Help desk
< March 4	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 6 >

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

March 5

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Generally_considered_helpful / 2nd attempt without Ian.thomson

I need some other editors help who have some knowledge about policy.

"Replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and helps maintain text–source integrity" WP:CITEVAR

I wanted to remove some quotes, here - from within references because I think this according to policy considered "helpful" but it was reverted. I think it makes no sense to bring quotes into reference list when there are already references pointing to the quote which should be enough. Besides its possible to add footnotes in a reference to such section. Quotes inside references generate bunches of bytes which are not necessary to see here. I think policy wants that a reference tells who when where said something but not adding a quote itself here. Can I hear some opinions. I think its not helpful to generate huge reference lists because of the use of quotes within. So is it according policy, as I read it, to remove quotes not from the article itself but only from in between reference tags? We know now "Quote" is not part of any regular citation template and I understand the policy encouraging to delete quotes/inline citations from withing reference tags. Thanks for your help.Spearmind (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect, as I said in my answer to your earlier question. The guideline that you mention does not ask for quotes to be removed. What it is asking for is that general references unconnected to the text of an article be replaced by inline citations. The citation template {{cite web}} does include the quote parameter. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where you read "unconnected to the text"? And what would be a reference unconnected to the text? There is a contradiction. Spearmind (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained before (if you'd pay attention), some older articles just put a few book titles and authors at the bottom, without listing page numbers and without tying them to specific parts of the article. That's also explained in the links he provided. And if you are going to make strawman arguments about things I've pointed out to you, I am allowed to clarify. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR talks about replacing general references with inline citations. General references are defined as references that are not inline, i.e., that are not connected to the text as a citation. This has nothing to do with the use of quotes in inline citations. But since you asked, I see no problem with using them; like anything else, not to excess. A reader should not need to read an entire page at a cited ref if it can be summarized by quoting a few sentences (which the reader can still verify by following the citation).Dwpaul ^Talk 02:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous thread User:Spearmind wrote:

"Replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and helps maintain text–source integrity" WP:CITEVAR

I wanted to remove some quotes, here - from within references because I think this according to policy considered "helpful" but it was reverted.

The diff Spearmind referred to was the removal of a quotation from an citation that was in the form of a footnote. The quoted part of WP:CITEVAR is discussing replacing general references with inline citations. Since the citation that Spearmind altered was an inline citation, not a general reference, the passage from WP:CITEVAR that Spearmind quoted does not apply.

Since Spearmind apparently doesn't understand what a general citation is, I will give an example. The article "Amateur" has a list of references at the end, but there are no footnotes or other kinds of inline citations to indicate which reference supports which statement in the article. Suppose I wanted to know which source says Jim Thorpe was disqualifed from an event because he received payment? I'd have to read all the listed sources until I found the one that contains that statement. Obviously providing a footnote showing which page in which source says that would be an improvement.Jc3s5h (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it better now. Thanks for your help. Sometimes I also see a huge footnote section and under it another section to see where the quotes come from. I will concentrate on them now but in terms of are they really confirming what the article claims. I really think the "quote" in templates should not be used anymore and be replaced by a reference leading to such quote if needed but I know now its not what the policy meant. For me it just makes no sense having a reference and a quote which you should see in the source itself next to each other in reference tags.Spearmind (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does make sense to have the quote in the citation if the sources is inconvenient or expensive to gain access to. (I hope Spearmind isn't one of those folks that thinks sources have to be online.) If the quote doesn't support the claim, I know the article should be changed without even having to go find the source.

Another use for the quote is for an online source that is not divided into pages. I can put the words in the quote in by browser search box to find the relevant part of the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here beginning with reference number 6. And you really support this mess of reference list instead just pointing to a source where you can read and review a citation? I understand your point when readers do not have immediate access to a source. NYT linked why the heck you need to put a quote here?Spearmind (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources is rarely an improvement of the encyclopedia. And removing content that helps people quickly verify content is also rarely a benefit to the enecyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that i am being harasses online by a wiki editor

One wiki Editor has made all of the changes to a page about me Carol W. Greider. I have had a number of factual disputes with this editor and now have a dispute about the degree of private information that is appropriate to post. I feel he has really overstepped the boundarys of privacy

I feel it is deeply unfair to allow one anonymous person to control the web content of another. I am subject to the "conflict of interest policy" so my edits are not valid, on the page about me. While this unknown person with no authority is allows to control my webpage. This way of monitoring content is not in the spirit of an open community. It seems that wiki has gone to the extreme in protecting the web from people putting up stuff about themselves, and now is in a position where a single unauthorized person unilaterally controls the content of another person and can post private information with impunity.

I feel that the way i have been treated by this editor 'GouchoDude' is not appropriate. I have asked to resolve our dispute by talking it over and reaching an understanding and have been met with silence.

the fact that this GouchoDude can post private information about me that is inappropriate and I have no recourse on wikipedia is really very unfair. It makes it clear that this site is not interested in open discussion but rather allowing one voice to dominate anther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol.w.greider (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Greider: Harassment is a completely different issue than making edits to an article or posting information to it of which you do not personally approve. Are you objecting to the way a particular editor has edited the subject page, or are you claiming they are harassing you? Dwpaul ^Talk 02:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears also that all of the information added to the article or edited by GauchoDude is supported by citations of reliable sources. That does not necessarily mean that it is correct, but it does mean that they are not spurious claims made by another editor to somehow injure you. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, see GauchoDude's reply to your concerns on their Talk page and another editor's Talk page, contrary to your assertion that your attempts to communicate with them "have been met with silence". Again, giving you an answer with which you disagree is not harassment. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you do have concerns about the accuracy of any of the content of the article, the place to raise such concerns is on the article talk page, supporting your concerns with references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this dispute seems to concern the article going into entirely unnecessary detail about a divorce, I don't see that there is much to discuss. Per WP:BLP policy, and the stated "regard for the subject's privacy", such details don't belong in the biography of someone notable as a biologist, and not for her personal relationships. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AndyTheGrump. GauchoDude's addition of unreferenced (and apparently false) information in this edit, with the edit summary "reverting unsourced information", goes some way towards harassment. I am pleased to see that AndyTheGrump and TheRedPenOfDoom have done an excellent job of improving the article. Maproom (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: @Maproom: @David Biddulph: @Dwpaul: While I understand that the majority, if not all of you, are jumping into a situation which has been on-going for a while, I will explain my rationale. Firstly, I am not "adding unreferenced (and false) information" as AndyTheGrump claims. If you view her last article done by me [1], you'll note that all information is sourced correctly. If you took the time to read through and notice, I'm the only one that's actually sourcing and citing any of the information placed in the article as of my last edit. Her information regarding her relationship, marriage, and subsequent divorce were noted by multiple different sources, all of which I've added, which contradict Greider's claims. On the advice of @Scrow1:, who claims to be Greider's assistant, I was pointed in the direction of the court case for the divorce which is public information here through the Maryland State Court on [2] her talk page (with instructions to search as well).

Secondly, on that same talk page, it was stated that the divorce should be mentioned if mentioning the relationship to Nathaniel Comfort, to which I acquiesced.

Thirdly, the relationship between Greider and Comfort is absolutely "worth mentioning" as they're both independently notable and both have Wikipedia articles. Comfort's can be found at Nathaniel C. Comfort. It's not like either one of these is just a random person. Their lives, and subsequent careers, are intertwined as they've both moved jobs together. To remove verified, encyclopedic content at someone's wish is the opposite of what Wikipedia is ... at that point you're just turning the site into public relations. GauchoDude (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not say anything about "unreferenced (and false) information" - that was Maproom. What I said was that the article went into unnecessary detail over a divorce. Which it self-evidently did, given that it cited a primary-source court document, in direct contravention of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Greider is not notable for her personal life, and given that the article in question says nothing else whatsoever about Comfort, the supposed justification - that Greider and Comfort's professional lives are "intertwined" simply won't wash. WP:BLP policy unambiguously states that articles should have "regard for the subject's privacy". This has nothing to do with 'public relations' - it instead relates to the simple fact that we write about academics and scientists because of their work, not their private lives. A simple statement that Greider and Comfort were married, and subsequently divorced, is all that the article needs. If that - I note that the Comfort article says nothing whatsoever about this, and further note that the only other sources for the divorce merely mention it in passing. Scratching around for obscure sources and primary-source documents in order to include details about who filed for what is not only contrary to WP:BLP policy, but WP:UNDUE as well, and while I'd hesitate to describe this as 'harassment', I think that Greider's complaint was justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Comfort should be mentioned (re: marriage and divorce), and initially that was all I had included as that was all I had evidence towards. Per the talk on SCrow's page, I felt it was implied that they wanted a clear emphasis on the breakup, which I included per the Court records. I did not know WP:BLPPRIMARY was a thing, or I must have misunderstood if I had come across it, so I'm in the wrong there. Despite that, out of common sense I only included a mention to the court references as a record and not the link/search page as a result. I am fine with the resulting page that TheRedPenOfDoom has left and as far as I'm concerned this issue should be considered closed at least from my POV. GauchoDude (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that the OP seems to be especially upset that GauchoDude has not agreed to speak with her directly by phone or email, outside of Wikipedia, to discuss her objections. She has repeatedly demanded that the editor do so, and accused them of "hiding behind anonymity" because they have not done so. I'm under the impression that no Wikipedia editor is under any obligation to engage with another editor, or with the subjects of articles they edit, outside of Wikipedia, or to compromise their own privacy in order to do so. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia editors aren't obliged to engage with subjects of articles off-Wikipedia. They are however expected to comply with WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:BLPN

Greider says that she is being harassed by User:GauchoDude. I think that we are in agreement that this is not harassment as defined by Wikipedia. What we really have is issues of biographies of living persons and that policy, and so I can understand why Greider is complaining (and the fact that she calls it by a different Wikipedia name than we use is not important). This has been going on off and on since about 22 January. This may have been resolved by this discussion; there is no need for unnecessary details about the past personal lives of persons known for their academic careers. If not, Greider, or anyone else, can take it to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. As has been mentioned, Greider has no Wikipedia right to demand any off-wiki conversation, but she does have a right to an on-wiki conversation, and WP:BLPN is a place for that. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a logo to Lexalytics

Hi there, I need to upload this image http://photos.prnewswire.com/prn/20141105/156892 of my company's logo. Their Wikipedia page can be found here: Lexalytics

Their current logo on Wikipedia is out of date and I'm not too sure how to fix this. It needs to be done as soon as possible, so your help is very much appreciated!

Best,

Charleslegros (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest to go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and upload a new logo under a new name, say Lexalytics2.png or Lexalytics2015.png, and describe it properly including use rationale (see the current File:Lexalytics.png description). Then edit the Lexalytics page top section and replace the image file name Lexalytics.png in the 'logo' parameter of the {{Infobox company}} template with a new file name. --CiaPan (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or if all that's too complicated, make a request at WP:FFU for the file to be uploaded.--ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Charleslegros is not WP:AUTOCONFIRMED s/he cannot upload files, so will have to go via WP:FFU - Arjayay (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Username similarity checks

Is there a way to find out whether a username will be accepted by the algorithm that checks for similarity with existing usernames without actually trying to register it? Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of all users at Special:ListUsers, you can search it by using the "Display users starting at:" box. Hope this helps. - X201 (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf, there is currently no such system. The best way is as described above. As a global renamer (currently a steward) I raised this question last November on meta [3]. From emails I am made aware that the developers are working the problem, but it may take some months. Even though it may not help, I hope this answers your question. All the best, Taketa (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers both. That does answer my question, even though it wasn't the answer I was hoping for! Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania watershed articles

I have a two fold question. The later I can answer on my own time. If you can elaborate on it, please do.

I live in PA. I see many articles in the 'Did you know' section of Wikipedia that refer to PA watershed areas and other interesting subjects regarding the locality I am familiar with.

What is the nature of the algorithm (if any) that determines what subjects acceed to population within the 'Did you know' section of Wikipedia? I.e. why do I see references in this section referring to PA. Is it coincidence I see these and reside in PA, or is something on the website detecting my locality?
Who is this individual that keeps posting interesting articles about PA watersheds in the 'Did you know' section of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:3383:5E05:6061:DE4F:7FD4:C681 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no algorithm, apart from the software between the ears of the editors making the selections. The DYK process, and the actively involved editors can be seen at Wikipedia:Did you know
AFAIK the DYKs are only up for 6-8 hours before being changed, and the editors try to match the time slot with the locality - although as people read Wikipedia at all hours, this is not an exact science.
As for the editor posting the articles, look at the history of a few of those articles and I suspect the same name, or names, will crop up regularly. Some editors compete to get as many DYKs as they can. - Arjayay (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Arjayay said, there's no real algorithm that determines what DYKs are shown to one people; the same set is shown to everyone in the world. DYKs are actually up for 12 hours, not 6 or 8, but that sometimes changes. If someone is nominating a lot of articles on a similar topic (as I have been doing with Pennsylvania streams for the past several months), then a lot of articles on that topic are bound to appear in DYK. --Jakob (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i need to add a person to the Notable alumni

hi i would like to add a person to the Notable alumni for the St Joseph University beirut how can i do it. Plese help me

Tony Hakim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.238.23 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the person you want to add is notable, in the sense that Wikipedia has an article about them, then tell us their name and someone will add it to the list there. Maproom (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get published content out my sandbox so I can use the sandbox again?

Help!!! When I click on my sandbox tab, it redirects to a page I self-published a while back (The Secret Place). So I can't use my sandbox. How do I get all that published The Secret Place content out my sandbox so I can use it again?

I think this happened because I created The Secret Place in my sandbox and submitted it for review. After a while I got tired of waiting for approval, so I cut/pasted it into a new article with the same title which I self published. I now understand this is forbidden. Can anyone help? Thanks, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redirect instruction from your sandbox. To answer your question, when you arrive at a page that is the target of a redirect, you can click on the hatnote that informs you of the redirection (below the title) to return to the redirect page (in this case it was your sandbox) without being redirected. You can also add &redirect=no in the address bar to the Web address where the redirect is located to prevent execution of the redirect (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:BuzzWeiser196/sandbox&redirect=no).Dwpaul ^Talk 17:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help

Dear all,

I would like to ask about profile of my husband being incorrectly edited al the time, we trying to keep truthful information but some particular user still editing. And that person always deleting all the information. We provided all supporting links were mention about my husband work and biography.

What we can do to protect the profile?

I need your help and support on this matter.

Look forward for your reply.

Best regards,

Maria2104 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the purpose of Wikipedia. This in an encyclopaedia, not a platform for promotion - and we don't host 'profiles', we instead feature articles on notable subjects. Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, as someone connected with the subject of the article, you are strongly advised not to edit it at all - and you certainly shouldn't be filling it with walls of promotional puffery as you have been doing. Wikipedia articles must be encyclopaedic not promotional, conform to a neutral point of view and be sourced to reputable published reliable sources. I suggest that if you have further suggestions regarding content, you post them on the article talk page, and leave editing to uninvolved contributors familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As AndyTheGrump says, the original poster seems to misunderstand how Wikipedia works, because she keeps referring to her husband's "profile" rather than recognizing that it is a biographical encyclopedic article. If she has factual issues, she can either post to the article talk page, Talk: James Knight-Pacheco. If that does not work, she can discuss factual issues at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, which is, among other things, for subjects of articles to request removal of any factual errors. However, she does not have the right to add promotional material. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cant log in have gotten temporary password but it won't work

Hi, I haven't had a chance to get on my site for a while. I know my user name,speedhist, but forgot my password. I received 3 different temporary passwords but none of them will let me in. This is very frustrating. speedhist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.163.150 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~:User names are case sensitive. The only speedhist I can find on the user list starts with a capital S - Speedhist. - X201 (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)~~ Scrub that. First character defaults to capitals. - X201 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Speedhist shows an edit after the post here so I guess it works now. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error in maps and therefore in the GPS coordinates

On the location page for the article Fairlight, Saskatchewan I noted that the map for the province of Saskatchewan was a rectangle with SQUARE corners. The province has only two straight lines for its borders, not four, and the borders are not all at right angles. Such an error in the map of the province would make the automatic programming placing of GPS coordinates close, but not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriMesh (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 March 2015‎ (UTC

The best place to mention this would be on the Talk page of the article. You might also mention it on the Talk page of the person who created the illustration (map of Saskatchewan) you see there.Dwpaul ^Talk 22:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map and the town location are pretty much identical to those shown by Google Maps, which should be good enough. The article's coordinates locate to a point less than 600 meters from that produced by entering the town name in the Google Maps search box. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I returned just now to say effectively the same thing. The purpose of the maps at this scale is just to give an approximate idea of the location, not for any kind of navigation nor anything else that requires precision. If you need more precision, you can click on the coordinates at the top of the article and select from an abundance of online mapping services that will provide it. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map of Saskatchewan in Fairlight, Saskatchewan is not a rectangle. The eastern border is not a straight line (see Geography of Saskatchewan#Physical geography). That becomes more clear when you click the map to see an enlarged version. The southern border does not follow a circle of latitude exactly but I don't know whether the deviation is large enough anywhere to clearly say whether the apparently straight line in File:Canada Saskatchewan location map.svg is a fair representation. The western border follows a meridian. That makes it a straight line in normal definitions but not on all map projections. The northern border follows a circle of latitude exactly. That's a curve with normal geometric definitions but geography often uses map projections where it's a straight line and many people will call it straight, especially when it's only a small part of a full circle of latitude. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. When I began with the info boxes with a map not to the scale necessary for the robotic GPS purposes, it was corrected by others with much fanfare. And the map used was good. Now, it seems to have deviated to a worse course, and is the same on all Saskatchewan locations, now that I have had a peek around. I will mention it on the talk page. I know other map sites have it exact for visiting etc, but shouldn't there be a standard of accuracy on the wikipedia "encyclopedia" as well, or the map could be removed, IMHO.SriMesh | talk 14:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]