'.

How do I solve it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.13.38 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What you created was a userpage. Without having a look at it, it's hard to say what you should do from here but maybe Wikipedia:Your first article will help. Dismas|^(talk) 09:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The best results will be obtained if you linking to the specific page in question. CTF83! 10:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Mold

Mold

someone has altared this page to read the word "FAKE" over and over again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.198.93 (talk)

The article has been reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Article about American Institute of Certified Planners is okay. Wikipedia has a warning box saying it appears to be an ad or a testimonial.

The warning box is unnecessary and incorrect. AICP is to urban planners what medical board certification is to physicians. Companion organizations are the American Planning Association, 40,000+ members, and a separate entity, the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. ACSP certifies universities throughout the US offering degrees in urban and regional planning. AICP is the legitimate certifying mechanism for this profession. The language of AICP's listing on Wikipedia is factual, not promotional. The warning box should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.215.68 (talk)

As an aid to anyone reading your question, this is the article American_Institute_of_Certified_Planners. CaptRik (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the article to fix some wording that was not quite neutral, or at least not adequately supported by sources, and removed the related article tags. The article still needs better sourcing. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciating of Reference

Can I use documentary such as Seconds From Disaster as resource? For instance, "Superstore Collapse" about Sampoong Department Store collapse. If it can't, why?--Reiro (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as it fits the criteria for notability, certainly! You can use the cite episode template to make this easier.  drewmunn  talk  16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor not working for me

Resolved

I'm probably not going to be particularly interested in continuing to use it, but I was interested in seeing it and how it worked. I know it's been disabled in Internet Explorer, but has it also been disabled in Opera? Or is it disabled in Monobook? - Purplewowies (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is currently disabled for Opera. Apparently that's close to working but not quite there yet. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I also rechecked the page about it, which I had previously only skimmed, and caught a sentence I missed about Opera not working. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone's curious, VisualEditor is disabled for a little less than 20% of users at the moment. About half of that is people using older versions of Internet Explorer and should be fixed before long. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with old Afc submissions

Dear editors: There are thousands of old declined submissions lodged in the Articles for creations Wikiproject, and many of them have been abandoned by their creators. A new Speedy Deletion category has been created to delete some of these from previous years. However, there is some wheat among the chaff, and some of these articles were abandoned when they were close to being acceptable. A few people have been going over them and deleting the hopelessly promotional or copyvio articles, and picking out a few to improve. I've had four of these accepted at Afc so far. If anyone would like to help, There's a utility called Catscan that will find these old potential articles. The link

here

will find articles declined as an advertisement, and

this

will find articles that need better sources. Anyone is welcome to improve and resubmit these old half-finished articles, or, if you find some spam or copyvios you can use Twinkle to get rid of them. By the way, this is a good time to submit the fixed-up articles, because there is currently no backlog at Afc. Happy editing! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(I have no idea why the links look so funny; if you do, feel free to fix them. They work, though.) —Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The external link format doesn't handle things that contain [ and ], but I've tweaked your message to make the links easier to use. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Should work if you use the URL-encoding %5B instead of [ and %5D instead of ].--ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Help me optimize

Can anyone help me optimize my wiki post? I don't know what to do... ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaysweet (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 July 2013‎

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

If you know what the company actually offers, you could describe it, instead of repeatedly writing about "solutions". But the article is likely to be deleted anyway, as you have provided no evidence that its subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

edit in 2013 protests in Turkey

hello, someone destroyed the article and i don't know how to restore it. i posted a message to the user but he does not reply. --18:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed -- I reverted those two edits to the last one by the IP editor. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to learn about how this was done, please see Help:Reverting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

upload

my photo won't upload to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnewsnet (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 July 2013‎

You cannot upload files until your account is autconfirmed, ie is 4 days old and has made 10 edits. If you created the image yourself, you can upload it to Commons.--ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

July 11

New article list?

What is the best way to keep track of new articles? Is there a list somewhere? Today I saw an ad hiring people to write a Wikipedia article for a New York-based health website and I want to see the article they will write, but I don't know the name of the website. All I could find was this but that seems to be voluntary. Thank you. Yamada Taro (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

For a list of articles as they are created, see Special:NewPages, but without the name of the website, I don't know that will help much. Without the title you'd have to scroll through about 1,500 articles from just today, not including the 1,000 or so that have been deleted. By that same token it's not unlikely that, if it was created, it has already come and gone; articles on subject like this are often unsuitable and fodder for the deletion mill, e.g. they often are balatant advertising and/or they fail to assert importance and/or are copyright violations. (Newpages is sometimes alternatively called the "raging firehose of crap".) Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not know about this page. Yamada Taro (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my description of monitoring the New Pages was "drinking from the Magic Firehose of Sewage". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm Maybe it's just GMTA. I first used that back in 2008 (about vandalism so really about recentchanges) but I could have been bastardizing your turn of phrase then. I certainly don't remember today!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How to circumvent "This file is bigger than the server is configured to allow."

I am trying to upload an NSA video on polygraphy which uses some excerpts from copyrighted TV shows (Meet the Parents and The Simpsons) and so I am uploading it locally.

But when I have it in an OGV format the upload system says "This file is bigger than the server is configured to allow." - How do I circumvent this so I can upload the file?

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "uploading it locally"? Where are you uploading it to? Looie496 (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia, as opposed to the Commons. The idea is that I upload the "full" video here, but to upload it to the Commons I would have to cut out or blank the small portions that are copyrighted (works by employees of the federal government on duty are PD). So for fair use purposes I want the full film here. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I know knowing about this Whisper, but you might get your answer from mw:Manual talk:$wgMaxUploadSize and meta:Uploading files, both found through a Google search for your quote, among others, that look like they have promising information. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for finding these! Are these files about configuring a Wiki's maximum size upload? I remember that there was a trick on the Commons to uploading files in parts, to get around the maximum upload size. Not sure if it can be enabled here on EN? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't ask me. If no one comes along who knows more, I'd try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous message not for me.

I have received a user talk warning which does not apply to me and cannot find a way of reporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.241.115 (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If the message does not apply to you, just ignore it - as it says in the box at the bottom of User talk:92.24.241.115, "Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users". -- John of Reading (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

CAPTCHA

I'm trying to go through the Pages with missing references, to make sure they all have references - and every time I save a page, I get asked to add a CAPTCHA. The reason is that I'm adding "new external links", but I'm not, I'm only adding a references tag. It's getting annoying, is there any way to turn that off? I understand why people wouldn't bother to be honest. Flying Buttress (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This ends when you become autoconfirmed... "Although the precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances, most English Wiki user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed." It looks like your account is only a day old – the CAPTCHA will end in three days, as you've made your ten edits :) — Richard BB 09:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So I'm going to have to put up with it for 4 days? Flying Buttress (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Post at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed, and an admin may adjust your account settings early. You are doing good work fixing those references. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou! I will do. Flying Buttress (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It does look like it takes some time, there's a request from yesterday evening - but I've put a request up there, I suppose it'll be less than 4 days that way. Thankyou both for your help. Is there anything else you recommend I try to wet my feet, I'm fairly technically minded. Flying Buttress (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There's Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting as well - those can be tricky sometimes. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Copied material

I have copied material from an external website to a new Wiki page, but I am project coordinator for the Trustees that run the original website - I am copying it for them! How do I lshow that this is OK so the content doesn't get deleted? Spode Works project (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Spode Works project

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the correct procedure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You should also look at our user-names policy, as your current name indicates that it is being used on behalf of an organisation, which is not allowed. All edits must be attributed to an individual. Rojomoke (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

... and note that Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials says "If you are not the copyright holder of the material you cannot donate rights to Wikipedia". The copyright holder must explicitly grant the appropriate permissions to Wikipedia - you cannot do that for them, even if you assure Wikipedia that you are acting on their behalf. If the material in question is descriptive text it is almost always simpler and quicker to re-write or summarise the material in your own words. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

... and it is unusual that material from an organisation's own website is written in a neutral enough manner to be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Moody's Investors Service

To anyone it may concern: I noticed recently that a new paragraph in the article Moody's Investors Service is nearly a word-for-word copy of a WSJ report. I have explained the situation in a post on the article's discussion page and even provided what I think is an acceptable replacement. I believe I should not edit this article, because I work for Moody's. I am aware that editing by COI parties is not completely off-limits but I would not wish to provide any opening for criticism of my engagement of this page. Is another editor open to considering this change? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 Erledigt I've implemented a slightly altered version of your suggestion and updated the talk page. Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  14:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

SHI International page reads as an advertisement

I just visited the page SHI International, and I noticed that the page reads like an advertisement, with very little information about the company itself. Is there some way that this should be handled? Can someone take care of addressing that? eykanal talk 14:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally suggest a speedy deletion per G11 (blatant promotion) as it needs a complete rewrite to be fully subjective. If the delete is contested (as previous ones have been), then a full rewrite should happen anyway.  drewmunn  talk  14:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't re-nominate for speedy, as it has already been nominated - to quote WP:SPEEDY "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations" - Arjayay (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That applies to only XfD. Meaning if it survives an XfD, it can't be nominated as a non-notable, etc. However, blatant advertising, when there's no good version to revert to, is always a speediable offense. If it survives XfD, it must not have been promotional enough to speedy. So, this one should qualify for a G11, as it was prevously nominated as A7. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm always willing to learn, (and I'm not arguing for retention of the page), so where do I find the guideline that over-rules what it says in WP:SPEEDY? - Arjayay (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Arjayay. This is just a language parsing issue – speedy deletions are not deletion discussions so when WP:CSD says "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion..." it excludes by definition both speedy deletions and PRODs, only meaning deletion processes where there is a discussion (AfD, Mfd, RfD, TfD, CfD, FfD). Also, note that the quote in the lead is a summary of the more detailed criterion in the body which is WP:CSD#G4. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. see {{Notg4}}, which I created to flag the issue to newpages patrollers when they tag pages under CSD G4 despite that was only previously a speedy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - perhaps WP:SPEEDY could be reworded to avoid this confusion? or is it just me? - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

CRTC web page

Hi!

This is just to let you know that the information provided on Wikipedia related to CRTC is not accurate. The Minister responsible for this agency is James Moore and not Christian Paradis. Accordingly, CRTC falls under Canadian Heritage and not Industry Canada.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.61.2 (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please post this, with a citation to a reliable published source, on the talk page of the appropriate page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

 Erledigt.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pipe character in citation

How does one encode a pipe character in a citation? Citation #4 in Alice Robie Resnick is messed up because the source includes a pipe character in its title; someone copied it quite properly, but the citation template treats it as a metacharacter. I assume that there's a way to do it with percent-encoding, but I don't know what the right code is. 2001:18E8:2:1020:1DC:B109:F51C:1F42 (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

%A6 I think.--ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't work. Checked percent encoding (didn't think to look there before!), and it links to Help:URL, which gave me the right code. 2001:18E8:2:1020:1DC:B109:F51C:1F42 (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to change a logo

Hi,

I work on the marketing team at adMarketplace. I am trying to update our logo. Every time I try, it tells me I do not have a confirmed account.

How can I update my logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluckett (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Just as a quick note, it's good practise to sign posts on talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~). As for your request, only confirmed users can upload images to Wikipeda. Users are autoconfirmed after 4 days and 10 edits. However, you would not be able to edit the page in question, as it would constitute a conflict of interest. It would be more beneficial for you to request the change on the article's talk page, and another user will deal with the changes as necessary. I hope this helps.  drewmunn  talk  18:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You can make an upload request at WP:FFU.--ukexpat (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

To be strictly accurate, users with a conflict of interest are not banned from editing a page, just strongly discouraged from doing so, as they would find it difficult to maintain a neutral POV. I can see no reason why you shouldn't upload your company's logo. Just make sure you understand and comply with our copyright rules. Rojomoke (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

unable to edit another user's talk page

Hello. I'm AmericanLemming, and I've been editing on Wikipedia for a few months. Recently, an editor, Baffle gab1978, reverted my edit, and I, being a newbie editor, wanted to ask him why by posting on his talk page. However, I've tried to do so multiple times on different browsers and have always been unable to do so.

I can edit his actual user page, but it is my understanding that such behavior is generally frowned upon. Anyway, how do I inform him that his talk page is broken and/or find someone who can fix it? I don't expect the Help desk to be able to fix this problem, but I do hope that you would be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks! AmericanLemming (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Having checked, there does seem to be an issue with his talk page. The user states that they are on a break from Wikipedia at this time, so they may not respond anyway, but I have left a request for him to contact you on his talk page, and informed him that there is an issue.  drewmunn  talk  18:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that final part, my edits will not save correctly on his talk page. You've mentioned him here, so he'll get a notification next time he logs in, but that's about all that seems possible (outside of emailing, but I wouldn't recommend that as he's on break). Instead, I'll take a look at the edits in question and try to explain myself.  drewmunn  talk  18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I just edited his talk page with no problem, so it's hard to guess what might be going on here. Do you people get any sort of error message when the edits fail to save? Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I get a message about the server failing to save part of the edit (after managing to compose the message behind the sidebar, which slides right over the content). I tried in both Safari and Chrome; I know they use the same render engine, but they're the only two browsers I have to hand. It may be that the render engine is partially (or wholly) to blame. What browser/OS did you use?  drewmunn  talk  18:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried Safari and Firefox. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

So it's not a render engine issue. Did you have java disabled, Looie?  drewmunn  talk  18:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Firefox 22, Win 7. I don't understand the bit about the sidebar sliding over the content -- I'm not seeing anything like that, either in FF or in Chrome. I have Java enabled in Firefox at least. What skin are you using? Looie496 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm using Vector, but the issue's been resolved now, thanks to Kww.  drewmunn  talk  19:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not very tech-savvy. I know how to use computers, but I don't know they work. Anyway, the article is Villa Regina, and the issue in question is whether an quotation should be formatted as a block quotation or not. The 40-word quote is "Two hours on the way up from Chichinal, we camped on a place a bit far from the river, close to a water reservoir. [...] The ground is plain with ligere landforms. The canyons to the north increase their altitude westbound;" you'll find it in the first paragraph of the body of the article. To find the revert, go to the page history and click "older 50" once. You'll find it easily, as you'll see 49 of my edits and one of his. The relevant MoS guideline is WP:MOSQUOTE. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which style I prefer, but if the guidelines are being stuck to by the letter, the quote isn't long enough to require block formatting. Saying that, it's right on the limit, and the wording is vague, so it may be something to start a request for comment about if you think the article would benefit from block formatting.  drewmunn  talk  19:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How and where do I start a request for comment? AmericanLemming (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It was something in the edit notice for the talk page. I've disabled it and left a note with Bafflegab.—Kww(talk) 18:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!  drewmunn  talk  19:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Tawan W. Davis

Hello,

I asked a question on June 28, 2013 about removing the orphan status and the unreviewed article tag. I followed the suggestions by adding more citations and the article has several other articles that link to it, but nothing has changed. Could you please take a look and provide assistance?

Thank you. Jill kennebrew (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)jill kennebrew

Not being an expert on the subject, I couldn't comment on the matter too much, but I don't see that the subject is particularly notable. Either that, or the article needs some reworking to improve the tone so it doesn't read as a CV. There are also a few spelling, grammatical, and layout issues, but they can be cleaned up with a little work. The main cause of orphaned articles is a lack of notability; if a subject isn't notable enough to be mentioned elsewhere, then it's likely their dedicated article won't get much footfall or linkage.  drewmunn  talk  19:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jill, the templates don't go away on their own, editors have to remove them. While the article isn't entirely an orphan, the only article that links to it is kind of weak: List of Georgetown University alumni. I've removed the orphan tag. I've also removed the citations tag, since there are a few more references now. The notability of the subject is still not well established in the article. (Here's where the harsh-sounding questions begin:) The article says that he's an economist and investor. So what? Why does he get his own Wikipedia page? What makes him so important? Should every teacher/VP get a Wikipedia article? Why does he stand out from every other working person in America? Also, some of the language is full of puffery, in case you were interested in toning it down. "He is recognized as one of America's emerging economic, social and political leaders." This statement is over-the-top: "Newsweek compared Davis to President Bill Clinton, siting him as a 'leader in youth politics'". There's more, but I gotta go! Hope that helps a little. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup on the article, including adding a notabilty tag - I too question whether this meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria. I see *zero* cited news articles where Mr. Davis was subject; what appeared to be such an article ( in the Harlem News) turned out to be a word-for-word reprint of a press release. (For the record, I removed the "Newsweek compared" statement - that is simply untrue (it was a columnist in The Daily Beast; and the comparison was about Clinton and Davis both running for student body president, which makes the comparison unimportant); the "recognized as" statement is also now gone (not in any way supported by a citation). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Article is entirely a copy/paste.

Hey, was hoping to get some eyes on this article: Kamarupa of Bhaskar Varman. Short story: it's essentially been copy/pasted from at least one source. I'm not confident that the source material is still under copyright, but portions might be. While I did find a 1966 source that had some verbatim passages, I found those same passages in an 1897 publication. My write up is on the Talk page. I've tagged it as a copy/paste, but was wondering if I should tag it for deletion because I surmise that the entire thing has been lifted. (Also it's a text wall, also it's not written in a neutral tone, also I don't even know where to begin to fix it, also...) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please recheck my wiki

Logi.pk

I have deleted copy write part from it.

please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samee2cool (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you delete a user page?

An article about a person has been created and approved, but there is a user page,User:Ofeliamccollough, about this individual that is not referenced and comes up in searches. How is this page deleted. The user does not remember log-in or password. EduFact (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion as housekeeping as the article exists in mainspace.--ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)