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 15

References on episode guide

Hi,

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I wanted to ask a question about the use of references on episode guides.

I've been editing series pages related to CBBC show The Dumping Ground, such as The Dumping Ground (series 4). I've been adding references to the titles in the episode guide but someone recently said they weren't needed for past episodes and removed them. The page at the moment is lacking references and to unreliable sources.

Is it OK to have references in the episode guides even after the episode has aired?

Thanks,

Grangehilllover (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia-wide Rfc

Where would be the correct location, to start an RFc, that would draw the widest input? GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not here, because no one reads this.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jack. It very much depends on the nature of the discussion and the context. Discussions of the widest import might even be listed through the MediaWiki:Sitenotice. A discussion of wide importance might be advertised at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. A discussion of policy might might draw more eyes at the policy section of the village pump, rather than at some specific talk page, etc. But each of these requires you to provide the detail to see which and whether something more than the draw of an RfC itself is needed and would be appropriate. As with most questions asked here and at other help forums, it s usually far better to tell us the specifics than to ask in the hypothetical, so a tailored answer can be provided. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm planning on opening up an RFC to get feedback from the wiki-community, as to who to use as Australia's head of state, throughout Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Update - I've opened up a Rfc at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, concerning the Australian head of state topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

North Melbourne and Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale

Please check the strange ref. number 1 in the "Demographics" section on the North Melbourne page. It is all wrong. Please add the accent over the word 'Pathe' on the Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedlale page Thanks so much. I get very nervous to ask for help when I cannot do a task.Srbernadette (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Srbernadette. Can you please advise what problem you are seeing with the citation to the Australian Bureau of Statistics? It look's fine to me. I've fixed the link to Pathé News. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

They're not talking about ref #1. They're talking about the bare link without ref tags that is after the first sentence of the Demographics section. I'm not sure it's a WP:RS. Dismas|^(talk) 04:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

North Melbourne

Please check the Demographics section (ref. number 1) of the North Melbourne page. It is certainly not correct. Srbernadette (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

04:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.K.F.84 (talk • contribs)

 Done I have removed the extra <ref></ref> tags. For next time, notice that the error message contains a blue link to a help page which describes the error and explains how to fix it. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale

Please Please do the accent over the word "nee" in the important quote of ref. number 10 on this page. I always get it wrong. Thanks so much again Srbernadette (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done, but all you need to do is find an e-acute anywhere at Wikipedia and copy-paste it into your edit. It's probably hiding on one of the toolbars somewhere, but copy-paste works for me. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

An e-acute is "hiding" on the user's talkpage at #née (and e acute), and he was reminded about that on this page not many hours ago. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Or, just use {{nee}}, which produces née. -Arch dude (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the editor doesn't like née with the dots underneath and the tooltip. Hence the answer on his user talk page last October. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

IP Nominate

I am not quite clear on this, can a IP nominate articles for deletion like this? Thanks Kyle1278 07:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

To repair your broken link, [[Special:Contributions/2601:241:0:EA46:112:272F:30F2:AA0D|this]] is rendered as this. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you David. Kyle1278 07:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

My main question hasn't been awsered?Kyle1278 14:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

IP editors are allowed to edit Wikipedia, and there is nothing at WP:Prod to exclude IP editors. (I am assuming that you are talking about Prods, but it's a bit difficult to tell as you didn't point us at any specific edit, merely the IP's contribution record in general). --David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor can propose an uncontroversial deletion but the cannot request an AFD for the article. Like David, I couldn't see which particular edit you were referring to since there are a lot from that editor. Does this help? uhhlive (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does thank you Uhhlive yes. Kyle1278 02:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor cannot technically nominate an article at AfD, because doing so requires creating the discussion page, and an editor must be logged in and autoconfirmed to create pages (except in the Draft and Wikipedia talk namespaces). However, such an editor can request that an autoconfirmed user create the required AfD page on his or her behalf. If the request seems to be made in good faith, and has a reasonable rationale, many users will do this. I've done it myself a few times. I have seen such requests on the talk page of the article concerned, at WT:AFD, at the Teahouse, and here on the help desk. That said, this is one reason why an editor might want to register and use an account. DES ^(talk) 01:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Two Philippine name templates

I ask you on how to have two Philippine name templates. The first one is the original template they created and the last one is the alternate Philippine name template just as same as Eastern Slavic, Portuguese and Spanish naming customs templates. RenRen070193 07:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenRen070193 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 15 February 2016‎ (UTC)

First, please provide a link to the existing template. Second, explain what each template would be used for. (Why are two templates needed?) Robert McClenon (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC

The first one is to spelling of surname which is translated (e.g. Osmeña = Osmena) and the second one is to describe which is the maiden name and which is one is the surname in order to not to make confussion among the readers (e.g This name uses [[Filipino name|Philippine naming customs. The maiden name/maternal family name is Capili and the surname/paternal family name is Mendoza). RenRen070193 09:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

When you post to a talk page or a project page that is used like a talk page, put four tildes (~) after your post to sign it, rather than just typing your user name. It makes it easier for other editors to communicate with you. Can some other editor here help this editor, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume that this editor, like many others, has screwed up his signature while trying to customise it. See User talk:RenRen070193#Your signature. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If either of the templates exists, please provide a link to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an article in article space on Filipino name. Is there a reason why a template is needed in addition? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. In addition, the template format is the same as in Portuguese/Spanish name templates format. But the first Philippine name template will still exist. I gonna fix this as soon as possible. RenRen070193 06:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, please explain in more detail why you need two templates. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest to have two Philippine name templates. First, the present template describes the transliteration of the surname since they adapted the Spanish surnames since 18th century up to the present (ex. the surname "Osmeña", sometimes transliterate as "Osmena"; name a few are follows: Mañalac = Manalac, Peñalosa = Penalosa, Cariño = Carino, Muñoz = Munoz, Nuñez = Nunez, and so on). The second one, onthe other hand, describes which is the middle name/maiden name/maternal family name and which is also the surname/last name/paternal family name, asher are going to adapt the format in Portuguese/Spanish naming customs templates (example: Richard Reyes Faulkerson Jr., the real name of Alden Richards. Since this name are both of Filipino and American origin, the maiden name/maternal family name is "Reyes" and the surname/paternal family name is "Faulkerson"). I hope you accept my suggestion because this is for our beloved readers an Wikipedians as well. Thank you very much and a blessing Wednesday morning to all. God Bless you all. RenRen070193 02:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In {{Philippine name}}, (Special:Diff/704866032 seems to illustrate the transformation of one described template into another.) —PC-XT+ 09:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 09:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

North Melbourne

There is still a problem with the reference in the demographic section on this page. Please fix up . It has a blue box attached to the number. Thanks 101.182.136.195 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@101.182.136.195:  Fixed They were listed as external links rather than references- I've converted them to references. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There are 2 dots either side of reference 6. Should one of them be removed. Thanks for your help101.182.136.195 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)  Done Eagleash (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Images in article not being displayed

At some stage I must have fiddled with the settings controlling image display, and now find images being suppressed and replaced by a link. How do I return to normal?....Thanks Paul venter (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Paul venter, are you on the mobile version? If so, you should be able to go to "Settings" and check the "Images" box. Otherwise, Help:Options to hide an image talks about various ways that images can be disabled. You may be able to figure out which one of those you have enabled. Sometimes, if I am on a bad connection, the images take longer to show up, though that doesn't sound like your problem. —PC-XT+ 05:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks —PC - it seems that the problem was Adblock Plus which I have since disabled and problem solved. Paul venter (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

new page

How do I start a new page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuffet01 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added a number of useful links to your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you are not autoconfirmed yet, you will need to submit the article via Articles for Creation, which is always a good idea for new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sill Problems

Please see my recent queery regarding North Melbourne page one section up. 101.182.136.195 (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Slight or

I'm not asking how to use Wikipedia but I have a complaint, I am in early adolescence and I got very curious and had sexual questions, because I am growing up and I began wondering things and I wanted to know the answer. I went to Wikipedia and without wanting to I saw for the first time an image of an erected vagina and shouldn't have and never wanted to see one, especially at this age! It is disgraceful that I should see a woman's genital in a state like that without being married to her or having anything to do with her. It's virtually pornography and it's unfair! Please have warnings on photos saying 18+ and we should have the option not to see it. Please. I dislike seeing this and it's happened many times and I just wanted to find out things I don't know and I couldn't read up on it because there was a disturbing image in the top right corner I didn't want to see and no one has any right to show me that especially without my permission so please change the page because I didn't come for that and I never will. Thank you.

Hello, 110.32.123.52. I'm sorry you were upset, but I'm afraid the answer is that Wikipedia is not censored. This has been discussed at length, and that is the conclusion of the community. Somewhere I have seen suggestions about how to avoid seeing images that might be disturbing, but I'm afraid I've not been able to find that: perhaps somebody else here can make a suggestion. --ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This may be helpful: Help:Options to hide an image --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

References

I am trying to edit the "References" section of an article st Gerald Schoenewolf. When I click the "edit" button on the top of the References section, I cannot edit it. Instead the section turns blue and there is a box on the right side that says "Template" and "Generated from Reflist." There is also an "edit" button there. If I press the edit button, it asks if I want to add information, or more options. I can't figure this out and am stymied in editing the references. When I click the edit button on any other section, I can simply edit it by typing or deleting information, but with this section I can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Capella (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

References are defined in the section of text where they are used, see WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Amy, references sections cannot be edited per se. To add or amend a reference you would need to find the correct place within the text (click on the little upward arrow) and edit the citation accordingly. And, as David notes, see also referencing for beginners. Please ensure that if editing a ref., that the ref. and text to which it applies are still 'complementary'. Eagleash (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Mostly right, but List Defined References can be edited in the reference section. While that doesn't seen to be the present situation, I urge caution with blanket statements suggesting you can never edit references in the reference section.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete Page Request

Hello,

I would like to have this page: AxCMS.net deleted.

Is there a possibility to delete this page quickly? If yes, please provide me the information how to do it.

Best regards Adriana0567 (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Adriana0567: You would need to start a deletion discussion.

Also, this edit suggests that you're potentially involved with the company- if so, then you need to disclose this and read Wikipedia's conflict of interest and or paid editing policies. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Note the article is now at AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

the page is too big. The fonts are too large. How do I reduce the size?

I must have pressed the wrong button because when I did the page got oversized. Please help104.12.77.138 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Which page? Remove ''' from '''bolded text''' if you want to reduce size. Fuortu (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2016‎

It sounds like you may have zoomed in on your browser. Try zooming out by pressing Ctrl and - at the same time (or command and - if you're on a Mac). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

... or Ctrl 0 to get back to default size. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Jakob S. Boeskov

Hi! My name is Jakob S. Boeskov and the wikipedia page about me contains some errors. Firstly: My name (as can be confirmed by Googling and checking out my website) is Jakob S. Boeskov. The below sentence is also incorrect and should perhaps be deleted. Expect from conceptual work i also exhibit art videos "Although he is most known for his more conceptual work, Boeskov mainly exhibits drawings and paintings"

(Expect from conceptual work i also exhibit art videos)

Thanks for correcting the misinformation WikiPedia rocks - information wants to be free!

Jakob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.28.184 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Post your comments, accompanied by reliable sources, at the talk page, Talk:Jakob Boeskov. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want the article [[WP::Moving|moved]] from Jakob Boeskov to Jakob S. Boeskov? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears from Google that you are about equally often referred to as Jakob Boeskov and Jakob S. Boeskov. I have renamed (moved) your article to Jakob S. Boeskov. Due to the feature of Wikipedia known as a redirect, Jakob Boeskov will still work. I have changed the lede sentence to give you the middle initial. Elsewhere, I changed the references to you from "Jakob Boeskov" to "Boeskov", the usual way to identify persons with Western-style names after their full name is provided. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Some extra letters crept into the preceding message! The article is at Jakob S. Boeskov and the redirect is at Jakob Boeskov. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I have corrected the above spelling, thanks to John of Reading. (If I should have left the errors standing, I apologize. I acknowledge that he was right about the extra letters.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixing broken redirects to specific article sections

Hello. I am concerned with fixing redirects to sections that have been since renamed or perhaps removed, Note: I previously asked this question at the Teahouse, although my query was misunderstood and subsequently archived. I was wondering whether or not any bot could be able to fix this issue. For example: the redirect Mayor of Pitcairn redirects to Section 1: the redirect #Local Heads of Government (1790–present) of the article List of rulers of the Pitcairn Islands. So, if the section title were to be renamed as, e.g. Local Heads of Government since 1790, the redirect would only link to the article in question (and no specific section in particular), as that section title would no longer exist. Is there any way this could be fixed automatically, so that the new section title is swiftly implemented to replace the old within the redirect? Thanks.--Neve–selbert 18:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that it is possible. How can the bot know that the renamed section stills contains anything related to the redirect? Ruslik_Zero 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Is there any way of monitoring or tracking whether or not an article section redirect is broken or not?--Neve–selbert 22:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: See: Special:BrokenRedirects and WP:NOTBROKEN Mlpearc (open channel) 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: There is http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py to check section redirects pointing to a page, but they are hard to fix automatically. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. I thought I saw a discussion about a database report for these, somewhere. —PC-XT+ 06:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, PC-XT. I have left a message on the WP talk page.--Neve–selbert 06:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: See also Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 67#Idea: sectional redirect updater bot. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The same problem appears with links inside articles, not only redirects. For example [[Binary tree#Properties of binary trees|maximum height]] in Binary tree (this is just an example of a link; it is not broken, because I can't find a broken one at once). --CiaPan (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Page Deleted

Hello,

I am working for musician Howard Fishman. Mr. Fishman claims there was a dedicated page - separate from sections on the album appearing on both his Wikipedia page and Connie Converse's Wikipedia page - for his recording, "Connie's Piano Songs" that has now been deleted. I have searched the deletion log, trying to spell and misspell the possible title of the page, but cannot find a record of deletion. I also cannot find the page on Wikipedia. Do you have access to some other list you can search for this page and respond to me with a summary of why the page was deleted? We would like to restore it, if possible.

-Nic Adams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.230.28 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Your employer has given you a doubly difficult, probably impossible, assignment. First, read conflict of interest. You should not be editing articles about Howard Fishman. It is true that you are not doing that, because you are, entirely reasonably, asking for help here. However, he has asked you to restore the page, and neither he nor you should take an active part in restoring the page, if it did exist and was deleted. You should simply be doing what you are, which is asking questions. Second, he has evidently asked you to track down the deletion of a page that he hasn't identified. I will also comment that the page Howard Fishman contains peacock language and needs to have its tone corrected. I will also comment that Connie Converse is correctly categorized as a missing person and a possibly living person. If you can identify the article, someone here may (but may not) request to have it undeleted by being moved into the user space of a neutral editor. If you can name the article, we can look at least at its deletion record and possibly retrieve it, but probably not into article space without addressing why it was deleted (if it did exist and was deleted).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 February 2016‎

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input I wish to add some personal details about my family background, but you keep deleting them

Hello Ken Wharton (I presume that is who added this question). Wikipedia is never interested in "personal details" unless they are confirmed by reliable published sources, and preferably sources unconnected with the subject. The problem with doing anything else is twofold: first, on the internet, anybody can claim to be anybody, so we have no way of knowing if you are who you claim to be. Secondly, even if the information is reliable when you enter it, somebody could change it next week or next month or next year, whether in good faith, or by mistake, or maliciously, and if there is no source cited a reader has no way to determine what is correct and what isn't.

If you are indeed Ken Wharton, please read WP:conflict of interest to understand why you are strongly discouraged from editing the article Ken Wharton, and how to request that changes be made to it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine I think you meant to link to Ken Wharton (writer). The KW you linked to died in 1957. OTOH if the IP is that KW then Wikipedia is now haunted by ghosts and I think we better start an article about that :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

Look - I'm getting a bit tired of this. I have been trying (and trying and trying) to correct an egregious error in the citation for the American Motorcyclist Association. I want to add, so I can correct a racist error in the citation that makes it seem like the AMA recognized but did nothing about a supposed "all white" membership. I was the advertised AMA member used for their 1995 membership solicitation, and I am black. Ed Youngblood and I worked to make this effort in 1995,the same year the incomplete cite names as a citation - but leaves out that in the same year, I was the member shown in the solicitation. When I tried to get my correction into the text I got a flag that information was missing from the "cite/cite" (I don't have the symbol used). I put in that the citation related to page 35 of the August issue of Motorcyclist magazine. What,please, must I do to correct this stupidity? Though I do not, many people relate to Wikipedia an authority where true information is concerned. This citation is, without my addition,untrue and incomplete. I now see that the actual TRUTH may be so hard to impart via Wikipedia as to make it improbable that the actual truth reaches it BUT I WILL PERSIST. Please change this incorrect and racist citation. If needed,please inform me of exactly which contortions, mental or physical, I must perform to do so. But one way or the other CHANGE THIS CITATION, PLEASE.Spiritof67 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Spiritof67. I have corrected the immediate error, which was that you had an empty pair of <ref></ref> as well as the pair you intended to put in. I have also moved the citation you added at the top to the place in the text where I think it is intended to go (as I think it is the citation to support the statement you added about Norman Gaines). --ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Westroads Mall shooting

Since it's a knowledge question I can't submit it to the Humanities desk. My question is why every source says Hawkins is an American if he was born at an Air Force Base in the UK. Isn't that British citizenship? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.121.231 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The article you linked to says that he was born to American parents at RAF Lakenheath. That article says that, though it is an RAF base, it hosts USAF units and personnel. According to British Nationality Law#British citizenship by birth in the United Kingdom, if he had been born before 1983 he would have had British nationality; but he was born in 1988. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, as a general knowledge question, the Humanities desk is the correct place for this question. This desk is for asking how to edit articles and such. General knowledge stuff goes to the Reference Desk. Dismas|^(talk) 02:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Dismas, I expect the IP OP was confused by the semi-protection currently on the Humanities RefDesk. There is of course an indirect submission route via the box at the top of the page, but ingrained habits may mean one doesn't notice it (just as one automatically ignores adverts on some other sites) – I know it took me a few days!. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

erreur de photo pour l'amiral tainguy

bonsoir, la photo affichée de l'amiral Tainguy n'est pas correcte; Vous avez mis la photo de l'amiral Chomel de Jarnieu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.30.192.196 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, this is what I get for the above question:

error photo for Admiral Tainguy

Good evening, the displayed image of Admiral Tainguy is not correct; You put the photo of the Admiral Chomel Jarnieu.

And with that info, I think they are referring to Yann Tainguy. Dismas|^(talk) 23:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

... and Benoît Chomel de Jarnieu. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the Yann Tainguy article (verified by looking at his biography here). Though the image should be moved to a correct title on Commons. Dismas|^(talk) 00:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Henry Lascelles, 4th Earl of Harewood

Plesae fix ref number 1 on this page is wrong. It has been changed for some reason and now is not correct Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The date parameter had 2 dates within it creating a ref error. An edit in the last day or so created a date field whereas previously the dates had formed part of the publisher parameter. I restored the dates to the publisher field and it seems to work, but it is not SoP and no doubt someone will change it again at some future point. Eagleash (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Two different documents, so should be two references (if they are both relevant). - David Biddulph (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the link only takes us to one (could be wrong about that); so it might be OK to remove the other one. Eagleash (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The 1867 reference, with an addition to the quote, was added in this edit by 101.182.136.195. I've removed it for now (and taken the date back out of the location parameter), and the editor can add it back in as a separate ref if needed. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

February 16

Mysterious deletion of topic at RSN.

On the 10th Feb I started a topic on the RSN and five days later I find it has been deleted by an unknown other without explanation. It was becoming a useful discussion on a controversial issue. Who has the power to do that I am wondering and can I appeal?Jed Stuart (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived here, presumably because nobody had added to it after 10 February. (Sections are archived after 5 days). Eagleash (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you can explain also how in my Watchlist, which I watch very carefully, sometimes changes are not registering. As a result I often go to the page itself to check. I went to the topic mentioned and found it deleted and then went to the history and found that there were two helpful comments that had not registered on my watchlist. The first two comments did.Jed Stuart (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jed Stuart. For technical questions about how the software operates, you're more likely to find knowledgeable people at WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comment did not come through to my Watchlist changes either. A comment on something unrelated to me did though. I will go to WP:VPT with it,thanks.Jed Stuart (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Jed Stuart, if you are talking about emails received from your watchlist, only the first change since your last visit is sent until you visit the page, again. (I think this is to avoid spamming if a lot of edits happen.) —PC-XT+ 09:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 09:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not talking about emails from the watchlist. I gave up on using that a long time ago when I found that many were not arriving, including the first change. I only monitor the watchlist changes online. YOur comment did not appear in the changes there, yet another one on another topic in help desk did.Jed Stuart (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:VPT got it. I needed to have checked "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent." in Preferences/Watchlist/Advanced options in order to get it doing what I thought it should be doing.Jed Stuart (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Are stand-alone lists of U.S. Supreme Court law clerks notable?

Are articles that are simply stand-alone lists containing names of mostly non-notable people notable? There are nine articles which list the law clerks of the U.S. Supreme Court, past and present; there's one article for each of the nine seats on the court. Seat 1, Seat 2, Seat 3, Seat 4, Seat 6, Seat 8, Seat 9, Seat 10, and Chief Justice. (There's no seat 5 or 7.) There's also this main article which lists the court's clerks over the years. Hundreds of the names on each of the nine lists used fake wikilinks; they were actually direct links to the person's profile on the the websites of the law firms or universities they work(ed) for. I removed all the direct links. But should these articles even exist? Granted, numerous Supreme Court law clerks go on to become notable, which is why some of the names are true wikilinks, but the majority of people listed in these articles are not notable. Further, with only a few exceptions, there are absolutely no sources verifying that these people actually even clerked for the court. I'm sure most of the people listed were indeed clerks, but the way these articles are designed - with no sources required for inclusion - editors could simply add any names they wanted and no one would know if they're legitimate or not. But the bigger issue is my overall question. Should these articles even exist if the majority, or most, of the people are not even notable? If not, can someone pursue the proper process for dealing with it? Rowssusan (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: A discussion is underway at WikiProject Lists for those who are interested in giving their input. Rowssusan (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Any admin willing to chat/email off-wiki?

I've come across a case of an IP editor who has admitted on a public off-wiki forum to repeatedly making certain edits (I learned of the issue there, not here). These edits would almost certainly be considered promotional in nature, and have been reverted a number of times already. The user has received a couple of warnings on their (IP) talk page. I do not wish to dox the editor (although they may have done it to themselves already), so I'd prefer to avoid discussing any specifics in a public forum. At this point, I'm not even sure I should revert any further edits should they occur (I have not interacted at all at this point), and the user appears to have stated that they have such intent. Rwessel (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Got a meg for Spaming, why??

I received a message about adding multiple links on several wikipedia pages.

The only edit I did was changing the word ARISE to ARISE Network (this is the actual business name) and added a link to point to that website for user convenience. Here is the page I was working on: Intervention (counseling)

What went wrong?

Asher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.254.166 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see your edit, but if your IP changes, you may have received a message meant for someone who had that IP in the past... —PC-XT+ 08:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I now see that IP problems don't apply in this situation. —PC-XT+ 09:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Part of your problem was that you were trying to add an external link into the article text. WP:External links explains how and where external links should be used. If the link was relevant, it should have been added as a reference rather than an in-line external link. In your question I have taken the liberty of changing the url of the Wikipedia page to a wikilink, as these are more readable. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Change of profile photo

Hello My account is musclerjack Can you do me a favor I would want to change the profile photo of Gary Kubiak's page Gary Kubiak Since he has left the Texans for three years And he just has won Super Bowl 50 for the Broncos Here is the picture http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/nfl/super-bowl/nijqbs/picture59144638/ALTERNATES/FREE_640/kubiak

Thanks~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musclerjack (talk • contribs) 09:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Musclerjack: Hi there. When it comes to images on Wikipedia, we aim to use freely licensed images whenever possible. For us to consider an image free, it needs to be licensed in a way that lets anyone modify and share the image (even commercially). We do use fully-copyrighted images in cases where no free equivalent is available, such as to illustrate the cover art of a movie, or to show what a video game character looks like. However, since Mr. Kubiak is a living person, and we already have a free image of him, I'm afraid we can't use the image you have linked unless it is freely licensed to Wikipedia's standards. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Musclerjack, if you were to take a new picture of him, the copyright in that picture would be yours, and you could donate it to Wikipedia; but images found on the web are usually not acceptable, as SuperHamster explained. --ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Japheth Callen Memorial Foundation

Hello kindly help me is Japheth Callen Memorial Foundation your member they are recruting and asking applicants to send Kshs.2027 to kindly get back to me on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.237.192.204 (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.Template:Z25 -- John of Reading (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Suvigya Sharma

Despite of several significant coverage from Indian media, Article Suvigya Sharma has been nominated for the deletion, while it strongly passes basic criteria of notability WP:GNG.

I humbly invite here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suvigya Sharma, to Wikipedia members to review the article and involve in discussion and voting process.

It is humble request, General Notability Guidelines should be highly considered while reviewing the article, your efforts would be appreciated. Thank you --103.195.248.92 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input - no help with combo refn and "tags on this page without content "

Hi. I'm not able to add refn|group=fn|... with opening and closing braces to master's degree. Adding the info with ref tags works, but when i change them to refn, i get "Cite error: There are ref tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)." The help page Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input doesn't even mention refn and both Help:Footnotes and Template:Refn don't even mention the "without content" error message. I've used refn before and it worked, so i'm very confused despite having experience, and the beginnings of those help pages need to be made much easier for beginners. --Espoo (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is just about correct of English' stilistics Dawid2009 (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. --Espoo (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the comment by Dawid may have become detached from another discussion. (The one about Paper Soccer?) Eagleash (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

As a test I added this master's degree:

{{refn|group=fn|some text}}

which works when I click Show preview. If I edit that to be

{{refn|group=fn}}

then when I click Show preview I get the error message you mentioned. So, are you using the template correctly? Can you show us an explicit example where it doesn't work?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Presumably the OP is talking about this version? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Espoo: I think the problem is the = characters in the urls within the comment text. It should work if you change each = to {{=}}. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

I want to correct wikipedia information about kashmiri National hero Maqbool butt who was a freedom fighter and was hanged by india.wikipedia has mentioned him as a terrorist i want to ask that all our the world kashmiri nation pay homage to his national hero if Maqbool butt was a terrorist then che guerra was also a terrorist...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.47.47.203 (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: Maqbool Bhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maproom (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well our article on Che Guevara does mention that he has been described as " the archetypal Fanatical Terrorist". The organisation that your hero founded is described as a "terrorist organisation" ((as in killing policemen and judges?)), but if you can find cites from reliable sources that say otherwise, please add them. Sometimes terrorists do become national heroes. Dbfirs 15:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the "Narrative Therapy" article has been hacked?

In the sentence I have isolated below from the introductory paragraph there is a clear example of bias which I doubt is a part of Narrative Therapy; Kind Regds Ross

Narrative therapy is a form of psychotherapy that seeks to help people identify their values and the skills and knowledge they have to live these values, so they can effectively confront whatever problems they face. The therapist seeks to help the person co-author a new narrative about themselves by investigating the history of those qualities. Narrative therapy claims to be a social justice approach to therapeutic conversations, seeking to challenge dominant discourses that it claims shape people's lives in destructive ways.

'''Examples given of these subjugating narratives include capitalism; psychiatry/psychology; patriarchy; heterosexism; and Eurocentricity'''[citation needed]. 

The approach was developed during the 1970s and 1980s, largely by Australian social worker Michael White and David Epston of New Zealand.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.170.255 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That passage was added by Hantsheroes last October. You could ask him to justify it by providing a reference. Maproom (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Since it has been questioned and there is no source, I have removed the sentence. -- GB fan 15:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

no content on Wikipedia sites ...just an opportunity to edit

How do I get content on Wikipedia sites instead of just headers that allow me to edit? Did I hit the wrong button somewhere? --2001:558:6004:1:356B:570C:ADB3:2424 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia sites? This one is full of content. Dbfirs 09:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Dawid2009 needs assistance with his sandbox

User:Dawid2009 has recently contacted me regarding some troubles with a sandbox he's working on. He's a non-native English speaker and having a hard time getting the English right. Also, he's having a hard time getting the references to work. Can anyone help him out? The article looks interesting but I'm not sure I understand it well enough to help with the needed corrections. Abyssal (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The page was most probably trnslated from Polish Wikipedia article pl:Piłkarzyki na kartce --CiaPan (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In which case anyone with a good enough command of English should be improving Paper soccer, or suggesting changes at Talk:Paper soccer, rather than working on a new version from square one. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't started talk in Paper soccer because I want redirect ineffictient section about variant popular in USSR to separate article. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Despiration of Paper soccer as game on small dimensions in Paper soccer is stub. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In the case of version I in Paper soccer, article one link is notfound. Its name is also the same as author's user page name. This user isn't also active in Wikipedia. Based on google.com we can know that this link was share of any application with despiration of rules any game. In this case this is OR because it isn't despired generally/broadly. This is described with complitations of any standards. About this variant there are a book so can correct it. But we can also accept this information and later redirect it into a separate article and wait until there is another source. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I quite signfincate corected this page, but I still don't know which date I have to include. Ref's access date into PLwiki or into ENwiki ? If into ENwiki it all probably is 2016-02-17. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Transfer

How do I transfer draft to main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boggie20 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If your Wikipedia account has been autoconfirmed, then you should be able to move pages yourself. If you are not yet autoconfirmed, you can request that a page be moved for you. Wikipedia:Moving a page and Wikipedia:Requested moves might have the information you are looking for. SarrCat ∑;3 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The only page you have been working on is User:Boggie20, which is not technically a draft, it it your user page. If you transfer it to main space now, it will get deleted, as it is entirely without references. I recommend you to read Your first article before you think of transferring it. Maproom (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Attribution when copying material under CC-BY-SA

Hello. I was working on getting a draft for Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry, specifically, WikiFur, an article which had previously been deleted and redirected to Furry fandom. My intention was to write it in my userspace, and then request the move to mainspace if/when I could get the article up to Wikipedia's standards. Anyways, I intend for my starting point for this draft to be the material already published by WikiFur itself, in it's article on itself. This, and other content published on WikiFur is placed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license, as stated here. Now, I don't know too much about the legal stuff involved here, but I understand that this license requires attribution, as well as distribution under the same license. If I remember correctly, Wikipedia is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, so the latter of those two issues is taken care of. But what about the attribution part? Is there a standard of practice for attributing content on Wikipedia that was largely derived from somewhere else? Do I need to worry about this, or can I just go ahead and copy the material into my userspace and commence wikify-ing it? Thanks! SarrCat ∑;3 20:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You can use {{CC-notice}} template. Please, also note that CC-BY-SA-4.0 license is not compatible with Wikipedia. See WP:COMPLIC. Ruslik_Zero 20:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you say the license is not compatible with the licenses that Wikipedia uses? Does that mean I should not copy the text over and work on it from that, but rather, just use the sources they have to write the article from scratch? SarrCat ∑;3 21:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually wait, on their page on licensing/copyright (the one I linked above), it says:

"All written work submitted to WikiFur is placed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license (CC-BY-SA) and, unless otherwise specified, the GNU Free Documentation License"

So since it says it's also under GNU Free Documentation License unless otherwise specified (and it was not specified as far as I can tell), does that mean it can be copied over? According to the table on this page, GFDL is a compatible license. SarrCat ∑;3 21:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Or does it mean that it has to have GFDL AND one of the compatible CC liscences? Sorry for being confused about this.SarrCat ∑;3 21:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirected category

The announcement "Redirects now work!!" made me think that after this change, Mexicano 777 (Puerto Rican rapper) should now be displayed in category:People from Manatí, Puerto Rico. Why is that not the case? I did a null edit to the latter category, but to no avail. — Sebastian 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) It is there when I look at it.Naraht (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Naraht, because the assigned category was changed in this edit. That was of course the right thing to do, but I had left it in the old category to show the problem here. I could recreate the categories as sandbox pages, but I hope the problem is clear without that. — Sebastian 00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

February 17

Article creation

Hello, I would like to create some articles for people I represent. How do I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khloe.m (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't, see WP:conflict of interest and WP:paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Khloe.m: If I were you I would carefully read Wikipedia's Conflict of interest and Paid editing policies, as well as our guidelines on sourcing, specifically reliable sources. Next, I would use your user page to declare the relationship between yourself and the subjects you will be writing about. Then, I would write a neutral, well-sourced article in draft space using at least 75%-80% sources independent of the subject (i.e. not press releases, autobiographies, the subject's website, etc.) and submit it for review through articles for creation. Keep in mind that AFC is a lengthy process, and don't get discouraged if your first drafts are rejected. Avoid using words like we, us, our. Avoid anything that sounds promotional or advertisy. Use LOTS of 3rd party sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My Page is up for Speedy deletion

The article I wrote is up for speedy deletion. I gave around 13 reference links to support the article. The tone of the article is same as other Wikipedia articles on the same subject, so the matter getting listed as promotional content , really beats me!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubercontent (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You may want to look at WP:Your first article and try WP:Articles for creation —PC-XT+ 08:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It is better to start by editing existing articles for a while to get a feel for what is notable and not notable and how things work. All I could see in your edit history of 4 edits is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ubercontent/sandbox about a non-notable privately owned Indian based website. Refs appear all to tie back to press releases about a recent VC funding, which is not in depth coverage required from WP:RS to pass WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. WP is not a place to promote your business into being famous, it is a place that covers businesses that people independent of your business find notable. Legacypac (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Purplle seems to lack notability in the Wikipedia sense if Google is any indication. I can find only very brief mentions in reliable sources (but lots of promotional publicity material that doesn't count for much in Wikipedia). Dbfirs 08:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any article that is up for speedy deletion. If you did create an article, it has already been speedy deleted. Maybe you created it in article space rather than in draft space. For new editors, that is ill-advised, because speedy deletion is common for new articles in article space by new editors who don't yet understand notability and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Some new editors do, as one editor commented, think that that only or best way that they can start participating in Wikipedia is by creating new articles. Maybe we need to caution them a little more strongly. In any case, the sandbox draft is sourced only to the organization's own press releases. Maybe the deleted article had 7 more (13) press releases. You can request undeletion of your article to have it moved to your user space. Not all reference links will establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Purplle.com was speedy deleted twice. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Robert, Ubercontent is referring to the article Purplle.com, which has been speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. I can still see the article because I'm an admin, and I can also see that it has been deleted twice — you recreated it, Ubercontent. (Are you connected in any way to the User:Usamshab, who created the first version on 2 October 2015?) Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see what kind of sources are required for notability, Ubercontent. They must not be connected in any way to the subject of the article. Look at this one, for instance:[1]. It seems you wrote it yourself! And the other references aren't much better. Moreover, writing about a company that you have a connection with is strongly discouraged here; you can read about that in the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC).

While I agree with your analysis, Robert McClenon, I think that the article isn't unambiguous advertising or promotion, so I have restored it. I think it should at least get a proper deletion discussion. Maybe someone without a COI could look at the article and see what can be done. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purplle.com.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

how to get published?

Hi there! I finished editing a contributed article. saved my changes. What happens after that? How or when will the article be published on Wikipedia and appear in Google results? My article title is :translation pedagogy. Antar20 (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The draft appears to be Draft:Translation Pedagogy. It could use some sections. In Wikipedia, the author is found in the history tab, so we don't place it in the article, itself. That line could be moved to your user page, at User:Antar20. I'm sure others will give some advice, as well. —PC-XT+ 09:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Antar20: Looks like you've just copied the entire draft from another website, this is a copyright violation even if you own that website. Also, the draft seems to fall under original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

methodology for wikipedia creation

Hello. I would like to ask where can I find some documentation on general rules of Wikipedia creation. I am looking for abstract, high-level rules on topics like:

• when two concepts should have separate articles and when is preferable to join them?
• how were set categories of articles and parameters of these categories (like structure etc.)
• how to categorize articles in groups and how to use tags
• how to deal with usage of synonyms (in relation with cross-references etc.)
• etc.

The purpose is, we plan to do an internal encyclopaedia in our institution and we would like to get an inspiration for methodology, because at the moment, due to lack of experience I can hardly tell what kind of questions should I ask myself... Thank you in advance.

Sincerely Roman Ujbanyai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.214.112 (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure these are exactly what you are looking for, but I can point you to some pages.

• When concepts should have separate articles and when to join them is covered at Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Merging.
• Information on categorization and structure is available at Wikipedia:Categorization and Help:Category.
• Information on dealing with synonyms and cross references is available at Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

One thing that might be useful for you is to click on the history tab of those pages and see how they have evolved over time, because the processes and policies and guidelines Wikipedia uses today are not identical to what Wikipedia used 10-15 years ago. Seeing how it has changed might give you more ideas for your own project than simply seeing the rules we use currently.

I wish you luck in your own project. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've changed your bullet point markup to actual bullet points to make your question a bit easier to read. I hope you don't mind.

As for where to start, that's quite a list! :) For the first couple questions, you might get some good info at WP:MERGE and WP:CATEGORY. Dismas|^(talk) 14:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices. Ive read articles you recommended and some other related to them. I am quite surprised, how is it possible that Wikipedia works with so loosely defined rules, I thought that metodologies are very exact. For example, is it true there is no thesaurus for categories, just a few high-level rules and common sense of editors? (thats how I understood article on categorization) How is it possible that project can keep consistency over categorization when each editor is working within relatively small field of interest and there are no binding rules determining what tags use to which concept? At our project we are only starting, thus have only few rules, but even now, its hard to coordinate 40 content-makers to apply same standards and point of view, thus we wanted to deepen our current rules based on common sense to something more strict and systematic. But here, at Wikipedia, non-rigid rules works for tens of thousands active editors... How can it be?
Roman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.214.112 (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

AUBURN GALLIPOLI MOSQUE

81.53.192.158 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Hello,

The reason for my post, is to ask that a correction be made in the general information relating to the matter referred to in the "subject" relating to the Architect. At present a person named Omer Kirazooglu is noted as the architect, which is incorrect.

The architect for the Gallipoli Mosque is myself DAVID G EVANS and th16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)81.53.192.158 (talk)Dis fact is a matter of public record at the National Trust and also the archives at Auburn Council in Auburn Sydney.

At present investigations are underway by the NSW Architects Registration Board as to why this person is purporting to be an architect.

Secondly I am currently attempting to contact the Gallipoli Mosque administration to have this matter corrected on their website.

I would appreciate a correction be made to your site also, my assertions can be readily corroborated by research at both the National Trust and Auburn Council. I haethe original drawings used for submission to Auburn Council.

I look forward to your help in this regard.

David G Evans Architect

Interesting
As you rightly say, the mosque's own website clearly states that Omer Kirazooglu was the Architect here, however, the photo on that page shows the site signboard including what appears to be "Architects David G Evans & Associates" although it is a llttle fuzzy
Omer Kirazooglu was added in this edit on 16 September 2012 - I am sure that that addition was in good faith - it was by an experienced editor, and if I had seen the Mosque's website stating who the Architect was, I would probably have added it myself.
Googling "Omer Kirazooglu Architect" shows most links are to an Architecture student in Istambul such as this one
As the architect, I am sure you can give us links to reliable sources that specifically state that you were, although I note from your IP, that you currently appear to be in Ille et Vilaine in France.
Despite the reference on the Mosque's website I have removed the "Architect", however, you will need to provide us with a reliable, publically accessible, source that verifies that fact before your name is added, as it is currently in direct contradiction to the Mosque's website. - Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is about Auburn Gallipoli Mosque. I removed the name "Omer Kirazoglou", as he is not mentioned in the source cited for the claim that he is the architect. (I didn't check the other pages on that web site.) David: can you cite a publicly available document stating that you are the architect? We need something which can be checked online, or in good libraries in our own countries. Maproom (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Maproom, I don't think the qualification "in our own countries" is necessary, since both Australia and France are countries with many trustworthy Wikipedians. — Sebastian 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating and posting and article

I am a new user and I have created an article in the user space and saved it. It said that that releases it. Is this the right way to create an article? If so, when will it be posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veronikamusic (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This question was answered via IRC. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Zimbabwe First Party page

I am the President of Zimbabwe First Partry and would like to avail our supporters and the world via wikipeadia information on our political party. I won the copyrights to all the information I included. Please do not delete our page as wikipeadia is linked to our website page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzshumba (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Just asking us politely not to delete a page that violates Wikipedia policy is better than asking us rudely not to delete it, but it won't prevent us from deleting it. As the notices at Zimbabwe First Party note, there are two problems with the page. First, it is promotional and not neutral or encyclopedic. Second, it is copied from your web site, and so is a copyright violation of your web site. The fact that your organization has the copyright does not permit us to keep the copyright violation page. You would have to release the copyright either into the public domain or under a CC-BY-SA copyleft, and that would release it not only for use in Wikipedia, but to all in the world. However, even doing that wouldn't change the fact that the page is not neutral and serves only to publicize your party. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Television shows produced and set in foo

I have noticed the creation of the category Category:Television shows set in Buenos Aires (that is, the plot takes place in the city of Buenos Aires), and the only pages listed in it are television shows that were produced (in real life) in Buenos Aires. I understood that those categories should list works set in a place but produced elsewhere, as a work being set in the same place where it is produced is basically the default thing, and thus trivial categorization. Am I correct? I wouldn't want to start a deletion discussion if I misunderstood the standard. Cambalachero (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Having invalid entries in a category is not a good reason to delete it, only to clean it up. IMO, this is a reasonable category. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft Edit

Hi, I'm really confused by basically everything on your site.

I'm trying to create a page for my nonprofit and I'm not sure if I did because there was a "speedy deletion" problem so I don't know whether it was deleted or not.

Secondly, I'm trying to write what I thought was an article but it's coming up as User:WFFund so I don't know what I'm actually creating.

I need a serious run down of how to do this...

Thanks! Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFFund (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

First, if the Worldwide Fistula Fund is "your" non-profit, you have a conflict of interest, and should not be writing about it. Second, your username is problematic, because it is that of an organization and not of a person. Change it. Third, the draft contains copyrighted material that has been copied from "your" website. Wikipedia does not permit copyright infringement, even if you are the owner of the copyright, unless you explicitly release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA copyleft or into the public domain, and if you release the copyright, you are releasing it not only for use on Wikipedia but to all in the world. As to "how to do this", you probably can't. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete a duplicate page

I created two articles for the same subject, can you please show me how to delete the duplicate. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msjazzyfed (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Msjazzyfed: Information is here Mlpearc (open channel) 18:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

MFD Question - Please confirm that COI and OR do not warrant MFD of draft

I have yet another MFD question. (Many of them have been elsewhere than here, but this is a question only for experienced editors.) I requested at a WikiProject that a draft be reviewed by a neutral editor. The history is that the primary author of the draft became involved in a dispute about a related article, and made a legal threat, and was indefinitely blocked. As a result, the author won’t be able to respond to the review of the draft, but I thought that the draft was reasonable on its face and needed review. An unregistered editor replied, saying that the draft should be taken to Miscellany for Deletion because the author had a conflict of interest, and because the draft contained original research. I didn’t check the references in detail, but it is my understanding that if the research done by the author of a draft or article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is no longer original research. Is that correct? Also, it is my understanding that COI and OR are not normally reasons to take a draft to MFD. They are reasons to decline a draft, or to take an article to Articles for Deletion. After all, draft space is, within some limits, a place to develop stuff that may have problems that need correcting. (It isn’t ready for prime time, to quote from a TV show that aired after prime time was over.) Am I correct? So should I just wait for a review by another editor? (I know that I can review the article myself, but I was asking for a review by an expert. Maybe the only expert is the blocked editor.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, original research is material "...for which no reliable, published sources exist". If there is a published source that is directly relevent, then it is not OR. I took a quick look at WP:MFD and see several items being considered for deletion due to COI. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Robert McClenon, COI editing would not, in my view, be a reason to delete an article, unless it was nothing but advertising and could not be reduced to a valid stub, or was on a non-notable topic. Original research can and should be removed from articles, but unless the article is nothing but OR, I don't see that as a reason to delete, nor as a good reason to start an AfD. Therefore, there is IMO far less reason to run an MFD on a draft for either reason. Content published in a reliable peer-reviewed source is not generally considered to be OR (assuming it is not a WP:FRINGE publication). it might still be considered a bit spammy and promotional to insert ones own scholarly writing as a source into a Wikipedia article, even if peer reviewed, but I wouldn't class it as OR. It might fail NPOV, depending on what other research had been done on the topic. Whether you will get a truly expert review is another matter -- subject-matter experts who also know Wikipedia well enough to review a draft can be thin on the ground. DES ^(talk) 21:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

AFC Question - Can we reduce number of clueless good-faith submissions without discouraging clueless editors from becoming clueful editors?

I have yet another AFC question. (Many of them have been elsewhere than here, but this is a question only for experienced editors.) As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, I see many drafts that in no way even resemble encyclopedic drafts. My question is whether there is some way to reduce the frequency with which they are Submitted to AFC. I can see that most of them are submitted cluelessly in good faith by new editors who in various ways don’t understand how Wikipedia works. (There are also bad-faith submissions, but I am not asking about them. We know that they are dealt with by templating the editor, or, if necessary, blocking the editor.) A few of them are reasonable user page drafts, presumably by editors who don’t yet know the difference between user space and article space. Some of them are test edits in sandboxes. My question there is whether there is some reason that they choose to Submit them that could be minimized by better information without preventing new editors from Submitting real article drafts. In general, does anyone have any thoughts on how to reduce the number of good-faith Submissions to AFC that are clearly not meant to be articles? I agree that we don't want to discourage clueless new editors from becoming clueful editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If a clueless new user is trying to create an article (or a "posting", as many of them now call it), and a big green "Submit" button appears, of course they are going to click it in the hope that something good will happen. I would blame the process (I don't know what it is) that distributes these buttons so freely. Maproom (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean that non-reviewers have a big green "Submit" button on their draft pages and sandbox? I can't check this myself because I have the AFCH (Article for Creation Helper) script, which causes those pages to have a less interesting AFCH button at the top, which, when pressed, will display a Submit button for unsubmitted pages, but anyone who has the AFCH script installed knows what Submit means. (For pages that have already been submitted for review, the options are Accept, Decline, and Comment, and an editor who has the AFCH script knows what Accept and Decline miean.) If non-reviewers have a big green "Submit" button, that answers my question, which is indeed that the process makes it too inviting to do something that clueless new editors don't understand. Maybe it should say something clearer, like "Submit Draft Article for Review". I thought that there might be a user interface issue encouraging mistaken good-faith submissions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe new editors really should refer to a "posting", because anything that is saved is a posting, including things that are not articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

{{User sandbox}}, which is normally preloaded in a new sandbox, has a large submit button. Many users try to edit this part of the preload, even though there is a comment to edit below, eventually resulting in accidental templates. Attempting to fix this, I often restore the sandbox template, but this can prompt them to click that button prematurely. Maybe it would be better to just clear that area in most cases. —PC-XT+ 06:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

SpartacusEducational

I would like to inform you of the extreme inaccuracy of an article in SpartacusEducational, which you seem to take as a reliable source. It is anything but that, at least on the one topic I looked at there.

I wrote my dissertation on Robert Baldwin Ross, 1869-1918, at USC. I used a great many documents (letters, etc.) from the Clark Library in Los Angeles; the Bodleian Library at Oxford; visited Rupert Hart-Davis's estate in England to use Wilde papers he had temporarily while working on his edition of Wilde's letters; and from various other sources, including a trip three years ago to the Toronto Public Library where there were interesting letters to and from Ross's family members. At one time my dissertation was recommended as the best work on Ross.

I stumbled on the article on Ross in SpartacusEducational by chance, and was appalled by its portrayal of Ross. It omitted sources for many of its most controversial statements about him, and even omitted well-known facts that support a completely different picture of him than it gives, such as his raising the money for Wilde's tomb in the cemetery of Pere Lachaise in Paris, done by Jacob Epstein. Two years ago Wilde's grandson, Merlin Holland, contacted me to see if I could find out why Mrs. Wylie had donated the money, but I was unsuccessful, probably because I am in the U.S. and do not have access to some of the proper British sources.

I hope you will examine some of the other articles from this website. If they are as bad as the article on Ross, their use by schools and colleges is spreading gross misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.49.39 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Spartacus Educational. State your issues at Talk:Spartacus Educational. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

However, I see no mention of Ross or Wilde in the article. Are you saying that there are errors in the Spartacus Educational articles about Ross and about other topics? If so, Wikipedia has no control over them, and you need to go to Spartacus Educational. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And I don't see the Spartacus site cited at Robbie Ross or at Oscar Wilde. You say we "seem to take [it] as a reliable source" – can you give an example? Maproom (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this place, but bad information does tend to creep in everywhere, if it can. I hope the rest of the site is more accurate. External Link Search for Spartacus-Educational.com (It's used in about 130 articles, plus discussions.) —PC-XT+ 06:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 07:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spartacus Educational, where the site owner apparently commented. —PC-XT+ 06:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Also, Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 15#spartacus-educational.com —PC-XT+ 07:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hit List

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

You have provided a hit list!

I know you are biased towards warmism but this is going far too far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.234.186 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like it, register an account and nominate it for Articles for Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Watching a section?

Is there a way to add a section of a page to the watchlist? For example, if I only wanted to be notified of edits to a certain section of an article or the Help Desk? RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No. As far as I know, this is one of those suggestions that gets brought up every so often. So, you're not alone in wanting that. I think there's a list somewhere. Something like Wikipedia:Perennial requests or something. Dismas|^(talk) 22:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Found it! Wikipedia:Perennial proposals under the Technical section. Dismas|^(talk) 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the link. RudolfRed (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The exact location is at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#watchsection. BTW, a solution for pages such as the help desk would be to keep each post, or the posts for each day, in its own subpage that's just transcluded in the main page. But that shouldn't be discussed here, but on this page's talk page or at the WP:VP. — Sebastian 00:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

February 18

Opt-out of Visual Editor

Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Opt-out#The_official_opt-out says: "Access to VisualEditor is handled by Beta Features on the English Wikipedia. To remove your access to VisualEditor, go to the Beta Features section of Special:Preferences and uncheck the "VisualEditor" item." but VisualEditor is not listed on the Beta Features section of Special:Preferences.

There is an option labeled "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" but it is in the Editing section. It should be changed to "Disable VisualEditor" and the instructions on Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Opt-out#The_official_opt-out should be changed because they are outdated. Rong Qiqi (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no key

Could somebody explain and fix what is causing the cite errors showing at the bottom of the page at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the references are defined in the references section, they require names. I'll try to give them some, but this also probably means they are not used inline for specific statements. For future reference, errors like this usually have blue links you can click for further information. —PC-XT+ 07:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I placed one inline reference in Special:Diff/705572323. There are still two more to place. (I used a comma in one name, but I think I'll remove it to avoid complicating things.) —PC-XT+ 07:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)