Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 June 28

Help desk
< June 27	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 29 >

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.

June 28

Need Assistance

I would like assistance in deleting the duplicate edits. I tried undoing them but I just keep getting more history. Ballast Point (Tampa) Thank you. Heditor6 (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Heditor. You keep adding and removing a Facebook link in the external links section. My head is spinning from all the back and forth. Haha. What is it that you would like to do? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have it removed now. Was just experimenting to see if I could erase the history. Guess it's not possible. Thanks for responding. :)

No, you cannot erase the history. Only admins can "RevDelete", and it can only be done under very limited circumstances. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I should have addressed why you kept adding to the history instead of reducing it. Every time you click the "undo" link next to an edit on the history page, it's simply removing (reverting) the changes made by that editor (even if you're reverting yourself). So every time you reverted yourself, that counted as an edit. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Change title

Hello. I was wondering if there is a way to change the title of "Tableau Vivant - Modern Family" to "Tableau Vivant (Modern Family)". I was going to use the "move" button but I am not sure if I understood completely how to do it and if it's the right way. Plus, while I was trying to figure it out, I saw that there is already a page with the name "Tableau Vivant (Modern Family)" but it's redirected to the Modern Family one. So, to avoid doing anything stupid I prefered to ask. I just remove the redirect and then move the first one to the second? Thanks in advance. TeamGale (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin needs to delete the redirect first. I usually just tag the redirect speedy (un-contentious maintenance), then move after deletion, and the re-create a new redirect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the redirect with {{db-move}} with an explanation. :) Charmlet (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes TG, Tableau Vivant (Modern Family), an episode of the show, currently redirects to Modern Family, the show's article. But that's wrong and you are correct. All Modern Family episodes that have titles of existing articles should be titled using the "Episode Title (Modern Family)" format. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help. I am here only 2 weeks and still trying to learn. And from what I see, I am glad I didn't remove the redirect on my own. Charmlet thanks for adding the tag. Hopefully an administration can help :) TeamGale (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The requested page move has been done. I do want to note that (see WP:MOR) a regular editor can do a move over redirect if the redirect page has no history other than its creation. If it does not (that is, if it has been edited), then yes, an admin is required. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Glossary breakdown

Glossary of cue sports terms uses Template:Glossary through the whole article. Half way through 'L' it breaks and becomes unreadable. The article is 350kB which is huge. I tried a couple times to fix but the WMF error page keeps showing up. I don't know if it is my sys or the connection. There are lots of glossary template bugs and bug fixes on the talk page. Does anyone else want to look into it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

First time I've ever come to the help desk and seen one my pet articles raised here. I've fixed the issue, which was that {{cuegloss}} and {{cuegloss2}} have been nominated for deletion and the nominator failed to enclose the tfd template in noinclude tags. Glad you were on the alert.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem.

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Fatal exception message

Hi, I keep getting this message when I try to edit or just access my watchlist - [9a6158e3] 2013-06-28 04:57:40: Fatal exception of type MWException - Can this be fixed, please? Rskp (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, look, sorry about that, it seems to have fixed itself. Thanks anyway. Rskp (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the whole site was down for about 15 minutes. I could only access the mainpage; click on anything else and you got that error. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was an ugly outage. I told Fuhgettaboutit not to click that big red button that said "destroy the site". :p And, uh, the toolbar here is gone, so I have to manually type my four tildes. Haha. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already tried:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

problems with uploading & clicking to pictures

Hi I don't know why but an "internal fatal error" notice in a red box comes up when I've edited an article or if I click on a picture to see the bigger file. Contents of box reads: [fea12ed7] 2013-06-28 04:59:21: Fatal exception of type MWException - this might just happen again when I submit. What's going on? Fingers crossed. Manytexts (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, just saw the section above. Okay. Will wait. Manytexts (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No toolbars when editing

I know the site was down for 15 minutes or so, but does everyone not have a toolbar when they edit pages? I have nothing above the edit box and just a long list of symbols below it. But no links, no templates, no menus, anywhere on the edit page. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems ok to me, but another editor a few questions up made the same comment about missing toolbar. If you're still having that issue, you should ask at the Village Pump. RudolfRed (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

See this thread I started at VP. I hope they fix this soon. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Word is that the site was actually down for about 45 minutes. Now if I could just get back the normal edit page. Can't do everything manually forever. Haha. I'm sure there are many other edtiors having the same problem. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is the "Advice to academics" page?

There is a page somewhere that explains the "tertiary source" nature of WP to writers who are more used to writing in acadamic journals. I need it to help an editor who is attempting to write an article here about his current research towards his PhD - "I do plan to publish my synthesis in a peer reviewed journal in organic chemistry and this process will be easier when the reviewer can view the short but sweet Wikipedia article on the compound."<User talk:Dodger67#Submitted article on chemical compound RU58841> -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Expert editors or Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Profile

I wanted to know what does it take to have a wikipedia profile of your own? Does someone have to be rich, famous or infamous etc...

What if I want to create my own wikipedia profile, can I? I have several online articles on crime, politics etc...I can have a good enough profile, what would it take? Does the Wiki team decide this?

Do reply please,

Rustam Roy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.35.228 (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to write an article about yourself, or about an encyclopedic topic about which you are knowledgeable? In the former case, writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. See the policies on conflict of interest and on autobiography. In the latter case, please be sure that the topic is not already covered in one of our articles. If it is in one of our articles, but you want to add content, you may edit the article. If it is not covered, then you may create an article, but you are advised to first read our policies and guidelines so that your contributions are neutral, not overly promotional, and are otherwise encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not currently registered. Creating a registered account has several advantages, including the privilege of creating new articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Famous or infamous" might get someone an article depending on just how famous or infamous they are - more specifically see the Notability standard - I'm a afraid merely being "rich" won't do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not contain profiles: it is not a directory. It contains articles, which are neutrally written summaries of what has already been written in reliable published places about notable subjects. --ColinFine (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

100K Initiative, Project Pengyou, and Golden Bridges

Hello!

I was wondering if Obama's 100K Strong Initiative, as well as organizations Golden Bridges and Project Pengyou (Both of which are affiliated with the initiative), are notable enough to write Wikipedia articles on. I believe they are very important organizations that promote Chinese and American cultural understanding, which will be key in the development of these two country's very important relationship, not to mention global relations as a whole.

Thanks for your help! Joey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfritz14 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing this up on the talk page of the US-China Relations article. You say which will be key which sounds like something that may happen in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL). That wouldn't be suitable encyclopaedic content. If reliable, notable, sources describe these organizations in conjuction with relations between those 2 countries then adding them to that article may be the best approach. CaptRik (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Standard Alliance Insurance Nigeria PLC

hello

I represent the above mentioned company as an online brand manager . I would like to point out that I have not been able to see my article on the above company which I created a few weeks ago.

kindly review your system and let me know if i need to rectify anything.

best regards

Arinze Asiegbunam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arinzea (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You created a draft, but didn't submit it for review. You would need to click the link that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!". Before that, however, you ought to read Wikipedia's guidance on conflict of interest. It is difficult for someone with a conflict of interest to write an article with a neutral point of view, and it is likely that an attempt will be seen as promotional, which I think is the case for your draft. You also need to read WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Click "Contributions" at the top of any page to see your edits. You created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Standard Alliance Insurance. The box at the top says "Article not currently submitted for review." If you want to submit it then click the green button saying "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" It will probably be rejected in the current form. I recommend you make it far less promotional before submitting. See Help:Section for how to make section headings so the table of contents is automatically generated. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Review an article

Just wanted to know if there is a way or a place where I can put an article I created so it can be reviewed. For example, I've created this article but it didn't get reviewed yet. Do I have to do something to make this possible? Thanks TeamGale (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made some minor formatting edits and added a {{new}} template to alert others that it may need reviewing in more depth.--ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review? DonIago (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ukexpat. Can I add this tag on my own in every article I make or someone else has to do it for me? And DonIago thank you so much for the article. I'll go through it but it'll take me some time since it seems long :) Hope it's helpful. TeamGale (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can add it yourself. We usually encourage newer users to create drafts in a user sandbox or at WP:AFC first so that they can be reviewed before being moved to the mainspace. If you use a sandbox, you can tag it with {{User draft}}. If you use AFC there are instructions there as to how to tag for review.--ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

right to left

i want to write from arabic book. in arabic language, word are right to left. but in english site is left to right. what i must to do ? --Eyingewers (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOS#Foreign-language_quotations. CaptRik (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The is also the arabic language Wikipedia. Astronaut (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Or as an interlanguage link ar:Main Page.--ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP is asking about including R>L quotes within L>R pages. Take a look at how the biographies of Arabic people handle the names in the intro where it is often written in Arabic script immediately after the Latin script translitteration - Mohamed Morsi is one that springs to mind - here is the first sentence:

Mohamed Morsi<ref group="note">Regardless of the pronunciation, also spelled: ''Muhammad, Mursi, Morsy''.</ref> (Arabic: محمد محمد مرسى عيسى العياط, ALA-LC: Muḥammad Muḥammad Mursī ‘Īsá al-‘Ayyāṭ, IPA: [mæˈħæmmæd mæˈħæmmæd ˈmoɾsi ˈʕiːsæ (ʔe)l.ʕɑjˈjɑːtˤ]; born 8 August 1951) is the fifth and current President of Egypt, having assumed office on 30 June 2012."

Arabic is used in the text as well as in the cite. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What has happened to my username?

It is red, and though I sign posts as directed (Gimelgort 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)) it reads unsigned thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimelgort (talk • contribs)

Tis blue now (it don't turn red until some thing has been added into the text box (in this case just a "full stop")- don't worry, you'll soon get the hang of it).--Aspro (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

To expand on that a little, your signature (or anywhere else that the link User:Gimelgort appears) links to your personal userpage. However, that page doesn't exist until you or someone else creates it. Wikipedia's software marks links to non-existent pages in red (clicking on them will give you the option of creating that page) - since your userpage hadn't been created, your name appeared in red whenever it was linked. Now that there is some content on the page, the link has turned blue, indicating that the link's target is an existing page. You can edit your userpage to supply other editors with information about yourself; see the usrepage guidelines for more information about this. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way to get a valid signature is to leave the "Signature" field at Special:Preferences blank, and not have a checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup". PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your patient help! Gimelgort (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

St. Johns County, Florida Page

St. Johns County, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good afternoon,

I am a Communications Specialist writing on behalf of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners. As the local government body serving St. Johns County, our organization has a vested interest in the content written on the Wikipedia page designated for our region. In our efforts to provide residents, visitors, and external viewers with the most up-to-date and factual information regarding St. Johns County, we recently established a Wikipedia account to offer edits and improvements to the page. Out of respect and consideration for the rules and guidelines detailed by Wikipedia, we have made consistent efforts to offer content which we feel supports Wikipedia’s goals of sharing unbiased, community based, and reference backed information. Though we are extremely proud of St. Johns County and would love to fill the Wikipedia page with endless accolades, we recognize our responsibility to offer site visitors neutral information. We welcome any feedback on how best to balance these efforts. As an example, we would like to share the fact that St. Johns County has been recognized as having the number one school district in the state. There are numerous references explaining this recognition, how it was established, and what it means for our residents and the future of St. Johns County. With your help, we hope to share this type of County fact on Wikipedia in an appropriate fashion. Thank you in advance for your time. Ceilingtile1234 (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, shared accounts are a huge no-no here so you should all create your own that don't include the board name. The talk page of the article is the normal place to request edits because you shouldn't edit the article yourselves unless removing vandalism etc. If the article isn't watched by many then use Template:Request edit for your requests. This will put it in view of more editors. We have a few pages on COI but I found User:CorporateM/How WP:COI would read if I wrote it is easier to understand.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here and asking. I agree with everything Canoe said, but I wanted to acknowledge you for that. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Too late. The account has been blocked for sharing. I assume they can still create individual accounts and request changes on the talk page? The article could use some work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as each of them follows the rules and doesn't violate WP:PROMOTION the way they say they want to ("our efforts to provide residents, visitors, and external viewers with the most up-to-date and factual information regarding St. Johns County"), certainly. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, although being a shared account was of course part of the problem, the actual block reason was that the account's sole purpose was to promote the county. But I do agree with Colin that it was commendable of the edtior to admit he was hired by the county to handle their PR/communications. Now s/he knows that their intended editing purpose is a big "no-no" (to use your term) ;) . --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh my. Now that I know people are reading it, I need to go take a second look at that page! CorporateM (Talk) 00:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Second look? When was your first? I read your user page. Interesting. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I took another once-through of How WP:COI would read... although it could probably use a rename. Any ideas?

A while back Senra use to ask me to help COI editors at Help Desk every now and then, but in almost every case my best advice was "just leave it." And it does occur to me that this may be the case here, because most geographic locations already have excellent articles written by local residents. It also occurs to me that this should be our default advice in most cases.

Whether something is a "fact" or "promotion" is not something that is always easy to distinguish. If the local school is well-known for being highly recognized, than this would belong on the article about the school. If the county is well-known for having a highly recognized school inside of it, than we would expect sources to reflect that specifically, for example through a source that summarizes the county's attributes and found the school's record worthy to include.

Naturally, any such contributions are also open to speculation of cherry-picking. What if the school is highly acclaimed, but the crime rate has gone up. Will you add both?

If the article did not exist or was currently in awful, awful shape, than you are adequately motivated to learn our rules and go through the COI circus. Also, if either of those were true, we would generally accept anything that makes the article "better" and it's pretty easy to improve a crappy article. However, if the current article is free of factual errors, and basically looks "ok" - in most cases your editing here would just lead to frustration and an unproductive use of time.

On the other hand, we do want corrections and more up-to-date information and if there are errors we always want to encourage you to point them out. CorporateM (Talk) 06:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, the WP:NOPAY section of our COI guidelines is especially applicable. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it notable in its own right or do you want to make it seem that way? Manytexts (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• The handling of this incident was needlessly obnoxious. Before blocking, especially when a user has come to the HELP desk (lookup HELP and PUNISHMENT in the dictionary; they aren't synonyms) explain the rules and see if the user is willing to comply. Orangemike, would you agree to refrain from blocking other users in similar situations? This use has not created any problems yet. There is nothing wrong with PR people coming to Wikipedia and using article talk pages to point out inaccuracies or omissions in our articles. Neutral editors can review the suggestions and choose to add them, or not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, how ironic that you talk about being "needlessly obnoxious" by being needlessly obnoxious yourself. I see you already posted a message on Mike's talk page, where it should have been discussed before your rant here. Then perhaps you could've come here afterwards and posted a more reasonable message. It's also interesting that you use the term obnoxious here, where many editors will see it, yet don't use any such descriptions on his talk page and present a much more civil tone. And perhaps you should check your facts; Mike did indeed say (above) that it would be fine if anyone from the county had individual accounts, as long as they edited properly. I'm not saying that I condone the manner in which Mike handled the matter; I'm simply saying that your handling of this issue with Mike, and your tone, are no better. And for the record, I disagree with your implication that there were no problems with Ceilingtile's edits. And so do several other editors, including the ones who reverted him and some at ANI. So perhaps you should re-review Ceiling's June 11 edits. He sounds like a nice person, but this is an editing issue. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Request a Second Look at Talk Page

Can someone please take a look at my talk page, User talk: Robert McClenon, and tell me whether they have any idea what the IP address in Romania is saying? It appears that he or she is trying to say something about something mathematical, but the English is so bad that I can't figure it out. The IP address first posted something to Wikipedia talk: Verifiability, which was removed as irrelevant. I replied to the first post saying that I didn't understand, so now I get a second post that I can't understand. Should this be completely ignored, or treated as disruptive editing because competence is required, including the ability to communicate in English with English-speakers? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's hard to understand. The IP is referring to Selection algorithm#Linear general selection algorithm - Median of Medians algorithm and posts at Talk:Selection algorithm, where further posts also belong. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP had not been editing that article, and neither was I. My initial involvement was to warn the IP for disruptive editing of the policy talk page. It appears that the IP not only has little command of English, but is confused as to whether he or she is trying to edit. I have had to warn the user, although none of the usual templates are quite applicable to making confused comments in bad English on unrelated user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)