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.
• If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
• 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 (but please don't ask in both places).

Ask a question

February 22

Professional Developmental Football League

Has anyone done any research on the Professional Developmental Football League? This is a new professional league starting this spring which takes players from 10 teams across the country from Seattle to Miami and gets them into pro camps.

Do some research on this league and see if you think this will warrant a page on Wikepedia.

Thank you,

JJ Fayed Head Coach Utah Argos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.68.100 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

JJ, thanks for writing about this. I found several reliable sources about the league from 2009 and 2010, and a few from this year. I also saw the league's website and Facebook. Good luck to the Argos (but please don't tell the other teams that I said that)! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JJ. It might not be clear what 76.189 is saying. They are saying that it looks as if there are enough sources to warrant such an article: I don't think they are saying that they will write one, and indeed it is unlikely (though possible) that anybody will do so just because you have mentioned it here. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, who write what they get interested in writing.

If you would like to see such an article, I have three suggestions:

• try writing it yourself: start by reading your first article.
• ask at WT:WikiProject Football and see if anybody there is interested in creating it
• use the process at WP:Requested articles (but there is a big backlog there).

Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

creation of templates

How do you create templates? Vegas30 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What kind of templates? See WP:TEMPLATE and WP:TM. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wesley Geer

Hello. I created the article Wesley Geer, and the photograph that I'd originally submitted with this article has been erased. I have re-submitted the photograph several times, but it continues to be erased. Can you please help me to understand why this is happening, and help me submit a photograph to my article that will stay, permanently?

Thank you,

-Jennifer Grutzmacher Jgooch5150Jennifer Grutzmacher 02:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgooch5150 (talk • contribs)

Jennifer, you submitted Wes Geer, which was declined on August 28, 2012, because Wesley Geer was already created by Beatz2010 on September 4, 2010. But I see you've been editing Wesley Geer. I'm confused... are you both Jgooch5150 and Beatz2010? Because you said Wesley Geer is "my article". --76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The duplicate article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wes Geer used to display the photo File:WesLubbockApr2012.jpg, but this was deleted because its licensing information was incomplete - the Commons deletion log entry contains links to some pages that may be helpful. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The usual problem with photos is that people don't realise that Wikipedia has to assume that every photo is copyright, and therefore may not be used, unless it is explicitly stated either to be in the public domain, or to be specifically licensed by the copyright owner. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking for help re access

Hi,

I sent an email a few days ago and haven't heard from anyone. I assume you're busy, but just want to make sure my request wasn't lost somehow.

There is a page on me. I just did a television interview and the host asked a question that was based on a false premise. When I corrected it, she said, "Oh, you can't trust Wikipedia," or something close to that. That made me curious, so I went to the page and saw that there have been some changes in the information about me, largely updates. But a couple of things are wrong, so because I've corresponded with you folks in the past and found you very helpful, I thought I'd ask to be allowed to correct the few little things that are wrong.

Please let me know if I should be going about this in another way.

Thanks.

Mike Farrell

PS - Since you've suggested I not post my email address here, I won't, but will hope you can figure out how to get back to me.

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.20.180 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Which Mike Farrell are you claiming to be? I assume you are Mike Farrell from M*A*S*H because you're writing from Kansas City, Kansas, and I read that he has been starring in play there. Also, to what address did you send your email? Thanks. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Mike, I have advised the biographies of living persons noticeboard and administrator Wifione of your message here. I'm sure that Wifione or one of the other great editors here or at the noticeboard will be happy to assist you. Feel free to post additional comments here or at either of the two other pages. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mike, I'd be happy to help, but I need to know what the problematic "fact" is. I have a guess, but it's only a guess. I can be emailed via this link (but I think you'd have to create an account to use it). Yworo (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Yworo... he can't use that link to email you unless he creates an account. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Farrell did indeed contact us through OTRS, and I've asked that his email be handled by a volunteer to avoid inadvertent disclosure of personal information. That said, I also do not know at this point what the issue with the article is, if it's something minor and Mr. Farrell is comfortable with this venue then I see no problem. It's up to him. We are always concerned about privacy but at the same time we don't want to unnecessarily complicate things. I just want to make sure he knows that we did receive his message. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great, FRF. He is Mike Farrell, correct? Yworo, unless I'm overlooking it I don't see where Mike mentioned anything about a "fact". I do see where he wrote that "a couple of things are wrong" and that he wants "to correct the few little things that are wrong". Thanks guys. Hopefully, Mike we be back to reply. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Farrell, you may edit your article. It is not against policy. As long as the content being removed is not accurate and you are not disruptive, edits by the subject are allowed.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should provide more clarity to Mike if he's going to edit the article himself, just to prevent any problems with the potential removal of reliably-sourced content. I don't want any editors who are unaware of this situation to give Mike a hard time considering they won't know who he is, whether he edits as an IP or creates an account. ;) But I'll bet the disputed content is not sourced, or poorly sourced. Mike, feel free to read our conflict of interest guidelines with regard to making any changes to your article yourself. (I assume that's you; no one's confirmed it yet.) In any case, it sounds like you would prefer to have others make your requested edits, which is not only fine, but very commendable. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Page hitting the template limit

The last few templates on List of cathedrals in the United States are not displaying -- I understand that's because the page uses so many templates that it hits the template limit, presumably due to the fact that the {{coord}} template is used to identify the location of every cathedral on the list. (Actually, the cathedrals in states beginning with T, U, V, and W, and U.S. territories don't have their coordinates shown yet, so the template will probably need to be called on even more in the future.)

What's the best way to deal with this situation in this particular case? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

For some background, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Long lists. I tried doing a null edit on the page, to see whether that would make the missing coordinates appear, but I keep getting a time-out error. The best way to deal with this may be to split the list into smaller chunks (by region? by alphabetical groups of states?) and make the current page a "Lists of ..." index page; but perhaps someone else has a better suggestion. You might try asking at the WikiProject talk page I've linked above. Deor (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the co-ordinates that aren't displayed; you're also missing the references because the {{reflist}} doesn't work. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to make sure, I copied South Carolina (where things start going wierd) to a sandbox and it was fine. Guess it's the TLIMIT.Naraht (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I got {{reflist}} to work by adding "|4" to it. It's still one looong column though.--Auric talk 01:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that a "coord quick" template, with limited capabilities, can be constructed for use in this situation. I'll try to have a look tomorrow. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations on linked pages

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Citations on linked pages

My question concern citations. Myers Motors NmG makes the following claim: "The Myers Motors NmG (formerly the Corbin Sparrow)..." with a citation to [ http://www.electric-bikes.com/cars/ready.html#Myers ] List of production battery electric vehicles#Microcars makes the same claim: "MM NmG, previously named Corbin Sparrow..." (Both MM NmG and Corbin Sparrow are redirects to Myers Motors NmG.) User:N2e tagged the above claim with a citation needed tag.[1] and when I removed it[2] reverted me[3], citing WP:CIRCULAR. So, is the link to MM NmG, which has a citation supporting the claim sufficient, or does it need to be cited on List of production battery electric vehicles as well? If the second cite is not needed, what policy page should I quote in order to convince N2e of this? If it is needed, is this just for "list of" articles or does it apply to disambiguation pages as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC) User:N2e is correct. Every article must comply with WP:V by itself. We cannot rely on a citation in article A to support an uncited claim in article B because article A is subject to editing (or even deletion) independently of article B. The simplest way to solve it would be to simply copy the cite - after you've verified that it does in fact support the claim. Roger (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hi Guy. I don't understand why you removed the cn tag in List of production battery electric vehicles#Microcars. Because it was cited in the other article? Simply because a particular piece of content is cited in one article doesn't mean it doesn't need to be cited in other articles that contain the same content. It does. Just remember that we can never use Wikipedia as a source for itself. ;) Having said that, I don't doubt at all that the information on that website is correct, but whether it is considered a reliable source is a separate issue. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC) So we should CN tag every entry in List of armoured fighting vehicles by country? There is no citation for the Nahuel being a medium tank or for it being from the World War II era. And we should CN tag every entry in List of automobile manufacturers of France? There is no citation for ACMAT being founded in 1958. And every entry in List of cars with non-standard door designs? No citation for the Mercedes-Benz 300SL having gullwing doors. And we should CN tag every entry in List of Soviet computer systems? No citation for the MOS operating system being a Soviet clone of Unix in the 1980s. In fact, in list after list, I see many many entries with no citations other than the citations on the Wikipedia pages they link to. WP:V says that "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." You can read the citation at the Mercedes-Benz 300SL article and check whether it has gullwing doors.[4] I don't see anything in WP:V that mandates another copy of the citation at List of cars with non-standard door designs. With all due respect, before I believe that all the entries on 90% of the lists on Wikipedia need to be tagged, I would like to see a policy page that directly addresses this question. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Hi Guy. Per WP:VERIFY: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." (emphasis added) (see lead of WP:VERIFY) "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (see WP:CHALLENGE) "Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference." (see WP:CIRCULAR) Because N2e added the cn tag, that content needs to be sourced. If N2e agrees to remove the tag, then you're fine. Otherwise, as Roger explained above, "The simplest way to solve it would be to simply copy the cite - after you've verified that it does in fact support the claim." Btw, there are actually 10 cn tags at List of production battery electric vehicles. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (I am going to focus on the one cn tag. We are all smart enough to generalize any answer we arrive at to the others. I am also going to assume for the sake of argument that this particular source (electric-bikes.com) is reliable; if it isn't that is another issue and I would just have to pick another cn tag as an example so I can keep discussing whether this alleged policy actually exists.) Re: "Because User:N2e added the cn tag, that content needs to be sourced", the claim IS sourced. List of production battery electric vehicles#Microcars makes the claim: "MM NmG, previously named Corbin Sparrow..." and the source is at MM NmG: "The Myers Motors NmG (formerly the Corbin Sparrow)...".[5] The question is where it has to be sourced, not whether it has to be sourced. Anyone who thinks it isn't sourced is not paying attention. The question at hand is whether it has to be sourced on the List of production battery electric vehicles#Microcars page. or whether sourcing it at MM NmG suffices. Furthermore, you cannot use "Because User:N2e added the cn tag" as an argument when discussing the question of whether N2e adding the cn tag is supported by Wikipedia policy. That is begging the question -- a form of circular reasoning. Also, "any material challenged" is not a magic phrase making any and all cn tags allowable. For example, if you make a claim on a Wikipedia page and follow it with a solid citation, I cannot simply add a cn tag after your citation saying it is "material challenged" (by me). So if anyone is about to claim that removing cn tags is never allowed, don't bother because sometimes removing cn tags is allowed. Re: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference." (see WP:CIRCULAR)", this argument depends on redefining self-reference withoutn the "self" and redefining "WP:CIRCULAR" as meaning "not a circle." The WP:CIRCULAR argument is completely bogus. Read the policy. You cannot use "because Wikipedia says so" as a citation. You cannot use "because website X (which got the information from Wikipedia) says so" as a citation. You certainly can use "because electric-bikes.com says so" as long as electric-bikes.com is an independent and reliable source. (whether it actually is is another issue; see above). Again, the question is where, not whether. And yes, I know that a simple solution would be to duplicate the reference, but does any policy say that I have to? I am interested in what our policy is, not in this particular example. Deleting the cn tag is also simple, but does any policy say whether I can do that? That is the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Hi Guy. Rather than repeatedly rehashing the same points, I think it would be best for me just to allow some very experienced editors the opportunity to provide their input. I simply wanted to quote the policies that appear most relevant to the issue. Roger's thinking on the matter seems to be precisely in line with mine, but perhaps you will find others who agree with you. In any case, if you are not satisfied and feel the need to pursue this matter further, I can definitely understand that. I appreciate your passion for editing. Good luck and have a great weekend! 76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC) User:76* asked me to look at this. Technically, I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources says that you need to use inline citations in the list article itself if the information is challenged with a {{cn}} tag. For quotes, challenged/likely to be challenged or contentious information, a general reference to a WP page isn't good enough, even if there's an inline citation in that particular WP page. Hope this helps. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)The policy that you're looking for, Guy, is WP:V which states: "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" (emphasis added). Adding a cn-tag is clearly a challenge to the claim and in order to retain the challenged material in the article it needs an inline citation. What is the citation supposed to be inline with? Clearly it should be the line containing the challenged claim. It's true that it doesn't say that it has to be in the same article or even on Wikipedia for that matter, but we have to use common sense here. The plain meaning of the policy is clear. -Thibbs (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC) In List of subcultures many linked articles don't address the status of "subculture". We had to request citations for most entries, just to keep the list under control. -Enric Naval (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC) I was specifically asked to comment here. My opinion is simple: If a statement needs a cite, and the cite exists in another Wikipedia article, AND you have access to that source so you can confirm what it says, there is no compelling reason to oppose its addition. It could be added by either the person who added the cn tag, or the person who added the statement, or really anyone else. I'll not get into that specific pissing contest over whose "responsibility" it is, but I can't support any argument which claims that Wikipedia articles are better when we specifically refuse to add available, reliable references to them. --Jayron32 00:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC) FYI... Guy Macon started this discussion at the Village Pump. I just wanted everyone to be aware that there are two simultaneous discussions going on. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC) [The following is a direct copy of my post at the village pump] Erm. Common sense should prevail here. Firstly, whilst tag bombing is indeed disruptive, consider using {{Refimprove}} on the whole article then raising the specific concerns on the article's talk-page; much less uncivil. Secondly, examine some of Wikipedia's best work, such as our featured lists. You can then model your behaviour accordingly --Senra (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with referencing article

I had an article rejected twice for lack of references. Article name ohlson38. . Unfortunaltey there aren't many more than what I provided. I added still more some 14 days ago but I had no response nor did I get any other form those who rejected the article. Would you please help what I can still do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohlson38 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added the {{reflist}} template to it so that the references are actually visible. It needs some cleaning up (and WP:NAMED would help to handle the multiple references to the same place) but I would say it has enough references now to establish notability. I suggest you do what it says in the older box and "When you are ready to resumbit, click here" - it is unlikely to get reviewed again until you do so. --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Author

I am surprised you do not have info about me, 18 pages on google, author, speaker, voice over talent, very involved with addiction/alcoholism/recovery. How can we get one started?

http://www.capecodpublishing.com

http://www.gordonrouston.com

Book: MY MIND HAS A MIND OF ITS OWN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.240.46 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Header added and comment reformatted --ColinFine (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gordon. Wikipedia is created by volunteers, and so it contains what people have been interested in writing articles on. If you belive that you pass Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which is about whether reliable sources, independent of you have written in depth about you - then there can be an article on you, though you should not be the one to write it. The first couple of pages of google results about you all seem to be either sites affiliated with you, or contributory sites such as blogs and directories, which are not regarded as reliable for Wikipedia purposes; but I haven't investigated further, so the sources may exist.

Your best bet is either to post a request - with independent sources - at WP:Requested articles (though there is a backlog there); or to see if you can find somebody at WT:WikiProject Addictions and recovery who would be willing to write one. --ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Though it's not determinative—we look for substantive treatment in reliable sources entirely independent of a subject of an article to show whether a subject is notable and information sufficient to sustain an article is verifiable through such reliable independent sources—the fact that the main publication noted through the links you provided is published through a vanity press (Tate Publishing & Enterprises), is taken as an indication of non-notability. Looking for reliable sources, I was not able to find anything but a Cape Cod Times article containing a brief mention among other local authors. This is not in any way an assessment of your or the book's merits but most people in the world, including myself, are not notable as we use that word here. If there are other third-party sources out there, you would know better than us where to find them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

editing conflict

attempted to make additions to a subject & apparently someone else was doing so at the same time - resulting in bold "red flag" on entry page... have no idea how to correct this ... no errors showed up in preview

This article Help:Edit conflict may help explain the issue you may have had. If you only intend to make a few changes and get an edit-conflict, just go back and make them again . In future, try to only edit small sections of an article rather than a whole article. This can help to avoid such conflicts. If you are planning to make a large number of changes to a whole article, open the article for editing, add {{In use}} to the top of the article, then save the article. Open the article for editing again and make your changes, not forgetting to remove the {{In use}} template before saving for the second time --Senra (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I was in Saint Patrick Day Pride in Syracuse, New York

G'day Blokes I'm Sir.Quala I was in Saint Patrick Day Pride in Syracuse may times how do seen U the Photos 2 add 2 Wikipedia and others I have lost of pitchers of me in Saint Patrick Day Prides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.94.121 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be asking about uploading images to Wikipedia. Standard advice follows:

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OP did inquire at OTRS, but I did not find an article about him or the event, so I didn't see the point of uploading an image.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wynwood Arts District

I request to post a link to a facebook page. The page is only designed to showcase the local Artist of Wynwood. What this does is let's people who look Wynwood up and want to see who the artist are, can do so. My page, Artist of Wynwood is not to promote an event, or anyone specific. I really want people to know who the soul and drive of our community are and what they do. Can I post the page https://www.facebook.com/artistofwynwood  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artist of Wynwood (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the help page for the English-language version of Wikipedia. We here are not responsible for what happens on Facebook. However my understanding is that you can post almost anything you like on your own Facebook page. Maproom (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In general, links to social media sites are not permitted, see WP:ELNO #10.--ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you should not post links to Facebook pages in Wikipedia articles, and "really want people to know that ... " is precisely what we mean by promotion, and is not permitted in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

ARTICLE ON HOMBRES INACCURATE

Sirs, this article about the Hombres it TOTALLY inaccurate. Can you tell me how to edit this article and print the real truth about The Hombres, as referred to in the present article is not even close to the real truth. I was the one that started the group from scratch. BB Cunningham, Jr. and Gary McEwen didn't even join the group until we had been trying out different musicians for almost a year. I, Jerry Masters, was the founder and leader of The Hombres, who were before called The Daytonas. We were a road group representing Ronnie and The Daytonas on the road, since there never was an active group called Ronnie and The Daytonas. After tiring of pretending to be someone else, we changed our name to The Hombres approximately one year before the song "Let It All Hang Out" was released.

I can verify all these changes if I'm helped by someone who can tell me how to edit the article.

Please help me get this corrected since I, as well as many in the world hold Wikipedia to the highest esteem. Help me continue that editorial and supposedly accurate Wikipedia info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.111.45 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest so please request those edits on the talk page at Talk:The Hombres providing reliable sources. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced information on the page may be removed, but you should not add your own information unless it is verifiable from published reliable sources. As ukexpat says, explaining on the talk page what you think should be removed and what added is a good first step. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Academy CT edit

I have recently edited Oxford Academys page and have had my edits deleted and cited as vandalism. None such has occured, what I posted is 100% accurate. Police did respond to an altercation with a student, the building was destroyed by arson etc. I dont understand why I'm being cited for vandalism? I have proof of my statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.176.255 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If that "proof" comes from a reliable source the please cite it, but you will have an uphill battle getting these edits to stick.--ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edits look like a personal attack on the institution, which is no doubt why somebody took them for vandalism. You need a reliable published source for such claims in order to be allowed to add them to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Promotional message

Is there any policy or guideline against spreading a promotional message right before one's user name? For instance: Wikipedia is the best! Lova Falk talk 19:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I mean every time I sign. Wikipedia is the best! Lova Falk talk 19:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SIGNATURE doesn't appear to have anything *specifically* against it, but it might be viewed as problematic, especially if not obviously part of the signature. Also, you'll need to watch out for the 255 character limit.Naraht (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not me who feels like doing this, but another user seems to do this and I would like to ask him to stop and refer to some guideline. Lova Falk talk 19:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Actually the WP:SIG guideline does indirectly specify that a promotional signature is banned via the username policy. Does a policy trump a guideline? See the WP:SIG#Dealing with problem signatures section which states

  Wikipedia's Username policy describes accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia that apply to both usernames and signatures. A purpose of your signature is to identify you as a contributor. If your signature is unnecessarily confusing or inaccessible, editors may request that you change it. An editor with a confusing signature may be blocked sooner than usual for other inappropriate behavior such as disruption or vandalism, if their confusing signature contributes to the disruption.

  — WP:SIG#Dealing with problem signatures

--Senra (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I was a bit doubtful about saying who it was, because I didn't want to expose this obviously good faith editor, but I understand that it will make things clearer. It is User:MPSchneiderLC, who seems to write >> Jesus Loves You! before his signature. And I take offense. Lova Falk talk 19:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there an option in preferences to turn those off? If there isn't it may be a nice feature to add.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia should be a religion-neutral place and readers/editors should not need to be familiar with preferences options to shield themselves from religious messages. Lova Falk talk 20:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Erm. Be careful. Such messages may not be part of an editors signature in which case, there is no policy preventing such messages except (at a push) the WP:CIV policy --Senra (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any technical way to tell whether it is part of their signature or not? And does it really matter whether it is an automatic add as part of the signature or something which he adds by hand every time? Note, I've gone back through his edits and there is a clear starting point: Every message September 28th 2012 and later has the Jesus Loves You and every one September 27th and before doesn't.Naraht (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The world will run a lot smoother if you just let stuff like this roll off your back. You don't really have a right to be shielded from the fact that some Christians think Jesus loves you. It's not really provocative, it's not saying "non-Christians suck", it's not terribly in your face. Just let it go, would be my advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• What exactly to do here is not clear but such a signature is a form of proselytizing, something I am constantly being bombarded with and find invasive and repulsive. If my signature said "your god, of whatever stripe, is a fictitious being", it would not go over well, and quickly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Is this a rhetorical device, or do you really not see a difference between his tagline and your example? Yes, I would prevent you from adding that to your signature, because it isn't at all the same. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have so far stopped short of commenting on anything other than the policies and guidelines in this matter. It does, however, seem to me that the reason such promotional signatures (or signature prefixes) are bad is because of the polarised debates they can lead to. Wikipedia may (or has) become the repository of all knowledge, including on theological topics, but its editors should remain neutral at all times. Any editor message which promotes or attempts to promote an unbalanced position could be viewed as, and in my opinion is, uncivil and disruptive. Such messages may be innocent such as "Vote <insert politician here>", antagonistic such as "There is no <insert deity here>" or benign "Eat Waffles<insert food here>". But, whatever is being promoted, someone somewhere will take offence. And there, my friends, be demons! (or is that "here be dragons!"?) --Senra (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I see little difference at all. You may be unfamiliar with how often that slogan in particular is used for aggressive proselytizing. It is a statement that God is real and his living embodiment's name is Jesus, and he loves YOU (if only you could see the light). Not that I think "I am a Christian!" belongs in a signature either, but this is nothing like that sort of more neutral declaration of personal belief. It is directed outward at the reader.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's really not appropriate to bombard other editors with a reminder about one's religious beliefs – especially in the context of implicit proselytizing – as a part of every single statement one makes in every single interaction on Wikipedia. This shouldn't need a policy rationale, but ruleslawyers can also refer to WP:SOAPBOX. ("Wikipedia is not for...[a]dvocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise."

That said, has anyone made a polite approach to MPSchneiderLC on this? He may not realize how irritating or offensive some people will find this sort of thing, either in general or (particularly) in the context of the back-and-forth of an editing disagreement. (Ask him to imagine ending every phrase in real-life conversations with Jesus loves you.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have. User_talk:MPSchneiderLC#Please_refrain Lova Falk talk 11:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

...and with reasonable civility. He seems to have removed it from his sig as of at least 20 hours ago. FWIW, I don't think it belongs either, though I don't have a problem with a less obtrusive single symbol (cross, Star of David, etc.) if someone really has to tell the world. It just seems more likely to make people think you have an agenda. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems paying

It seems you have encountered some problems when you paid at that time

Please try to pay again by clicking this link .Oque significa essa frase em portugues! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.189.67 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

De acordo com o Google Translate, que significa "Parece que você encontrou alguns problemas quando você paga na época. Por favor, tente pagar novamente clicando neste link". Maproom (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits not saving

Why is it when I add a name to a list and hit save it doesnt save? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.184.155 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "name" and "list"? By save, I assume you mean when editing a page. Can you please provide an example so that we can more easily assist you? FrigidNinja 23:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What is a freebie response

Hi Wikipedia,

I apologize in advance if this is not the proper contact for this issue/question. I noticed the wiki answers response to "what is a freebie" is "a freebie is something you get for free." As someone who runs a freebie site <redacted>, I thought you may find it helpful to reference my page that provides details about what a freebie is <redacted>.

If you ever wanted to expand the explanation, please feel free to link to my site or contact me for further insight.

Best regards,

Kelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.75.220 (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You refer to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_freebie at WikiAnswers. That site is not associated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia. A wiki is just a type of website. There are thousands of unrelated wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

February 23

Disambiguation when there is no second article

The guidance at hatnote makes it clear on should not use a hatnote when the other article has not been created.

What should one do when the title of an article is potentially confusing, but the other use does not have an article?

For example, there is an article Apogee Books. That article is about a Canadian publisher. There also sued to be another publisher of the same name, but it is out of business, and may not be notable enough for an article. this book is published by the "other" Apogee. Someone told that there was a publishing house which published some science fiction, who then searched for Apogee Books in Wikipedia would be led to an article about a publisher of science fiction, but it would be the wrong one.

A hatnote would be the perfect answer, if there were a second article. How do we inform our readers that this isn't the publisher they want?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not include a small note somewhere in the article about the unrelated publishing house. A single sentence would do. A hatnote maybe not so, because of prominence would be out of place, but you could simply say (with a reliable reference) "There was an unrelated publisher from XXXX also named Apogee" or something like that. Care would have to be taken on how to properly work it in to the article text, but I don't see any reason why the information should be completely omitted. --Jayron32 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

How about using {{Distinguish2}} to say something like "Not to be confused with the science fiction publisher Apogee blah blah"? You don't necessarily need a link with that. Chamal ^T•C 02:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that template, which sounds perfect.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Press releases as reliable sources

I was just wondering to what degree are press releases considered a reliable source? It seems they fail as not being a "third party" source, as they are generally authored directly or indirectly by the party they are about. Also wondering about their status as relates to WP:CORPDEPTH. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Press releases are reliable sources for what the press release says. Simple attribute the source in text if you need to use it by saying "A press release from XXXX states that..." and then cite the press release as any other source. That being said, the relevance of the material in the press release would still need to be established, and doing so would require consensus. --Jayron32 03:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A press release is a type of self-published source, with all the usual caveats regarding the evaluation of reliability and relevance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Update template documentation

I have created an alternate version of the WikiProject Film award, and added it into Template:WikiProject_Film_Award. How do I update the documentation, so as to show how the alternate version? FrigidNinja 04:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the modifications I made; do these look okay? —Theopolisme (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That's perfect, thank you! FrigidNinja 04:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The Last Church . org

I find no information about the last church on Wikipedia. Http://www.thelastchurch.org has been on the net since the net began. Should there not be some mention of it and it's content. I do not have the ability to create the information because of my age and medical problems. I do how ever think someone should. It has been posting in alt.thelastchurch and other such places as alt.wicca going back several years so there are many public records about it.

The-Last-Church (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Information included on Wikipedia must be notable and verifiable. If you believe that the last church meets these criteria and can support your opinion with evidence published by reliable sources, please feel free to request an article on this topic. FrigidNinja 05:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Daily pictures

Is the person that picks the daily pictures from Tasmania. There are alot of pictures from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.212.136 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The picture of the day is a featured picture. The POTD is generally chosen from the featured pictures in roughly the order in which they were uploaded; so no one person chooses the picture. Incidentally, I'm not sure what you define as "a lot" of pictures, as there have been only 2 pictures this month from Tasmania. FrigidNinja 05:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, featured pictures are selected when the particular image reaches a consensus as a featured image by the editors, not only one editor. When an image is listed at WP:FPC for nine days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Featured pictures. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. So it is almost impossible that featured pictures are from only one country. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 09:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a Tasmanian editor User:JJ Harrison who uploads many quality photos from Tasmania with a free license as required for featured pictures (most pictures on the Internet are not free). The userpage says "At the time of writing I have taken 8.9% of the featured pictures on the English Wikipedia." A photographer cannot give featured status to a picture, but can nominate it for review. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Killing of Travis Alexander

I have been watching Jodi Arias trial since it began and have researched Travis Alexander's death/murder to many lengths. I happen to read this page and saw that their is an error. I am hoping someone will edit it. Under Discovery It states: "When she arrived in Utah on June 5, 2008, Arias had dyed her hair blonde." This is incorrect. When Jodi arrived in Utah on June 5, 2008 her hair was dyed brown which was different from her normally blonde hair. Everyone that knew her in Utah commented on her hair now being brown instead of blond. This is not a huge mistake, but a mistake none the less. It should be correct as to not confuse readers. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sybley07 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sybley. You can make your request on the article's talk page. Just click on "New section" at the top of that page to start a new messsage, fill-in the subject/headline field, then type your request below. Because the article is semi-protected, include the template "{{edit semi-protected}}" at the beginning of your message. Don't forget to include at least one reliable source that proves the information you're providing is accurate. ;) Good luck! --76.189.111.199 (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel

Hi:

I'm editing the article for Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel

And the reference I am trying to properly format is reference 4.

^ Hopf, W (2007). "Zu Chronologie und Texgrundlagen der Kantatenjahrgänge von Gottfriedh Heinrich Stölzel". In Hopf, W. Alte Musik und Auffürungspraxis - Festschriff für Dieter Gutknecht zum 65. Geburtstag. Lit Verlag. pp. 81–92. ISBN 9783825809980.

This is a hardback book, in a music monograph series. It's just a group of different articles assembled. No editor is listed (except the publishers). I looked on the templates, but there doesn't seem to be something specific (except journals, which to me is like a magazine). Any suggestions.

I need to correct the information on this entry soon.

The author of the article is Bert Siegemund, NOT W. Hopf the name of the LIT Verlag owner.

The monograph series is entitled "Alte Musik und Auffürungspraxis"

band 1 (Vol 1) is dedicated to celebrate a musicologists birthday.

"Festschriff für Dieter Gutknecht zum 65. Geburtstag"

Other information is accurate.

Lit Verlag. pp. 81–92. ISBN 9783825809980.

Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telemann (talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're asking which is the correct citation template to use? Have you looked through them all yet? To me it sounds like you'd want Template:Cite book or just the general Template:Citation. But if you are familiar with the source then you'd probably be in the best position to draw comparisons to other forms (e.g. if it's more like an encyclopedia then maybe you'd want to use a different citation template). In general using the correct citation template isn't that important, though. As long enough information is given that the reader can independently locate the source material then that should be good enough. I mean make it look as nice as possible but don't worry too much if it's not absolutely perfect. -Thibbs (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Kopi Luwak

Good day!

I am a producer of Kopi Luwak here in the Philippines. The article on Kopi lUwak is very unfair and bias to me and the rest of the producers of the rare Kopi Luwak coffee. I am trying to correct the unfair and bias paragraphs and sentences, in behalf of the other producers of Kopi luwak, but sad to say your company Wikipedia is favoring these unfair and bias paragraphs and sentences. Especially, the picture of Kopi Luwak section. Please be fair on the section of Kopi Luwak. "They" do not know the real taste and how does the process of Kopi Luwak really took place. I challenge "them" to come here in my place and I will let them taste a cup Kopi Luwak. They will surely taste the difference. Although, sad to say, there are some Kopi Luwak producers do it the harsh way. But I tell you, the civet cat can not be "forced feed" as they claimed because they do not eat if maltreated. They do not eat coffee berries the next day. Some do not even eat coffee berries at all. They eventually die if you cage them for a long time like what you saw in the pictures. The civet cats are either: enclosed in a very huge cage with a coffee tree enclosed; or the tame ones are let to free to roam around the coffee trees to eat the berries, in order to produce the Kopi Luwak. Please be objective. "They" are the ones vandalizing the section of Kopi Luwak. Please reflect on these message you have sent:

"Rbalmonia, it seems you have only one interest on Wikipedia, and your edits at that article are obviously not well-received by other editors. It is time to stop making those edits and move on to something else, or risk being blocked indefinitely. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)"[6]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbalmonia (talk • contribs) 07:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not know anything about the subject, and I have not looked at the article. But in general material in Wikipedia must be referenced to reliable sources: personal knowledge and unpublished material is not acceptable unless it has been reported in published sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Template doesn't work as it should

I use User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:File page NFCC concerns tag to tag non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale. The template message is supposed to turn red after having been in place for more than 7 days and place files tagged for more than 7 days in Category:Non-free files lacking a non-free use rationale for more than 7 days. This doesn't work however, as the example of File:1944 Milwaukee Chicks.jpg shows. How can I make the color change and the recategorization of the tagged file after 7 days work? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The left vertical border of the box is red for me. Do you mean it's supposed to write this in red below the box: "This message has remained in place for seven days and so the files may be removed without further notice." That requires a timestamp parameter which isn't in File:1944 Milwaukee Chicks.jpg, and isn't mentioned in the documentation at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:File page NFCC concerns tag. If the tag is saved with |timestamp=~~~~~ then it should work. An unrelated comment: If you are using this tag beyond a few tests then it should be in template space. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to add a red message to the template after 7 days. I added the timestamp parameter to the pasteable code in the template documentation (and my task description) and moved the page into the template namespace. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 23:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

undeletion

Dear Sir or Madam,

I came across an issue with you articles. I tried to create with my account esomelpier a first article called English Study Online (ESO) but after thinking the best title I decided to change to just English study Online.

Here I started to have a problem because the system has recognised as a copy of the first one but actually I wanted just to change the title.

It's the page of my company and it would be vey bad to see something like that for my clients or potential one.

Is that possible to have back the page English Study Online. Here below you can find a message i got from you.

20:15, 17 February 2013 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted page English study online (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, English Study Online (ESO))

I'm available to provide everything you need in order to solve this issue asap.

Thanks in advance for helping me.

Best regards,

Andrea Melara English Study Online — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esomelpier (talk • contribs) 10:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Reformatted for readability. --ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Andrea. The answer to the first question is that the way to change the title of a page is to move the page.

The answer to the second one is that articles in Wikipedia are required to be referenced to independent reliable sources, and written in a neutral tone. Promotion of any kind, whether commercial or not, is not permitted.

As a representative of the company, you have a conflict of interest, so you are unlikely to be able to write a sufficiently neutral article. Please read WP:BESTCOI and WP:CORP. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

untitled

My name is edward Stockdale. I'm contacting you to let you know that a group knowne as the yorubas and alafians in yammassee SC, alonge with the state of north carolina are and are hacking your web padge tracking me because of my family history. It seems that my family and I are part of the royal families of the UK and they keep deleating your web padges and putting or trying to add themselves to evry thing I trace please be aware , This Is The Truth they seem to be syber Hackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.31.3 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there may be something wierd going on. I checked 3 of the infobox BLPs at Yoruba people and only one I checked has a source that he was Yoruba. Could there be some covert edits at work here? Alaafin seems like a strange article as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article this relates to. A google search indicates a Edward LLoyd Stockdale Jr who did not join the alafians and yorubas community in Yemassee, South Carolina. Where you indicate "deleating your web padges", to which Wikipedia articles are you referring? Also, what are the names of the Wikipedia articles they are adding themselves to? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember it now. It seems there is a group trying to create their own country within a country and have been accused of using wp in the attempt. See: Yorùbáland--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good memory! I checked and Yorùbáland meets WP:N and there enough source material there for Yorùbáland to be mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. The editors may not be using sourced material to edit Wikipedia, creating an issue. The puzzling thing is trying to figure out which Wikipedia pages Edward Stockdale's name could possibly appear to allow others to hack to track him. Without knowing that, it's hard to offer any help advise. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone may have to go through Category:Yoruba people as well as the other sub-cats in Category:Yoruba. It won't be me though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing what this could have to do with Wikipedia. You think the US state of North Carolina is somehow using Wikipedia to track you? How would that work, exactly? Can you describe exactly what you're trying to tell us is happening (i.e. what exact pages you are looking at and what edits are wrong and why)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Help bringing participants to a talk page merge discussion

There is a talk page merge discussion at Talk:Heart and Soul (1938 song)#Merge at which only two other editors and myself have been participating. What are some ways to publicize the the talk page discussion to bring in comments from additional editors? I though of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but I would appreciate your comment on using RFC for the talk page merge as well as receive additional suggestions. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Proposed mergers? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a note on the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers page. That page has some traffic.[7] Any other suggestions to publicize the discussion would be welcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

None of the articles have the merger tags in point 2 of Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#How to propose a merger. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

They did. The discussion has been going on for weeks. Uzma has been shopping his objections to the merge all over Wikipedia, include Jimbo's talk page. Since the merge is clearly indicated by normal practice and everyone that has discussed it but Uzma, I've removed the tags and performed the merge. Uzma has since tried to report me at WP:AN and is here trying to get the discussion reopened.—Kww(talk) 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

SM Razaullah Ansari

In the Write-up on S.M.Razauall Ansari, there is a factual error. Ansari has not worked on Avempec and Qutbooddin Shrazi. Please delete it. I know it well. He has worked on Al-Biruni and Ulugh Beg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.192.162 (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because you "know something well" does not mean that it should be changed. All Wikipedia content is verifiable and does not contain original research. If you believe that there is an error in an article, you may change it, as long as you provide a reliable source to back up your information. Since SM Razaullah Ansari is still alive, your edit must also follow the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons. Thank you. FrigidNinja 17:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source wouldn't be needed to remove information if it was unsourced. But I don't se mention of "Avempec" or "Qutbooddin Shrazi" in SM Razaullah Ansari or its recent page history. Oh, looking at your edits I see [8] you have removed Avempace and Qotb al-Din Shirazi. I guess that's what you referred to. It was supposedly sourced but I haven't been able to examine the sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi I found out about General Philip H. Sheridan's born year

This is Gael O'Connell from Arizona and Illinois (snowbird season)

I went to Ireland for two months for travels the history in July 2012 and Jan and Feb 2013 and I just back home to Illinois yesterday and share with my Dad and he have vision problem so I check website about General Philip H. Sheridan's birthplace there in Ireland and I took picture of his homeplace. I check the website in Illinois and I learn that wrong born the year and correct died year. General Philip H. Sheridan Born is 1830 to 1888 but not say the month and date. and need change correct the year 1830. I have picture of it and do you want the picture of his birthplace. His birthplace wore out the house but still there. if you want see the picture.

Gael O'Connell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.73.197 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to this article Philip_Sheridan? The source of the birthdate and place in that article notes that there is some contention over his actual birthdate and place, and includes references to the stone marker in Ireland. RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He probably was born in Ireland and did the deception to qualify as a presidential canditate. They have records in Ireland but none in the US is seems. It has probably been dicussed on the talk page before but may be due for another consensus to include both in the lead. Can you upload your images to commons?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the caption over the pix on the "Stomach Cancer" page.

I'm sure that's not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.114.180 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like cluebot already fixed this vandalism. Thanks for reporting it, though. RudolfRed (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Musicians from Riverside .California

Hello Wikipedia for some unknown reason there was a small list of former and current musicians left off the page of people who have lived in Riverside. Trey Stone, Freddy Howard, Charles Unger,Ella Faulk, Steve Tavaglione. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.88.170 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello IP 71. In order for someone to qualify for a "notable" people list (notable residents, notable alumni, etc.), the person needs to meet Wikipedia's definition of notable, which is a test used to decide if someone is worthy of having a Wikipedia article about them. Also, there must be reliable sources to prove that the person is actually a member of the list class (resident of the city, alum of the school, etc.). I looked up all of the names you mentioned and I could only find one, Steve Tavaglione, who has an article. It should be noted about Tavaglione, though, that there are actually no reliable sources in the article to verify his notability or that he's connected to Riverside, California. (It's also not clear if the "Notable people" list in the Riverside article is intended for people who were born there, currently live there, lived there at some point, or any of them.) This is a good and helpful essay about adding names to notable alumni lists, but the overall point applies to any list of notable people. Finally, see these guidelines which are specifically about lists of people. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

america's next top model cycle 4

The writing and grammar on the page America's Next Top Model, Cycle 4 is is very poor. Seems to be written by a non-native speaker without a strong understanding of the language. The article frequently refers to the all-female models as he/his/him. Sentence construct is also poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.203.18 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from making it right. --Jayron32 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Great minds think alike.) Hello, 98.145.203.18. Feel free to be bold and make the proper corrections! ;) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I made a few corrections. I guess someone did some work on it earlier, because it didn't look too bad. But seriously, is this silliness really notable? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit) As I looked further down, it became clear that this article was pretty badly vandalized starting with a series of edits by IP User:186.89.219.95 at 2012-02-05T19:58:08Z. The only reasonable solution I can see is to revert to the previous version, which I've done. If someone wants to sort through all the edits since then to find any that were significant versus just hacking over some of the vandalized text, be my guest. I wonder if there is more damage to other similar articles... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

February 24

Comma in "Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2,013"

What's with the comma in "Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2,013" which appears for articles like Waitangi, Northland? Nurg (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The population_total parameter of {{Infobox settlement}} is formatted by a feature which inserts commas so a year cannot be present, not even in a citation needed tag. Many templates have some parameters which must be pure numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the Waitangi article, I've moved the citation-needed template to the infobox's "population_footnotes" field, and the article is now in the correct category. Deor (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. Nurg (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Moving a page

There is an article Basic Anxiety. I tried to move it to Basic anxiety but failed. I requested a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, but a bot immediately removed my request. Now I see that a new editor starts writing this article, which would mean a great deal of overlap with Anxiety. So, what mistake did I make, and can someone please move Basic Anxiety to Basic anxiety before we have double articles and a lot of good efforts done in vain? Thank you! Lova Falk talk 11:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have also tried moving the page and it appears the page could not be moved because a redirect page by that name already exists. I think that the redirect page should be deleted first (obviously needs sysop help) and then the move could be completed. Please ask an admin for extra assistance. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems you tried to list the move request at move discussions which is for potentially controversial moves that need to be discussed first. That section is not updated manually; you have to request that kind of move in the article talk page and a bot will add it to the list. This is why the bot overwrote your request. A technical move like yours should go under WP:RM/TR. Please list it in that section manually, according to the instruction provided there. Chamal ^T•C 12:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I now listed it in the proper place. Lova Falk talk 13:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Claire Cooper

Hello,

I have tried editing this page: Claire Cooper many times. The birth date is wrong and whenever I change it and save it the next day I come back and it's been changed back to the date it was already on. Claire Cooper's birthday is 26th October 1981, she is 31 years old. The actress has confirmed this herself via twitter @CLAIREECOOPER which is her verified account. Please help change this as a lot of website's that write articles about Claire use this website so the information in the articles always ends us being wrong. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.193.242 (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're correct since she has mentioned that it's her birthday on 26 October, and has denied that it's her birthday today on Twitter (which is in this case an acceptable source since there doesn't seem to be anything better that is not copied off the wikipedia article itself). I have changed the date; can't find anything on the year though so I left it as it is. If you can find a better, reliable source that provides this information, please add it to the article. Chamal ^T•C 13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Twitter now considered a reliable source? Is there really some way to confirm a Twitter account as belonging to someone? If so, is it secure enough to consider "tweets" from such an account to be attributable to that person? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it can be. The blue check mark beside the name is their OTRS system.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not always a "reliable source", but I gave a link in my previous comment as to why Twitter is an acceptable source in this case. And as Canoe1967 said, Twitter have a program called verified accounts where they confirm that the account is who it claims to be. Chamal ^T•C 02:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Awareness Ribbons

The Wikipedia list of Ribbon Awareness colors does not include the Gay Pride Rainbow Ribbons. Please correct this soon as it is a significant oversite.

Thank You

Christina Palmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.136.20 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Christina. Your comment reads as one of somebody who thinks Wikipedia has some central authority that oversees and approves edits (and can have oversights laid in its lap). We are all volunteers, and became editors by clicking the edit button and adding content we wanted to add and thought would belong or was missing (within the limits of policy and guideline as we learned them). You are an editor too. Two aphorisms we use here, corollaries of each other, are to be bold in editing and when someone see a mistake or a gap and reports it, we tell them, uh huh, SoFixIt! See Be bold. The edit you're proposing sounds like a good one. If what I've been leading up to isn't clear: Why don't you go make the edit since you think this content should be added? Note that this material should be accompanied by citation to a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. If you need any help with adding the material, please do not hesitate to ask here (or you could contact me directly on my talk page and I will do my best to help).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

LGBT symbols does not list any ribbons. Do you have a reliable source? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A source is not difficult, e.g. this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That is an award, not an awareness ribbon.[9] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

USS Silica

Under the artical "USS Silica", a concrete ship built by Barrett & Hilp at the Bel Air Ship Yards in 1943, it states that the ship was sponcered by a Mrs. O'Neil. I happened to be there at the time of the christening and it was christened by my mother Mrs. Stanley A. Brown. My father at the time was a General Superintendent for the Barrett & Hilp Construction Co. I have several pictures showing the christening.

William S. Brown63.83.75.144 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. If you have any published reference for that (eg a clipping from a newspaper - it doesn't have to be available on line) you are welcome to add the information to the article, with a citation to the reference (see WP:Referencing for beginners); but if it is only your personal recollection then I'm afraid Wikipedia cannot use it, as we require information to be verifiable.

On the subject of the pictures, do you know who holds the copyright in them? If you hold it (eg if they were taken by your father and left to you as part of his estate) and you are willing to donate them to Wikipedia, that would be very welcome. You would need to scan them and upload them to Wikimedia commons, filling in the details to say that you were the copyright holder and you agreed to release them under a suitable licence; then the article could be linked from the article USS Silica. --ColinFine (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The article reference is [10] at the official US Navy website. It says "sponsored by Mrs. William O'Neill". Wikipedia requires reliable published sources like that. If the Navy changed their statement then Wikipedia could change to the new Navy statement. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm no US naval expert (being a Brit landlubber), but is the word "sponsored" here really meant to be a synonym for "christened"? It's not a usage I've encountered before, and would have read it to mean that the said Mrs. O'Neil paid for (at least a significant part of) the cost of the vessel, not that she smashed a bottle over the bow at launching. Such 'sponsorship' might seem unlikely in peacetime, but this all took place during WW2, when I know that, for example, various individual RAF aircraft were nominally funded by collections from areas or organisations, or by rich individuals, and Royal Naval ships were partly supported by the cities etc after which they were named. {The poster formally known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Garcia

Someone has messed up leonards pages. It saids hes 4-21. heres a website from UFC http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Leonard-Garcia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.10.81 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The page should be fixed now. FallingGravity (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing a Semi-Protected Page

I added an external link today to this page [11] on the Mona Lisa, but it didn't show up. The page is semi-protected, but I should be able to edit as an auto-confirmed user. Any help with this would be appreciated. NinaGreen (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It was below the da Vinci template. I moved it above but the link seems broken.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what happened. I didn't realize the item immediately above was a template. The link seems fine now. NinaGreen (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I fixed the link as well. They will probably start merge and re-name discussions soon to a new article called "Mona Lisas".--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Stray characters

Resolved

What are the stray characters at the bottom of Augie Wolf coming from.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

They disappeared when I purged. They came from a faulty version of Template:Navbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

February 25

Please (pretty please) convert list to table

Please someone with strong technical skills, change the bulleted list in Nissen Award to a sortable table (year, gymnast, University]]. Also, all the gymnasts and schools should be wikilinked.

(This would be very tedious for me, but I'm sure someon has a semi automated tool to fix this. And I totally appreciate the "leverage" of someone doing that for me so I can get more content itself.)

TCO (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I will do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I LUB the people here and at the graphics lab. Makes me feel good about the Wiki how different talents come together (and I am a curmudgeon).TCO (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

TCO has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, done. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

what is the deal with "authority control"

I just saw this for the first time (some sort of Wiki template or category or navbox) on the bottom of Richard Bradford (novelist). Is it a deprecated tool? An EL (I am fine with ELs, but will just put it in an EL section).

TCO (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi TCO! Take a look at Wikipedia:Authority control for some details on what the template is; basically, its goal is to link Wikipedia articles and their corresponding entries in national libraries and things of that nature. —Theopolisme (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

See the edit I just made?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks I was kind of figuring that out now too. Looks pretty new. I am fine with it. Think they could make the template a little prettier and the wording less cryptic (authority control sounds like the page is locked or has been fact checked or something).TCO (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the name is rather intimidating - reminiscent of Stasi, Gestapo, Thought Police, Spanish Inquisition, etc. Roger (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We did not create the term, so there is not much we can do about it. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody expects Authority Control!--ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Gadget man...you are one of the best here and a complete gentleman. But there is "something we could do". Just make it authority control (library cataloguing system) or the like. It's not even that the name is ominous...but that it is confusing.206.222.198.12 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hack for (current) → (top)

I see people are playing around again with the interface. Anyone have the hack for changing (current) back to (top) on your contributions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That message is stored at the MediaWiki:Uctop. It was changed by User:WilliamH who is a crat. Maybe you could start a discussion at the talk page or at the WP:VP or since you are a sysop yourself you could change it back. But the best thing to do is check out the community's opinion and then change it back. Maybe if you make some modifications to your personal common.css page it might change for your account only. I am not very good at css, so maybe someone who is well informed in css could do it for you. As for my opinion, (current) is better. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ushau for locating the mediawiki origin page. I'm just looking for the hack though, which I expect will be possible through through a change to Special:MyPage/common.css or Special:MyPage/skin.css. If no one answers in few days I'll ask at VPT.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors removed UK Murder Victim page 3 times. Created again

About 5 years ago, a 15 year child from UK was killed in Goa, India. Till today, no one has been convicted for the killing, or any of the senior officials in India resigned for this crime.

Three times over the last few years, someone has created a Wikipedia page for this teenager and each of the 3 times it has been removed by Wikipedia Editors. You can check Wikipedia deletion log to confirm this removal of the profile by Wikipedia Editors.

This month Feb, 2013, someone has created this page again

Scarlett Keeling

And they have left inappropriate comments about the girls mother, who lives in UK, [redacted - if you don't think the comments are appropriate in the article, don't quote them here]

The person creating this profile has written about this teenagers personal life:

(she used drugs and had sex)

All these violate norms set up by Wikipedia on pages for living and deceased people.

Can a Wikipedia Editor look into this and see if this page should be deleted. Or all such personal references removed

P.S - The following is more balanced coverage by mainstream media

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/17/scarlett-keeling-goa-trial-murder
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8577029.stm
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-03-13/india/27754497_1_murder-case-anjuna-beach-goa-police
• http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/scarlett-keeling-case-five-years-on-mother-awaits-justice-331858
• http://zeenews.india.com/news/goa/five-years-on-scarlett-keeling-case-in-limbo_829756.html
• http://www.gulf-times.com/india/185/details/343196/five-years-on,-no-justice-for-british-teen-raped-in-goa

Wuser999 (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it a little and tagged for speedy. Admin may wish to salt after deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The murder of Scarlett Keeling featured prominently in the British press, as evidenced by the above references. I believe that she (or maybe the murder) attracted enough attention to qualify as notable. Compare Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Maproom (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no question that the murder was prominent and should be covered here. But does that justify a seperate biography article for her? Just my two cents; I don't get involved in deletions so I admit I'm not the best person to do an in-depth review of such an issue. Chamal ^T•C 09:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Redacted some of the above - if you don't think the content is appropriate, don't quote it and make it more prominent. Bencherlite^Talk 08:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

SANSIPS

"SANSIPS" was an acronym frequently used by the UK Government in the 1970s as a shorthand to describe items of export or import that were sufficiently large and irregular enough to make the monthly Balance of Payments figure differ significantly from either the same month the previous year of the average balance over the previous twelve months. It stood for "Ships, Aeroplanes N? S? I? and Precious Stones". In those days the UK had a large (if not flourishing) shipbuilding industry and the sale of one or two large vessels would be enough to alter the Balance of Payments figure for that month. The same was true for sales (or purchases, following the loss of commercial aircraft leadership from de Haviland to Boeing) for aircraft. The import of precious stones was also an 'unbalancing' factor. [ What I do NOT remember - and would very much like to be reminded of - is what the N, the S and the I stood for. Can anyone help me? Google comes up with nothing relevant.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.43.104 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Try the Reference Desk, they specialise in questions like that. This help desk is for help editing Wikipedia. Good luck ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The NSI part stood for "North Sea installations". Deor (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Link

Dear team,

there is a wrong link from ZSI (linking to a Canadian Institut) The Web adress of our Centre of Social Innovation in Vienna is: www.zsi.at We kindly ask you to fix this.

Furthermore I was sending about 2 years ago some information in English about our institut, but cant find it on Wikipedia (only can find our contribution in German...)

Thank you Pamela Bartar Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI - Zentrum für Soziale Innovation) Vienna, Austria www.zsi.at — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.153.111 (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any article Centre of Social Innovation here at English Wikipedia. The article is about a Canadian Centre for (not of) Social Innovation. So we can't change the link to another website. Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that entry from the ZSI disambiguation page, as the letters "ZSI" are not relevant to the Canadian organisation. A Wikipedia article about your organisation may be possible; the place to ask would be Requested articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I found this picture

Of my father, who while living in the U.S. posed alongside veterans of WWI, WWII and the Korean War, with the last veteran of the American Civil War, Albert Woolson. Is it possible that it's on the internet? Kotjap (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking how to upload it? There are some instructions on this matter listed at WP:UPI, but they can be kind of complicated. The easiest way for you to upload the image is to go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. From there you will be guided through the process in a pretty easy-to-understand way. There is already an image of Albert Woolson at the article you linked, but it is non-free so if you're willing to freely license your image then it might be a good replacement for the current image. -Thibbs (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are instead asking whether the image exists anywhere on the internet, then the answer depends. If this was a personal photo taken on a single personal camera then the image will only exist online if you, your father, or someone who had access to the camera uploaded it. If it was a photo taken by an organization like the military or a veterans group then they might have uploaded it as well. It's hard to know for sure unless you search for it. One simple way of doing this is to search for keywords related to the photo on Google Images. I have heard of other more complicated techniques involving facial recognition programs like Picasa, but I have never done it myself so I'd be unable to help you with that. -Thibbs (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with a Wikiproject banner

Dear Editors: I was looking at the John Dopyera article and I noticed that it had a Wikiproject Classical Music banner on the talk page. This surprised me, since this man was the creator of the resonator guitar, not normally a classical music instrument. When I looked at the tag, though, it says Wikiproject Contemporoary music, which would seem to be the opposite. It displays as Classical music. Is this an error? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Wikiproject Contemporary Music is now a taskforce under Wikiproject Classical Music. It was moved in 2010 due to inactivity. So this would mean that all articles that previously belonged to contemporary music would be now under classical music, since the templates would have been altered to reflect this change. Chamal ^T•C 12:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I checked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Contemporary music task force page, and they say that the scope of their project is Classical music written in the past 50 years. I am going to remove the tag from the John Dopyera article, since he was not involved with this topic. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement of a corruption of historical facts by voting?

Pardon my English because I am a German speaker. A few weeks ago I revised some untenable assertions at the article Social market economy. Another German user reverted my revisions and because of the resulting edit war an administrator blocked the article in my version. The other German user put pressure on the administrator and the administrator promised to alter the article if the other German user can find supporters and get majority. After that the other German user rounded up several users in the German and English wikipedia. This group of users voted for an alteration of the introductory section although nobody of this group can reason why the introductory section needs to be altered. My repetitious question what is incorrect about the current introductory section never has been responded. Instead they submitted always new suggestions for lead ignoring all my justified objections against that suggestions. Now they are voting for a suggestion for lead that is provable a corruption of historical facts. The statements of this suggestion are not verified by the cited sources and are counterfactual as I demonstrated explicitly a bunch of times. Can it really be true that this false assertions can be pushed through by voting? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this a question about German Wikipedia (de.wikipedia) or about English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia)? If it's about German Wikipedia then I don't know the answer, but if this is about English Wikipedia then the answer is no. Voting is not a substitute for consensus here. See WP:VOTE. If this other German editor has been recruiting other like-minded editors to vote the same as he does without paying attention to consensus then this is called vote stacking (or in the worst case scenario meat-puppetry) and it is forbidden. You should be cautious about making this accusation, though, because it is a serious one. Sometimes when everyone is arguing against you then it's worth considering that you may be wrong yourself. I'm not saying that this is the case in the matter at hand, but I just want you to exercise caution before charging anyone with anything like this. -Thibbs (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Thibbs thought that the question might have been about the German Wikipedia (and I see that you are no longer permitted to edit there). There has obviously been edit-warring on Social market economy and you are both lucky not to have been blocked for violation of WP:3RR. The article is fully protected until the dispute is resolved. The admin who protected the article said nothing about "majority"; he referred to "consensus" and "civil discussion". If you are unaware of the English Wikipedia's concept of consensus, please read WP:Consensus. I see that there was a previous attempt to take this to DRN but there was no discussion there. If you fail to reach agreement at Talk:Social market economy then you'll have to follow one of the paths outlined at WP:DR. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I asked because of the line "After that the other German user rounded up several users in the German and English wikipedia" (emphasis added). The editor also suggested that the heart of this dispute was between himself (a German speaker) and another German editor. I hadn't checked the block records at de.wikipedia, but next time that would probably be a good idea for me to do. -Thibbs (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

At German Wikipedia (de.wikipedia) there are also rules like WP:VOTE or WP:Consensus but in practice there are some domains where some groups can determine what is written in articles by majority even if that is counterfactual and not verified by the cited sources. The German editors that has been recruited to the conflict around the English article Social market economy are such a group. I already called some German Newspapers attention to this fact and they wrote about that but this didn't break the power of these groups. I hoped that this is different at en.wikipedia but this makes me fear that it is the same here. Maybe it is just the language barrier but I interpret this discussion that a general consensus can be reached despite my objection that the suggestion is counterfactual and not verified by the cited sources. That way a small group can overrule constitutive principles like WP:Verifiability or WP:NOR. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Don & Dan McCann Twins

I' curious how a page created about fictional characters well known nationally qualify for deletion, and a page for Bart Simpson doesn't.

Newsflash: It's the same! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronmaestri (talk • contribs) 12:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You have to demonstrate that the McCanns have been covered by solid reliable sources: books, academic journal articles, or news sources that endure over a substantial period of time. That's plainly the case for the Simpsons, and it's entirely possible that it isn't the case for the McCanns. You'll note that many of our articles don't demonstrate coverage by solid reliable sources; that's a problem with those pages, as they need either to have those sources added or to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You say they are "well known nationally", and the article says "from national television commercials". But you don't specify what nation you mean. They (unlike Bart Simpson) are not well known here in the UK. Maproom (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Whenever you see such unspecified use of terms like "nationally", "our nation", "the government (or any government department or agency)", or similar expressions here on WP, it is absolutely certain that it was written by a Yank. Roger (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree with you. But as an American, I've never heard of Don and Dan McCann. Dismas|^(talk) 14:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

They are fictional characters created and portrayed by actor Ron Maestri in television commercials shown somewhere in the United States for the obscure company Consumer Cellular: aren't they... User:Ronmaestri? See WP:AUTO and WP:PROMOTE. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The only thing User:Ronmaestri has ever tried to do here was to attempt to put promotional "articles" in here, first about himself (starting over two years ago), then about these characters he says he plays in commercials I've never seen or heard of for an allegedly national U.S. company that I (an American) have never heard of. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(Feeding the troll) I've no idea who they are, nor, it seems, does almost everyone else, based on search results. They certainly haven't been written about in any reliable source, nor should they as one/two of thousands of non-notable characters created for ads every year. I know a number of hard-working actors – some famous and some not so much. Comparing your work in a commercial with a character that represents hundreds of man-decades of work, and is watched by millions of people every week for decades, would be routinely laughed at by all of them, and is unlikely to earn you any respect at all. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ron Maestri is the actor who portrays the McCann twins, so this is a case of WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:SPAM. RNealK (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How to use the same reference multiple times?

There's an article where various editors over time have cited the same Rolling Stone article about five times. Each time, they link it as if it hasn't been linked before. I know there's a way to have the link appear just one time in the references section, but I'm not sure how. How's it done? --Mr. Billion (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Instead of using <ref>details of reference</ref>, use <ref name="name of source">details of reference</ref> for the first instance of the reference. For subsequent instances, use <ref name="name of source"/> (note the slash). This will generate a link to the preexisting citation. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You can also run the page through the reflinks tool, which will locate and correct duplicate references automatically. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that you don't have to use "name of source"; you can simply do <ref name=referencename>details</ref> if you want, but you must be careful to make it just one word if you omit the quotes. Note, too, that these reference names are case-sensitive. Since the ref name is purely for citation purposes, you can pick whatever name you want for the reference. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• To see the above in action, have a look at reference 4 in this version of our Roy Chaplin article. Reference 4 is first defined in the 'Hawker' section as part of this sentence '... dangerous for use as a military aircraft.<ref name="Hurricane">{{Citation ...}}</ref>' then used twice more in the article as '<ref name="Hurricane"/>'. In this case, and as stated above, we can dispense with the quotes. I usually use quotes whether or not there are spaces in the name --Senra (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

All further explained at WP:NAMEDREFS.--ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the full reference need not be in the first instance – it just needs to be anywhere in the article (some, like myself, like to use the {{reflist|refs=...}} format).

Also note that <ref name=ABC /> is different from <ref name="ABC" /> and that the cite toolbar and forms, annoyingly, will quote-wrap a name (which you put in the "Ref" field) that contains spaces, but will not quote-wrap a single-word (e.g. ABC becomes name=ABC, but ABC DEF becomes name="ABC DEF"). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why was my content removed?

Why was my content removed from this page?

List of tools for static code analysis

I added a tool to the list on Friday, and checked today only to find it was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmminera (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit. Psychonaut removed it because there's no McCabe IQ article. Please write the article before restoring the content, since every other entry has an article. Nyttend (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

...assuming, of course, that the product is notable enough for an article (i.e. it has been written about in multiple third-party reliable sources). The HTML comment at the top of the article in question makes it clear that it's a list article, the only purpose of which is to list (other) Wikipedia articles. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

PACIFIC DRIFT entry removed... :-(

I was told that while there was a Wimple Winch addition there was not a Pacific Drift page despite being practically the same band AND more successful too! So 2 days ago i took it apon myself to rectify this. however I checked it today & receive this message-

"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 17:12, 24 February 2013 INeverCry (talk | contribs) deleted page Pacific Drift (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"

despite the fact that this is a band that had a record deal & are having a series of CD reissues out in the summer.

How do I reinstate my contribution or ask another to do their version..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merseymale (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

First take a look at WP:BAND for the notability guidelines for bands. Then, if you think this band meets those guidelines, please follow the articles for creation process to create the article.--ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright and the quoting of an OED definition

I have a tendency to quote attributed OED content on noticeboards, help-desks and talk-pages such as here and here. What is the copyright position when quoting one part of a definition (as above) or quoting one quotation from a definition as I did here? I examined the copyright noticeboards prior to posting here; they all seem to concentrate on media copyright issues --Senra (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's appropriate, since it's transformative and not replaceable; you're using it in order to bring the OED into play in the situation, and because of its authority nothing else would suffice. While policy officially doesn't permit nonfree material in projectspace, we frequently include chunks of nonfree text on pages such as WP:AN; a short definition from OED, used transformatively (and dictionary definitions are meant to be quoted anyway), is substantially less of a problem than a paragraph used at WP:AN for an investigation. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

uploaded photos

How do I find or search for photos that I've uploaded to Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearless LeChien (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Top right of your commons page is an 'uploads' link as well as on the left sidebar of users.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your commons contribution record. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)