Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 January 11

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.

January 11

DYK

I'd like to find out if Desert tortoise was a 'Did you know' article. Portal:Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Did_you_know/June_2008 implies it was, while, Category:Wikipedia_Did_you_know_articles doesn't list it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would assume it was. Usually, like at Talk:Blackhawk Hotel it has a DYK template, which I'm guessing adds it to the above mentioned category. CTJF83 chat 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Retract that, Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June would be more accurate than the portal, and it isn't listed. CTJF83 chat 02:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed. If it had been on DYK, it would be included at Wikipedia:Recent additions and it's not (the easiest way to search is to click "what links here" from the article, selecting "Wikipedia" as the namespace to check for links). Bencherlite^Talk 02:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) OH!! Here's the thing...it appeared on the Portals DYK, not the main page DYK. Portal:Amphibians and Reptiles CTJF83 chat 02:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Details of RevDel

I couldn't remember how various elements of RevDel worked, so I created and deleted User:Nyttend/directory/test three times, then proceeded to RevDel some of its elements: the username of one creation, the edit summary for another deletion, and the deletion log for one of the two RevDels. I had multiple surprises: (1) Until I un-RevDeled the deletion log entry, I couldn't view it — why was I able to restore it but not to view it in the mean time? (2) Although I performed two RevDels, there is only one entry in the log — does removing an edit summary not generally produce a log entry? Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm no admin...but I see one of the user name/ip removed and one of the edit summary removed. [1] CTJF83 chat 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I was asking about — that's the deletion log alone. See the entire log: there's only one entry other than the deletions themselves, not two. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So, to clarify for someone else reading this that may have an answer...what is missing from the above link. CTJF83 chat 03:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being confusing. There's only one RevDel entry in the log, but I performed two separate RevDel actions. Why does the action of removing the username get its own log entry, but the action of removing the deletion summary doesn't? Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Entries merged together like on my talk? If that isn't the answer, then I give up on responding, lol and will let someone who knows what they are talking about answer. CTJF83 chat 03:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

my user name was being used as a "sock puppet" i would like to use it and i see the user that had it was faking me as both links refer to me?

Unresolved

 – WP:USURP issue John of Reading (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

my name is Mark Ryder aka MarkRuffRyder

i am a very well known underground music producer and i own many underground record labels with 20+ years releasing massive anthems for the uk underground dance scene.

i reciently came across an article i wanted to add clarifiction to but soon found my name was blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Markruffryder

the links seem to sugest what ever this guy was doing with my name was mainly to impersonate me as there are not too many of me around and my history in the uk underground is known maybe there is an 'about me' on wiki i will have to search anyway i can prove who i am and have years of very clear knowledge regarding the uk underground music industry as this is all i have ever done "make and move the uk undergound music scene" and its all i am still doing

my contributions would be positive and give real in site but i can not register a name that represents me and this one is blocked so is there a way to release it to me.

check out my new releases on my youtube

http://www.youtube.com/markryder

also google me or myspace/twitter/facebook

would love to clarify some big mis understandings in the uk underground dance scene which seem to be written by music buyers rather than the movers of it..

any help would be appreciated

regards Mark Ruff Ryder

Strictly underground bizznezz

true to the scene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.105.163 (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about username usurpation to comment on your request. But I must mention that you will run into problems in editing here, whatever name you register as, if you try to add your personal knowledge to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles must only report what has already been published in reliable sources such as books and news media; Wikipedia does not publish original thought. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong info presented in article

What do you do if editors presents the wrong facts? They admit it is not right, but refuse to correct or change it, simply because the article has receive top honors on the the site. There have been numerous people complaining about these articles for the very same reason. What can be done? Please review the Talk on "Kentucky's Confederate Government" and Louisville, Kentucky". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypreston2010 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Confederate government of Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Louisville, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you be more specific about what is "wrong" needs to be changed? I took a look at the first talk page, and see a discussion regarding use of Shadow versus Provisional government, but that seems to be a question of due weight. Also, please sign your edits using ~~~~, it helps keep things in order. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mathematic results

i want to edit some mathematic results seargch exemple 1)intégrale par fonction de parcellage 2)intégrale par changement de fonction 3) intégrale par des suites convergentes 4)forme exponenciel de la fonction afine 5)ensembles de mandel brot ammeliorée 6)fonction simulant la tangent,sinus,cos 7)suite a parametrage infini (compression,stokage, codage) de donnés 8) email —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.97.156.228 (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

These look like article titles for the French Wikipedia. For help using the French-language Wikipedia I suggest you ask there. (I have removed your email address to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing system is extremely poorly thought-out

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Beyond the scope of the help desk, and appears to be going round in circles. Either discuss the incident at WP:ANI or another appropriate venue, with diffs, or make any policy proposals on the talk page for the relevant policies or guidelines. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Some serious thinking needs to be done about the current editing approval system, in particular with regards to reverts on the grounds of insufficient reference requirements. Currently every single change that is made to improve a page requires completely unnecessarily rigorous referencing before that change is allowed, regardless of whether or not the page is already full of unreferenced material. The system we have now frequently involves non-expert editors telling expert assistants that their changes are not allowed because they aren't referenced properly: however it would be clear to any expert that the material is perfectly sufficiently referenced. Surely a better system would be to encourage non-expert editors to allow the experts to make their changes, but to politely request that they remember to add a correct citation after the event. Of course, should another expert editor have issue with the new contents, then it can be challenged, discussed, and a citation requested. But the system we have at the moment is completely counter-productive, and in direct contravention of the "assume good faith" policy. Editors should be instructed to leave the experts to make changes and improve the site as they see fit, and only to reject an edit if they are 100% sure it is vandalism. Py0alb (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians cannot be considered "experts", because there is no way to prove their expertise; nor is any wikipedian considered "better" or more "more expert" than any other. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to collect and present information which has already been published in reliable sources, thus our information must be verifiable in reliable sources. If you are an expert in the field and that makes it easier for you to contribute to articles in that field, then your help is very welcome; but any information you add must be verifiable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a side-note, the editing system is extremely thoroughly thought-out, and agreed upon with broad consensus by the community. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We do assume good faith but poorly referenced 'expert' edits may be original research, which we do not allow. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course there are experts. Who do you think writes most of wikipedia? They are the ones who discuss the changes on the talk page. They are the ones who say "This edit is incorrect BECAUSE..." rather than just "I don't understand this subject so I'm going to assume that any edit is automatically vandalism"

It is also a salient point that it more often than not requires a degree of expertise in the subject to understand whether or not it is sufficiently referenced. For example, if I looked through a maths derivation and was unable to determine how the author moved from one line to the next, does that mean that the page in insufficiently referenced and should be removed?

Surely any new material should be held up to the same standards as the currently existing material? I don't see any move to remove every page that contains unreferenced material (this would lead to the deletion of about 90% of wikipedia).

Saying "the editing system is extremely thoroughly thought-out" is meaningless. Clearly there are still several issues with it that need addressing, otherwise I wouldn't be here proposing improvements. It's virtually impossible to make a change to a page without having to explain in mindnumbing detail to about 30 separate editors who know nothing about the topic and automatically assume that you are a vandal why and how the referencing is already sufficient. Frequently they won't even discuss the issue, they simply revert your change and issue vandalism warnings. Are you honestly telling me that you think this is a good policy? If you don't believe me I have numerous examples, although at this stage I would prefer not to call any editors out in public.

Py0alb (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(written before seeing your last edit) I for one wish the community made more of an effort to welcome experts and to show that we valued their expertise, while still holding them to the same standards of verifiability and no original research as anyone else. But if you're wondering why the community as a whole is quite skeptical of claims of expertise, see Essjay controversy. You might also be interested in Citizendium, a project similar to Wikipedia that grants editorial oversight to contributors with verified expertise. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No-one should be issuing vandalism warnings for edits made in good faith... Did they explicitly call your edits vandalism, or were they just trying to explain Wikipedia policies? I have seen cases where a new contributor has waded straight into a highly controversial article, made good-faith and constructive changes, and been immediately reverted by long-serving editors who have dealt with hundreds of vandals, spammers, pov-pushers, cranks, and other problematic editors in the past, and whose experiences have left them a little too quick on the revert button. But it's impossible to comment on your case when we can't see your editing history (you've made no other edits under this account). Have you looked into dispute resolution? Or thought to drop a note with a relevant Wikiproject, which might be listed at the top of an article's talkpage? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please assume the assumption of good faith, py0alb. We are not saying unreferenced expert edits are vandalism, only that they are unreferenced, and people (especially immediatists) tend to remove controversal information that is uncited, or that look like original research. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe py0alb is saying that they were explicitly given vandalism warnings for a good-faith edit; but since such edits were not on that account, it's just speculation on my part whether the warnings were for vandalism or lack of sourcing, and whether or not such warnings were justified. Py0alb, have you edited with another account which we should be aware of? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just on my home computer's IP address before I opened this account a few days ago. But I don't wish to complain specifically about one case, I'm complaining because the general attitude of almost every editor I've come across leads me to believe that this arrogant attitude is a systemic failure that needs addressing by policy makers. For the purposes of clarity, I will outline the particular case that brought this to my attention. I have been trying to tidy up a substandard page over the last few months, and first attempted to rearrange one section in a slightly more coherent manner without introducing more information. After having it reverted several times by people who did not have the expertise to understand that I wasn't introducing new material at all, I eventually got it accepted. Then recently I noticed that I had made a small mistake in my original edit and had muddled up two terms - I move three words round to correct this mistake, and now three completely different editors who all admit to knowing nothing about the subject matter have blocked me from altering my own paragraph. So its sitting there with an obvious error but I'm not allowed to change it. I contacted all the editors individually, explained the situation and tried to be as friendly and patient as possible but they would not respond or undo their reverts. In fact, I encountered seven different editors, not one who even claimed to understand the subject in question, not one willing to even discuss the matter, and not one acting on assumption of good faith. I highly doubt that these were seven "rogue editors" I encountered; I think this is a wikipedia wide attitude problem that needs addressing as a matter of some urgency.

By "expert" I'm not necessarily talking about someone who makes gradiose claims about their subject knowledge, but simply distinguishing between those who know enough about the subject in question to be able to ask pertinent questions, and those editors or reviewers who freely admit to know nothing at all about the subject but still feel perfectly justified in reverting people's edits. I would never attempt to revert someone's minor changes on a page I know nothing about, it would feel like the height of arrogance of me to assume that I know enough to be able to tell whether it was sufficiently referenced or not. I simply feel that a reminder sent out to all editors to remind them that perhaps they don't know as much as they think they know, and should perhaps show a little humility when deciding whether or not to revert someone's changes. Py0alb (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If you ever find yourself claiming that the community has an attitude problem, that's usually the sign that you're the problem, not everyone else. If an edit is controversial and unreferenced or poorly referenced, reverting it and requesting discussion is exactly the right thing for any editor to do. If seven editors have all disagreed with you, it's time to drop the stick, and stop editwarring rather than claiming you're the only one who understands the subject. Note that block evasion is not allowed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an extremely poor and unhelpful reply, not to mention a complete logical fallacy. You haven't addressed my points at all, but just automatically assumed that I'm in the wrong without knowing the first thing about the case in question. My edits were neither controversial nor poorly referenced. It was me that continually requested a discussion, it was the other editors who engaged in a silent edit war. Frankly you should be thoroughly ashamed of jumping to conclusions and making ignorant and disparaging remarks based solely on your own prejudices. A disgraceful comment Py0alb (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

<edit conflicts x2> Have you tried citing multiple independent reliable sources first? Usually more than one is required to achieve a neutral point of view. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be beneficial to help discusss this if you told us what article you are talking about. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And now you're accusing me of sock puppetry because I disagreed with you Giftiger? What is this, the gestapo? Seriously, you should be banned from wikipedia for such flagrant and unnecessary personal attacks. Py0alb (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Giftiger is warning you against socking, not accusing you of it. Does your case involve the biography of a living person? Kayau Voting IS evil 14:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kayau and GB fan - I am not concerned about the particular case, which is why I'm not saying what page it was. I am simply trying to open up a discussion as to striking a better balance between antivandalism /"anti-unreferenced material" measures on the one hand, and the "assumption of good faith" / "assumption that the editor might know more about the subject in question than I do" on the other hand. At present, I feel that editors are too draconian/arrogant, and the balance needs to be shifted to a more open system based on discussing changes in a friendly manner on the subject discussion page rather than automatic warnings and reverts. I think an editor should have a chance to defend his changes on the discussion page before it is reverted. More democracy, less totalitarisnism. Surely we can all agree on this?

and yes, he has accused me of sock puppetry, presumably because he didn't like his post being described as disgraceful. My home page now has a warning on it saying that my name has been linked to a sock puppetry case and that there is mounting "evidence" against me. Py0alb (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There may have been a simple mis-understanding here. Py0alb wrote above, ""three completely different editors... have blocked me from altering my own paragraph". I interpreted that to mean that three editors had independently reverted Py0alb's changes, such that Py0alb was unable to make lasting edits on the paragraph. Giftiger wunsch seems to have interpreted the word "blocked" to mean Py0alb was blocked in the way that Wikipedia uses that term – technically restricted from editing from his/her IP address or account. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I can agree that in certain situations changes should be discussed before being reverted but in other cases changes should be reverted before being discussed. So without specific examples it is hard to say what I would do in a specific case. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You say that you favour democracy. You told us that seven editors believed that your edits were not adequately referenced. Who is out of step?

As for the sock-puppetry, you said "three completely different editors ... have blocked me from altering my own paragraph". Are you currently blocked, or are you subject to a topic-ban? If you are blocked and you are editing here, then you are indeed guilty of sock-puppetry. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not blocked you idiot, read the post above you. I am voluntarily abiding by the three revert rule. How about you go read up on "assumption of good faith"?

Democracy is NOT weight of numbers. Democracy means government by discussion. If editors revert other people's changes without being willing to discuss them then that is NOT democracy. The seven editors, none of whom even took the time to read through the article in enough detail to notice that the terms they were complaining about were already both used and fully referenced in other paragraphs, were entirely in the wrong. Eventually after one of them responded to my multiple requests for a discussion, they admitted I was right all along and my changes were allowed through.

Honestly, I'm simply attempting to have a reasonable debate about the things that should be considered when editing, and everyone is assuming I'm either a sock puppet or a troll or something. I'm genuinely trying to help. Py0alb (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling people idiots does not help the situation. You had said earlier in this discussion that 3 people had blocked you, so other editors took that to mean that you were blocked on a different account. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Owing to the new way the software handles edit conflicts, David probably had no way of seeing my post before making his own. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Py0alb, you write above, "I am not concerned about the particular case, which is why I'm not saying what page it was." But your contention that there is a systemic problem on Wikipedia seems to be based on that particular case. I can think of a few reasons why you might have received the (lack of) responses you did, some of them not in any way your fault. But there's no way I can help or even understand the problem without knowing the case; nor will anyone take your call for change seriously if you can't substantiate it with concrete examples. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one form of democracy. If you use the term "democracy" and intend it to mean "consensus democracy", you cannot call someone an idiot for assuming you are referring to another form of democracy. It is apparent that you are intelligent enough to understand this. So, continuing to be abrasive and hardheaded indicates that you are not posting at the "help desk" for help. You are only posting to vent because you didn't get your way. -- kainaw™ 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since there's a lot of talk of democracy here, let me point out that wikipedia is not a democracy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving that aside, Py0alb, I agree with Adrian Hunter. This is a help desk, we can discuss specific cases but it's not an appropriate venue for discussing major changes in Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh apologies if this was the wrong forum to raise this discussion. Can you tell me where the best place would be to raise my concerns? It's not a major concern, I just feel that based on my experience of dealing with a variety of unresponsive editors, the guidelines for reviewing edits should be tweaked. Thanks. Py0alb (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

An RFC at WT:RS or WT:V may be more appropriate, since it appears to pertain to the reliable sources / verifiability policies. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you giftiger, I will look into that. I still await my apology though. Py0alb (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I just looked through those pages and you have missed my point. I have no issues with my or anyone else's understanding of what is or isn't an appropriate source. My issue is with editors who hit revert without reading through (and understanding) the article in enough detail to be able to make an informed decision about what is new information and what is simply a rearranging of already correctly referenced material.

My proposal is that editors should err more on the side of caution before reverting changes than they currently typically do. As a guideline: if a reviewer suspects that an edit is not sufficiently referenced, they should accept it but then give the author a chance (say 24 hours) to defend it on the talk page before reverting it, rather than the current system of reverting the change and then refusing to discuss the reasoning behind this. Can we have a discussion about this general concept, rather than jumping to conclusions about any particular case? Does anyone disagree with this proposal in principle? If so, why? Py0alb (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree, because this proposal conflicts with WP:BRD. No need to give unsourced assertions the benefit of the doubt, even for 24 hours. Also, I don't see a "system of reverting the change and then refusing to discuss the reasoning behind this" - in my experience, almost all editors are willing to discuss problem edits and justify their reversions at great length. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, what I am talking about does not conflict with BRD. The idea of BRD is that you make a bold change, then someone who is interested in the subject reverts it, and then the two of you discuss the matter and come to a compromise. That's a great idea, and works well if you have a page with several interested parties. Unfortunately, this isn't what happens in practice on the smaller pages which attracts little general interest. What happens instead is that you make a small change, someone with no interest whatsoever in the subject reverts it without even bothering to read through the whole article, and then refuses to discuss the matter. For the sake of argument, assume I'm not making this up for a laugh (assumption of good faith): do you agree with this system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "system". It may be the way that some editors behave, but they are in the minority in my experience. As I said, almost all editors that I have come across are very happy to explain and discuss their edits. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unlucky in having encountered several unhelpful and unresponsive editors in a row, although I doubt it. But I think a gentle reminder to all editors with reviewer priviledges that it is good practice to a) read through an article very carefully before deciding to make a revert, and b) if in doubt discuss the changes with the editor on the talk page before reverting. Again these are not cases of obvious vandalism or completely new unsourced material I am thinking of, but rather editors erroneously categorising genuinely good and well cited changes as either unreferenced material simply because they did not have either the expertise or patience to make an informed judgement. Py0alb (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is practical to remind all of the editors with reviewer privs in this manner. What is practical and usual is for someone who has encountered a problem to post diffs showing the problem. Why not do that? It would be much easier to work with real situations than debate the abstract. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to be an expert in the subject before reading an article. Unless you are prepared to change your tune and show us the example, if there were seven editors who felt that your edits were inadequately referenced it isn't unreasonable for us to assume good faith on their part and therefore to wonder whether in fact you didn't provide sources as clearly as you should have done, and it seems strange that you continued to try to include such an unreferenced edit up to the stage where you feared sanction under WP:3RR. If it isn't obvious to the average reader, then it needs to be referenced. WP:V says "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." By the time it had been challenged once, it wasn't clever of you to keep trying to add the material without a WP:RS - David Biddulph (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I am declining to do that is because I don't wish to embarrass, accuse or otherwise aggravate the reviewers in question (a couple of whom alredy received rebukes over the matter) because I believe the fault lies with the lack of correct guidance over WP policy, not with the people themselves. Py0alb (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to enter into this specific debate/dispute/whatever but I would like to say something for everyone to consider. One of the major weaknesses of "expert editors" is that quite a lot of "facts and figures" are "common knowlege" within their field of expertise so they can sometimes fail to appreciate the need for citation. Allow me to illustrate: Expert editor: "But everyone and his dog knows that a zigmoglobulator is always made of 24 carat unobtainium, demanding a citation is ridiculous!" Nonexpert editor: "Sorry Mr Expert, everybody and his dog does not know that - only everybodies and their dogs who work in the zigmoglob industry know that." Wikipedia is written for nonexpert readers; I vaguely remember reading advice somewhere that articles should be written at a level that's accessible to an average high school graduate. Roger (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again :-) In response to David's comment: " By the time it had been challenged once, it wasn't clever of you to keep trying to add the material without a WP:RS" After the first rejection, I made a comment on the talk page explaining that every term I was using was already used and correctly referenced lower down in the text. I then re-edited the material, with the request that before deciding whether to reject it or not, would the reviewer please read the notes in the talk page and respond to show they had seen them. But alas, to no regard, the change was simply rejected with no reason given. Surely reading the edit summary and talk page is the absolute minimum due diligence before rejecting another editor's change? As I said before, eventually a more diligent editor intervened on my behalf and reproached the original reviewers for their lack of attention and promised me the situation would not happen again. However, exactly the same thing DID happen again, and will no doubt continue to happen to all new editors on a regular basis until better reviewing guidance is put in place. You may all decide to bury your head in the sand and say that this is only a minority of editors who make kneejerk rejections as a kind of default setting or that I'm making this up as some kind of unfunny joke, but that kind of attitude will only damage wikipedia in the long run. Py0alb (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly this is getting to the stage where it's diffs or it didn't happen. The majority of editors will discuss disputes like the one you're describing, and we have procedures to enforce discussion in such situations. 7 editors failing to discuss without good cause seems very unlikely, and if you won't identify the incident to which you're referring, I'm inclined to think you're either exaggerating or your edits weren't as good-faith as you lead us to believe, especially since you've said you were also warned for vandalism. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm here trying to have a friendly discussion, and most people are obliging, but you seem insistent on resorting to ad hominems and thinly veiled accusations of dishonesty. This ON TOP of a completely fabricated and unfounded sock puppet accusation. Seriously, what did I do to offend you so badly Giftiger? Py0alb (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

how to use wikipedia the first time as a source of information on a subject

When I have googled a question and selected wikipedia as a source of the answer, I have always been pleased. Can I ask wikipedia directly for information or definitions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.193.54 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You can indeed. Wikipedia has its own search function - it's at Special:Search, or in the top righthand corner of every page at en.wikipedia.org (if you are using our default skin, Vector). You can read all about it at WP:SEARCH. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If your search on Wikipedia does not deliver the information you want, you can also post a question at one of the Reference desks, which work in a similar way to this Help desk but deal with questions of information. The Reference desks are subdivided into broad topics such as Humanities, Science, Entertainment, etc. Roger (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively you can search Wikipedia with a custom Google search, which will just search Wikipedia.
This often works better than Wikipedia's own internal search function
http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Google+Search&domains=wikipedia.org&sitesearch=wikipedia.org
Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Your browser may have a search feature where you can select Wikipedia at the browser's search box. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

License questions

Am trying to wade through the backlog at Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale. Finding a lot of images which are not licensed correctly. Best policy is which-tag the file for wrong license or change the license to the one that fits the file? Also have some with more than one license; is best policy to remove the license that doesn't apply? Thanks, We hope (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Use your judgement. If it is obvious what the correct tag should be, then fix the tag. If it is confusing what the correct tag should be, then notify the uploader and ask them to fix it. --Jayron32 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! We hope (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Who do I contact to possibly Edit Factual Information

During a recent discussion, we had a wager going on about something insignificant, however the wager got very large. Kevin Federline, Brittney Spears ex hubby, is from Fresno, and graduated Tenaya Middle School and also 9th grade at Bullard. For some reason, WIKIpedia had him listed as a famous alumni of Clovis West. H.S.

How do i go about contacting someone to change this? It is a factual based ERROR that somehow was put on WIKPEDIA.

Brian [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.28.0.14 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source here and someone will change it. Or go to the articles talk page and use Template:Edit semi-protected and request the change. CTJF83 chat 19:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

email address removed to protect your privacy [CharlieEchoTango] 19:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Searching (why do so many people post here without saying which article they are posting about?) shows that the information is in Clovis West High School#Notable alumni which is not protected. It is sourced to http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1489219/20040702/spears_britney.jhtml which says he was a 15-year old student but not whether he graduated (it appears he didn't). As alumnus says, it can both mean a graduate and a former student. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth

What is this? --Perseus, Son of Zeus 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's just a local tracker of your account's status on different language Wikipedias. TNXMan 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

– And other Wikimedia wikis. As Special:CentralAuth says: "This interface can be used for administration of global accounts." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

On meta it is used by stewards to control your global account. Elsewhere (or on meta if you aren't a steward) it shows the global account status for a certain username. Prodego ^talk 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Draft of article on my user page has disappeared

Yesterday I spent a couple of hours creating a new article and placed it on my user page for further editing today. I both saved and previewed it. Today there is no evidence of it on my user page. Where did it go? What happened? Johnso1943 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It was still here User:Johnso1943/Minnesota Military Museum when I looked a few seconds ago. If you click on My contributions at the top of the page it tells you which articles you have edited. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that I did not lose it. I don't know what happened, but when I initially went to My contributions, there was nothing visible except the search box, and my attempt at a search went nowhere. In any case, thanks very much for the help! Things seem to be working for me now. Johnso1943 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

noah p zarck

I just read a book by noah p zarck called two wardens found and want to read more about him but am having a hard time finding info please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.41.17 (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Humanities reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Snark

When an editor uses the edit summary..."useless snark"...what does that mean?Buster Seven Talk 23:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Snark is just general vocabulary for being a smart mouth. They thought you were trying to be funny, factious, or disruptive. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen that edit summary before and it doesn't sound like something common with a generally understood meaning. I guess you think of the specific case [2]. You could simply ask the editor. It may have referred to the editor's own post. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Right you are. The best possibility is that he was being self-critical of his own post, as you say. Thanks for returning me to an assumption of good faith. :~)Buster Seven Talk 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Organizations Releasing Images for Editor's Use

I'm about to email an organization (company) and ask for release of images pertinent to material on Wikipedia. My question: how do I do this?

I find it likely that they will agree to release select images in a compatible license for general use on Wikipedia, but I also want to give them the alternative option to release them for specific uses in relevant articles. How would I do this? If they do release it with a new license, how does an organization, not a person, grant permission for the image to be used under the terms of the license? I only know of how I make an account and release material that is my personal intellectual property - note that this doesn't fulfill my request.

Asking them to create an account on Wikimedia commons, Flickr, Wikipedia and do the uploading and specifications themselves has problems with

• Wikipedia conflict of interest policies - they could effectively be editing their own material
• Overly burdensome to create an account just for this and unprofessional since the company already has a set of social media site approved by their management to represent the company and can't create accounts all over the internet without slow and painful approval

They already have their own social media sites where the pictures already exist. What procedure should I suggest for them to release the images in a semi-public license? (I personally find anything not public domain only "semi" public) Furthermore, what type of license should I suggest? Should I suggest Creative Commons, GPL, just declaration of public domain, or something else. Where are the policies, procedures, and suggestions for making these requests for material to put in Wikipedia?

Thanks. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a partial answer: If I understand correctly, you are talking about asking them for permission for use only on Wikipedia or only on some articles. Neither is acceptable to Wikipedia: Wikipedia accepts nothing less than permission for reuse by anyone anywhere for anything. —teb728 t c 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Also WP:Requesting copyright permission. --ColinFine (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)