Help desk
< February 27	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	March 1 >

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.

February 28[edit]

Page that needs to be removed.[edit]

To Whoever it May Concern,

There is a wikipedia page that uses my name, photo, and some background information (where I go to school, and where I grew up), that is not relevant to the article, and MUST be taken down. The page is under "Nora Kennedy", and I would like all information about be to be removed, or at least the page. None of the information is about me, and I feel my identity has been threatened because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.116.132 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all information which was not properly cited to other published texts. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 03:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing more research, the entire article and all of its sources was about another person. As such, it was a blatant hoax, and I have deleted the article as such. --Jayron32 03:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vandalism contributions[edit]

Is there any more directed way of contributing towards fixing general Wikipedia vandalism on miscellaneous pages than manually checking the "Recent changes" page for suspicious-looking edits? 86.148.153.245 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insert new reference in bibliography[edit]

I want to add a recent publication to the bibliography on Jacques Dupuis, Priest.

Jacques Dupuis Faces the Inquisition, by William Burrows, PhD 2013 Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon

ISBN: 13:978-1-62032-335-9

Not working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhwalkrun (talk • contribs) 03:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has fixed the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solentive Technology Group[edit]

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing our article and providing feedback on how we can improve it.

Our Wikipedia page (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solentive Technology Group) has been reviewed and declined by Schenka on 12 February 2013.

We have gone through your notability and guidelines pages and we believe we meet the criteria. Please see our explanation below.

Your golden rule page states that “Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. We have provided a number of references that have been written by sources independent to us which are highly reliable.

Below is a list of the references we have cited that meet this criteria:

BRW Magazine - BRW is a leading national Australian magazine that has run a number of articles mentioning our company including a full page article on our company

- Khadem, N (Jun 21 - Aug 1, 2012). "Kung Fu Fighters Work Better". BRW Best Places to Work. ISSN 0727-758X: 27.

- Khadem, N (2012). "How bosses can help working women stay fit". BRW. Retrieved 02/11/2012.

- "The 50 Best Places to Work". BRW (Best Places to Work): 43. Jun 21 - Aug 1, 2012. ISSN 0727-758X.

Published book - that features a full page on our company

- Cain, A. & Koch, D. (2009). Strap on the Parachute. Wilkinson Publishing. pp. 121–122. ISBN 9781921332708.

SMH – a leading NSW, Australia based newspaper that ran an opinion piece with contribution from our company

- McMahon, N. (2007). "Your whole life is going to bits". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 31 January 2013.

The Midday Report – is a national news service produced by the ABC (Australia) that featured an independent news story about our company.

As per the information on your notability page:

No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it - We believe the sources outlined above meet the criteria of independent sources that have discussed our company. These include a national magazine, a regional newspaper, a published book and a national news service.
A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it – All sources listed above have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon our company.
Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations – The sources we have referenced above include a newspaper article, a book, a television news story and a leading business-focused magazine.
A "reliable source" is something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: these are all what Wikipedia calls "reliable". Not reliable: MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, fansites, (most) blogs, Twitter. There must be reliable sources for the content of the article to meet the Wikipedia requirement of being verifiable. – All sources we have provided meet the criteria as generally trusted to tell the truth.

We are a small business but we believe we are making a difference and have been noticed in a number of publications. As per your notability page which states - smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products. – We believe we fall into this category.

We strongly believe that given our range of independent, reliable references we meet the criteria to warrant a stand-alone article on Wikipedia.

We understand that Wikipedia has to be mindful and apply strict criteria as to who is provided a stand-alone page – we are not trying to be difficult but truly believe that based on the criteria outlined on Wikipedia and the references we have provided we do satisfy the criteria of notability.

Thank you, Tanya Taouil (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)— Tanya Taouil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Have you discussed this with any of the users who have declined the draft article? Also, you keep referring to "we" - is your account being used by more than one person?--ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted editor CorporateM (talk · contribs) to this help desk query with a message here. I have also explained my alert to Tanya Taouil (talk · contribs) with a message here --Senra (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently say "we" as well, because most PR work on Wikipedia is the work of more than one person; in some cases the PR person has merely shepherded the process.

A few thoughts:

I tend to think that "notability" is a silly, nonsensical construct. What really matters is whether we can make a decent article following WP:V. There are a lot of clearly notable articles that should be deleted for WP:NOT advertising and plenty of articles that could be kept if they are properly verified and neutral.
However, my interpretation of community consensus is that in practice we have higher standards than WP:CORP lays out, primarily because we are worn out from maintaining thousands of articles on barely notable companies. If this is the case, it's really shameful on us that we haven't updated the guideline, because we are offering misleading instructions to PR folks.
Most reviewers will assume a 35-person company is not notable, but I notice the company gets its notability from its workplace culture.

I don't do that much work in AfD/AfC, but maybe the best advice I can give is just that WP:CORP isn't updated and the community has raised their standards, which is really frustrating given your position. CorporateM (Talk) 13:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear who or what you're arguing for and against, but it seems to me that notability is a criterion more or less mechanically, because if a topic lacks notability, then by definition there is no substantial information about it that can be cited for an article, and therefore it is impossible to write a non-trivial, verifiable article on it. The number of people in a company is relevant only in the sense that a large company is more likely to have attracted notice and so to be notable. --ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability also has language about being "worthy of notice" and people sometimes use arguments like age and size of company, though to the best of my knowledge there is no policy to support this. I don't know if I was arguing for anything specifically. I'm probably not even being helpful :-p CorporateM (Talk) 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting Icelandic people bio in categories[edit]

How should these articles be sorted?

Bjarni Jónsson: {{DEFAULTSORT:Jonsson, Bjarni}}
Kjartan Ólafsson: {{DEFAULTSORT:Kjartanolafsson}}

See them in Category:Icelandic logicians. --CiaPan (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paragraph about Icelandic at WP:SUR. The DEFAULTSORT should be "Second name, First name" for both, but in the categories specific to Iceland this should be overidden as "First name Second name". I've edited both articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search bar decides, does not suggest, searches?[edit]

Hi, I've been a Wikipedia search/user ( and donor ) for 7 years. Until a few minutes ago, I have never encountered the following problem:

I searched Wikipedia for information about the English Sinologist and Chinese translator, JONANTHAN CHAVES and was immediately directed to a stub article about an Argentine football player named Jonathan Chavez. Close names, no foul. But when I entered the sinologist's name with double quotes, I was again sent to the Chavez stub.

This might seem a small matter, but I'm truly tired--at sites like Amazon.com and many others--of being directed in my searches NOT where I want to go but where the sites want me to go. I'm especially fed up with double quotes around search terms becoming increasingly ignored everywhere.

Wikipedia's prompts, as one types, are helpful, but when double quotes are usesd, one should either be directed to the search term, or to a list of related terms, or to an assertion that no such aricle exists now.

Best regards, Speer46 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.97.7 (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That happened because the page Jonathan Chaves is a redirect to Jonathan Chávez. Redirects are a commonly used feature and have been around for a long time on Wikipedia. There isn't an article on the person you were looking for, and that page currently redirects to the footballer's page since it's a common misspelling of the name. Chamal ^T•C 07:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a page title or redirect matches your search term exactly then you go right there. If you want to perform a search instead then click "containing..." in the drop-down box below the search box. For "Jonathan Chaves" it gives [1] which shows the Sinologist is mentioned in some articles but doesn't have a biography. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory Wikimedia error[edit]

Hello,

everytime I save User:Tomcat7/Sandbox28 a note pops-up claiming that there was an error and my edit was not saved. However, it was saved when I return back, and it was even recorded in the history. Could someone tell me if that is a temporary error or am I just doing something wrong? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's specific to that page then I guess the page size causes a timeout error after the actual save but before the saved page is returned to you. I don't know whether it will continue. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing final page[edit]

I am creating a Wiki page for class and I wanted to know that after I create a new article in my Sandbox, am I supposed to be allowed to view the complete page afterward? Or do I have to wait after it is reviewed by Wiki editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiaBriana2014 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:AsiaBriana2014/sandbox lets you see your sandbox article. In future I would recommend that you use the "Show preview" button to see your draft before you save it. You can tell that it isn't yet in a state to be published. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the fact that you can only see the first paragraph or so? This is because your references aren't compiling - edit the page, and at the very bottom add the following:

==References==

{{Reflist}}

That should fix the problem (although as David points out, there are a lot of other issues to address). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the References section and {{reflist}} won't actually display any more until you address the problem highlighted by the error message displayed at the end of the page, where it says that you have opening <ref> tags without the corresponding closing </ref>. The error message gives a link to the relevant help page. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing article name[edit]

Hi I by mistake created this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_sehlberg but the his name is Dan T. Sehlberg. How do I change the article title and make it to one article about Dan T. Sehlberg? readers are now being redirected Ovetove (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan sehlberg has been moved, by another editor, to Dan Sehlberg, with a redirect from the original title. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general on Wikipedia, middle initials tend to be used in Article names only if either it is needed to disambiguate to someone equally famous or if they are well known with those initials. For example, I believe that if Wikipedia had existed in 1986 that Vice President George Bush would have been listed under simply George Bush rather than George H. W. Bush. If he is commonly refered to in the media as Dan T. Sehlberg, it may be appropriate to move it. A redirect exists for Dan T. Sehlberg pointing to Dan Sehlberg.Naraht (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is commonly refered to as Dan T. Sehlberg in media etc. So that's why i would like to change it. But it seems i'm not able to change it?Ovetove (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not yet Autoconfirmed. Only 2 days to go though... Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 4 days, rather than 2. And 2 more edits. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw he had his 8 edits using popups and for some reason later mixed that up with him being here for 8 days. Thanks for the correction David ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 16:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm autofconfirmed, Technically how do I do it?192.165.16.50 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP's can't be autoconfirmed.... Mdann52 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, guessing that last question was from Ovetove not logged in, the answer is to move the page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reporting inappropriate photos[edit]

How do we report inappropriate photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.108.211 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends if it is here or at the commons. What is wrong with it, copyright, personality rights, or illegal?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're nude photos! That's what's wrong with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.108.211 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.--ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to log onto Wikipedia[edit]

Hello,

I can't seem to log in with my username: Woon Wee Teng. It also added /sandbox to the name after I created the account. I never asked for it to do that. Plus. The password I inputted is never correct even though I already know its the correct password. Would you be able to remove all the contents and the username so I can start over again? Thank you.

Current name: User:Woon Wee Teng

Desired name: Woon Wee Teng

Would it be possible not to have the prefix "User" in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.255.117 (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but user names all start with user. Did you register an e-mail address when you created your account? I see that you have created a sandbox at User:Woon Wee Teng/sandbox which appears to be a draft article about yourself, but it would not appear at the moment to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for it to be moved to the main article space.--ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and you've edited that sandbox article this afternoon, so you were obviously logged on successfully. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused about user pages. Every user potentially has a user page (mine is User:ColinFine on which the user may put some information about himself or herself as a Wikipedia editor - see WP:USERPAGE for guidelines. This is entirely separate from a Wikipedia article (which does not have the "User:" prefix); articles are required to contain only information which is cited to reliable sources, and are only allowed if the subject is notable. Finally user sub-pages, such as User:Woon Wee Teng/sandbox are places where users may develop a page that they intend to make into an article. But since User:Woon Wee Teng/sandbox is about somebody called Woon Wee Teng, it appears to be an attempt at autobiography, which is very strongly discouraged; on the other hand, if it is intended as a user page, it contains far too much information irrelevant to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting broken link: Area codes 781 and 339[edit]

I am reporting broken link: Area codes 781 and 339 Results of this are below: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.153.203.32 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page is readable to me (and hasn't been edited for some time), so looks like a problem at your end. Try flushing the cache. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commented out the oddball content, as it was killing the edit links in the below sections. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 21:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 songs[edit]

Hi. I read your list of 9/11 songs but feel that you have missed out on one of the newer and better songs commerating 9/11 the song is called "WHY" written by myself Tom Rattigan on google 9/11 WHY TVRATTIGAN. could you please add this song to the list. Thank you Tom Rattigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.19.204 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Link to article in question.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of John B. Kimble article[edit]

Hello, back in 2006/7 I posted an article about a young man who had run for US Congress and was noteworthy with some very newsworthy actions. He is a behavioral scientist and the article was improperly removed through a deletion review where it appears through reading "consensus review" on wikipedia that there were probably only a handful of individuals involved in removing the article. After reviewing the standards for general notability guidelines I believe that the article still met the guidelines as defined under the gng and should be replaced. I also believe that editors/admins who have multiple names can through a giant wrench into fairness and integrity of the wikipedia process. Many thanks.Badpuppy99 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted on 2/16 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Kimble (2nd nomination). You can request a WP:REFUND into a user subpage, where you can work on it further, if you really think the individual meets WP:BIO, but I think it's WP:TOOSOON.--ukexpat (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its been through DRV too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content about a living person in an article of a dead person[edit]

Continue discussion at WP:BLPN. --ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Any experts on WP:BLPCRIME here? :) I'm not sure if I started this discussion at the correct noticeboard. If anyone can let me know (or help with the issue itself), I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPN is the correct place for any discussion about WP:BLP issues so please continue the discussion over there.--ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Handedness in baseball[edit]

Dear editors: I have been editing a really, really long article about Handedness to make it shorter and simpler. I have taken out about 8,000 bytes of scientific jargon and excessive detail. However, I am completely stymied by the section about baseball. Knowing little about baseball, I still should be able to figure out what the writer is getting at, but I am finding it unintelligible. Maybe by the time I got to that section my brain was getting tired. Is there someone who can take a look at the article, figure out how handedness effects baseball, and fix it up? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, the baseball ~~wonks~~ folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball may be able to help. Maybe leave a message on the project talk page?--ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I didn't think of that. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MidTown Columbus GA[edit]

The above search leads to your article on MidTown, Inc. At top an alert claiming the article reads as an advertisement. I am a representative of this nonprofit organization and would like to correct this issue. We didn't write the article. It looks like it came off an old website. What do I need to do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MidTown Inc (talk • contribs)

No article exists by that name. If you consider creating the article, take WP:COI into consideration. Sincerly, Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 18:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to MidTown (Columbus, Georgia)? In any event you user name is in breach of our user name policy (see WP:CORPNAME) so please register an account with an acceptable name.--ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section about the organization from the article because it was a blatant violation of WP:SPAM. The article as a whole still requires a good scrubbing. Roger (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

I have moved a copy of an article from Mainspace to a sandbox for re-modeling and information improvement. I foresee a potential problem with a certain editor. My question is ....can I exclude an editor from working on an article that is in a sandbox and is "Under Construction"? ```Buster Seven Talk 19:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism. User pages are regarded as within the control of their respective users and, with certain exceptions, should not be edited without permission of the user to whom they belong. See WP:UP#OWN". So, if your sandbox is in userspace and it's within the guidelines of what you can have on a user page, then you can report their unwelcome edits to an administrator. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 19:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the person who is vandalizing your userspace isn't a confirmed user, then you could also ask an admin to semi-protect the relevant subpage at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 20:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sophus. It hasn't happened yet. I just want to be ready when it does. Your reply has helped ease my mind. Thanks for your time and for your help with other questioners.```Buster Seven Talk 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help out. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 21:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De-archiving a discussion[edit]

If an archived discussion is restored to the page to continue it, should it also be deleted from the archive? (The specific situation is a case at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, if that makes an difference.) CarrieVS (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be an official policy on this matter: I've read through Wikipedia:Archive and Wikipedia:Closing discussions, and neither of them seem to have anything written about this specific case. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. CarrieVS (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including a <noinclude> tag in a preload template[edit]

Hi all,

is there a "correct" way to include <noinclude> tags in a preload template? Template:LSR/syntax includes the syntax needed for {{LSR}} so it can be preloaded with Template:Latest stable software release/Programname&action=edit&preload=Template:LSR/syntax. It work's as it is now, but it looks ugly. Is there anything one can do about it, or are workarounds like the ones I used always needed? -- Patrick87 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I'm new to creating articles in Wikipedia and I need help figuring out if my sources are reliable. Or what can I do to make sure they are? Olgacristobal (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some guidelines of what constitutes a reliable source at Wikipedia:SOURCE#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source and also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Hope these help. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 19:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]