Help desk
< February 13	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 15 >

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 14[edit]

john walsh artist[edit]

you refer to Taloga Bay it is in fact Tolaga Bay118.93.171.114 (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. You could have as well since the article John Walsh (artist) is not protected. Dismas|^(talk) 03:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who do I talk to about this? "Mental Health Literacy" - seems like gibberish to me.[edit]

A new user User:MentalHealthGroup has been creating dense "articles" which seem like they might be term papers or personal essays or something. They really seem like they aren't notable, but to me the writing is incoherent gibberish. I'm thinking they all need to be deleted, but they're all extremely well-cited, and It's very hard to understand where to look to determine if the citations establish notability or if it's all internal jargon from a single non-notable group. Is there some wikiproject on... I dunno, nonsense? The articles are: Meaning-making, Cultured resonance, Autologous knowledge-translation, Inverted synergy and a huge chunk of Mental health literacy. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it is 'gibberish' - but it seems to be based to a great extent on a single work of a single individual: "Kusan, S. (2013). Dialectics of mind, body, and place: Groundwork for a theory of mental health literacy. Sage Open, October–November, 1-16." One might well ask whether there was self-promotion involved here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good question is, can the notability of the article be based entirely on references outside Kusan? These articles should probably be nominated for deletion. WP:AfD μηδείς (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section of academia concerned with generating such text, with no discernible meaning. See deconstruction and Sokal affair. I don't believe it should have any place in an encyclopedia. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually mentioned the Sokal affair over at Wikiproject Skepticism and on the talk page for Meaning-making. Personally I don't really think it has any information content at all, but that feels like my bias - clearly people are interested in that sort of thing and since I don't even believe it really contains information I certainly can't get into the mindset that would distinguish a notable from a non-notable concept in their literature, so I was looking for some arguments from the "other side". If these articles are kept as notable concepts, they certainly need to be stripped down to stubs at this point and built back up by someone whose goal is clarity. That said, I don't think they'll last.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of an article should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. Here's how two of the articles start off "Meaning-making can be conceptualized in two distinct yet complementary theoretical registers." and "Mental health literacy (MHL) has been varyingly defined, largely in accordance with the epistemic and philosophical orientation of the author(s)." In general, the articles seem to be coined terms whose meaning seems to be largely from S Kusan. The information may met WP:N, but these do not appear to be the type of article Wikipedia typically presents. WP:NOT would seem to be the general basis for deletion if the articles are listed at AfD. I listed Cultured resonance at AfD. The other article probably could be listed as well. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the whole nasty little nest should be added to the AfD to be dealt with simultaneously once and for all. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have nominated the remaining articles for deletion: Meaning-making and Inverted synergy. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::The editor has been blocked as a username violation by Orange Mike. I've just reverted him at Mental health literacy - Chrome counted 46 mentions of the name Kusan. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I wonder how much copyvio is in these. Much of the lead of Meaning-making is from [1] (a link which I might want to delete). Ah, he's copying himself, most of the article is from [2]] but that is covered by a "Creative Commons Attribution License, unless otherwise noted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a pattern for all of these, eg Autologous knowledge-translation has a lot copied from [3]. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as gibberish. It seems to be academic mental health stuff, possibly somebody trying to publish their work here, or to give it a wider audience, etc. Not encyclopedic, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would this qualify as a "Wikipedia: Walled garden"? ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it to me. They should all be nominated for deletion in the same AfD.--ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for the help everyone. I feel like I have a bias against this sort of thing, so I was looking for some outside validation before running off to an AfD. Seems like my suspicions were correct. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's asked for an unblock so he can create a new account, which is reasonable. I've asked him if he is Kusan and warned him about his straight copyvio from another author. And told him about this discussionDougweller (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how to remove "user: name/sandbox...." from wiki search result[edit]

Hi. I just created a new wiki page. But somehow when I do a search for it, it turns up as "user:my log in name/sandbox" instead of the name of the person that page is about. How do I rectify this? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art house rocks (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

when this is ready to be a real page, it will be moved which will change the page title. You could move it (or ask any autoconfirmed user to move it if you are too new) to User talk:Art house rocks/Page Title or some such. That can help especially if you have more than one draft in progress. DES ^(talk) 16:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox is for drafts; which is fine, since the "article" in its current condition is definitely a draft. Remove the peacock words; don't refer to the subject by his first name; and provide more external sources addressing the notability of Rai, not of the publications he is involved with. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

help with revisions to my Wikipedia page[edit]

I made substantial changes to my Wikipedia page in November 2013. Subsequently, a colleague made a minor change approved by me on Feb. 3, 2014, and after that (Feb. 7, 2014), I noticed that my page had suddenly reverted back to its pre-November 2013 version.

How can this be fixed? Can whoever reverted it put it back to its changed version, or do I need to change it all over again?

The link to my page is:

Michael Lewis (psychologist)

Thank you,

Michael Lewis 130.219.8.11 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is not "your" page, it is "our" page about you, - please see WP:OWN

Secondly, nobody needs anyone else's permission to alter this page except you. You should not be altering a page about yourself, as you have a conflict of interest

Thirdly, The vast list of papers etc. that you added are inappropriate to an encyclopedia entry and clearly contravene our policy of WP:NOTRESUME, if they are added back, they will certainly be deleted again.

So, please do not edit our page about you, but you can suggest any changes you want made on the article's talk page, and an impartial editor will decide if they are appropriate. Arjayay (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-deleted the IP's inappropriate additions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT -Arjayay (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Chryssi Avgi[edit]

My name is Dimitris Kousouris, former victim of the nazi group Chryssi Avgi, and I find it outrageous to have my name linked to this organization. Please erase the link, or add elements on my recent life, not only my link to these murderers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.34.13.225 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question header added. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for the moment that you are the person mentioned in the article, it states that party members assaulted you and were tried for attempted murder because of that. Is that untrue? Do you object to that being mentioned, assuming it is accurate? DES ^(talk) 19:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the name with the English spelling "Dimitris Kousouris" does not come up very often in the news, and so per WP:VICTIM unless the name and the incident are more forthrightly public in the local language coverage, we should probably blank the name from the article and delete the redirect. I am not linguistically fluent enough to make a guess at that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the redirect to go to the specific section where the name is mentioned rather than the generic article as a whole. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Competitor for Great Britain[edit]

In lots of articles such as, for example, Lizzy Yarnold in the side-box, medals, it says "Competitor for Great Britain" but that word links to the article about the UK, not GB.

Those are not the same thing at all - it's "Team GB", not team UK.

I found that it was using Template:GBR2 but that's protected, and... I got a bit lost.

Can someone please fix it?

With the current winter olympics, I'm sure the articles are getting a lot of visitors and linking GB to UK is just plain wrong. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is intentional, because what is referred to as "Team GB" is the team for the UK. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, she's competing for the UK, not for Great Britain, right? (Despite the misleading team name). So, it shouldn't say "Competitor for Great Britain"? 88.104.19.233 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Great Britain at the 2014 Winter Olympics says, in its second sentence, "The British team is made up of athletes from the whole United Kingdom including Northern Ireland". I hope this makes things clear :-) Maproom (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it should perhaps say "Competitor for the British team". I hope you get what I mean?

I now understand - from what you've said, and what I've read in other articles, that it's not just a simple fix (as I first thought) but is more complicated because the GB Olympic Team isn't just GB; however I think Wikipedia could clarify it. I still think it's incorrect to state she's a competitor for Great Britain, and that it is confusing to Wikilink "Great Britain" to the article about the United Kingdom with no explanation why - doing so further complicates something that people already get confused by. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the official Team GB website [4]: "Great Britain's Lizzy Yarnold", "Her victory also means Great Britain have now won", "it means Great Britain are looking good with more second week medal chances to come". There is no mention of UK or United Kingdom. IOC also says Great Britain: http://www.olympic.org/great-britain. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If you don't like the naming then it seems you should take it up with the British Olympic Association. "Great Britain" should be linked like for all other atletes and it wouldn't make sense in this context to link it to Great Britain which is an article about an island. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True - it wouldn't make sense to link it to the article about the island, but it would make more sense to link it to an article about the team of that name. Those headlines are showing she represents the team called Great Britain which - confusingly - is not just a team of people from that island. Nor is it a team of people from the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Linking it to the article on the UK is misleading and factually incorrect.

I understand that the confusion comes from the IOC, but I think Wikipedia can help clarify it for readers instead of adding to the confusion. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why we don't link that "Great Britain" mention in the infobox to Great Britain at the Olympics? The UK article is already linked in the box under country, so why have it twice? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would also make sense.

Let me try to clarify what we're discussing; the example page has this code;

{{MedalCountry | {{GBR2}} }}

...which produces this;

Competitor for Great Britain

It's true that she is competing for Team GB which the BOA refers to as "the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team". However, it links to the article about the nation called the United Kingdom.

The team has competitors from outside of Great Britain, but not from all of the UK - as explained in Great Britain at the Olympics. It can include competitors from Northern Ireland and certain other Crown dependencies and British overseas territories. But not all of them.

So "Team GB", often called the British team, is 'not just GB, nor is it just UK. That's why the link shown above is incorrect and misleading.

Instead, linking to either Great Britain at the 2014 Winter Olympics or Great Britain at the Olympics or Team GB would solve the problem.

I don't have any huge point to make here, and don't want it to turn into a massive debate as these things can. I was simply reading about an athlete (who had just won a Gold medal), and I was suprised that it linked 'GB' to 'UK'. I initially thought it was a simple error; OK so it isn't quite so simple, but it's something that I think could be quite easily fixed.

Otherwise, it's a bit like saying the Super Bowl XLVIII was a competition for teams in The Americas. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of is talk to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports and/or WP:WikiProject United Kingdom because it seemingly involves all these articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I was able to change the article you brought here (no telling if that will last), but there is always WP:SOFIXIT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Sorry, I don't think I can be bothered. I just wanted to point out what seems a very obvious factual error, hoping someone could fix it - but I'm not motivated enough to go through the horror of lengthy wiki discussion processes. I used to edit wikipedia a lot, but the never-ending discussions got me down. If it's wrong, it's wrong; no big deal. Best wishes anyway, and thanks for listening. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I wrote that before you added the last bit, which I will respond to shortly. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker thanks for trying that - I appreciate the effort. But really, I used the article just as an example (because it was the one I happened to read). Still, it's great that you've tried to do something about it. Best of luck to you. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome, but sadly, the Pedia does not write itself. :P Good luck to you, and us all. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nenad Perunicic[edit]

Dear editors: There doesn't seem to be a Wikiproject Handball. Can you suggest where I might find editors interested in this sport who might know if this is a notable player? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you could try the more generic Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports, or maybe the country wikiproject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong: [5] google news brings up a number of recent hits. you could try one of the online translators to see if they give you any idea about whether or not the guy is notable. (and thank you for your work in that very backlogged area!)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll see what I can do. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Time Contributor Needs Upload/Citation Help[edit]

Hello! I am a first time contributor to Wikipedia and I need help with my citations.

I have gathered together a small amount of materials to back up the facts in the entry I want to write and all of them are scanned and ready to go. I have also started writing the article itself and have saved a draft on Wikipedia.

My questions: -How do I upload my own evidence (I have scans of old magazine pages, a promotional handout, etc.)?

-After I have done this, how do I link to my own evidence as a citation?

-Finally: a very brief, previous article on this subject (not written by me) was deleted by a Wikipedia member. Do I really need to contact the deleting member and ask them why they deleted the earlier article or ask permission to try a different article on the same subject?

Thank you for any and all help you can provide.

-DHT — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorHT (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't upload the references at all - doing so would likely be a copyright violation. Instead, you give full details of what the reference is - for example, for a book, you'd put the title, author, date of publication, publisher, ISBN number and preferably the page numbers. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. The reference itself does not necessarily have to be available online.

However, you will need more than a flyer and a mention in a TV guide to show that the subject is notable enough for an article - see WP:VRS.

For example, showing when you think it began by referencing listings is a type of original research - you'd need to show a suitable reliable source that actually said when it started.

There's no need to do anything about the previously deleted article - unless you want to. You could ask for a copy of it, to check if there is anything worth including - if appropriate, the admin might restore it to a draft area. But it isn't necessary, no.

The main problem you'll have is establishing notability - from the looks of your draft, you haven't got significant coverage in appropriate RS.

Another useful page is WP:FIRST. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Hello, DHT. The answer to your first question is, you don't. If the material has been published, uploading scans of it would probably be copyright infringement anyway; but there is no requirement that references be available on line. The references need to be such that in principle any reader can get hold of them (eg through a public library), and your citations should give enough information to make this possible (see Referencing for beginners). If the source happens to be available on line (in a way that does not infringe copyright) then it is helpful to link to it in your citation, but that is not required. If the material is not published (as, I guess, would apply to your promotional handout) then you may not use it as a reference, and may not include information which comes only from it, as an arbitrary reader will be unable to verify the information.

Deletion is usually done by consensus, so the admin who actually deleted the previous article may not have much of an opinion on the matter. If you go to Special:Log/delete and set suitable search parameters, you can find the log of the deletion, which will link either to one for the Criteria for speedy deletion or to the deletion discussion that took place before the article was deleted. In the former case, look at the criterion that was applied, and make sure your attempt does not fall foul of the same problem; in the latter case, read the discussion. It is possible that you have chosen a subject which is simply not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word), in which case no article about it will stick; but it may be that the previous attempt was simply too promotional or biased, or did not demonstrate its notability.

In any case, I would strongly advise you to read Your first article, and use the Articles for creation process. --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Concerning the deleted article: I assume you are referring to User:DoctorHT/Sonic Man, whose corresponding article was deleted by discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Man. You do not need to contact the deleting administrator, but you should read the discussion and make sure you have resolved the issues that led to deletion. In this case, the main issue was notability. If you can find a variety of independent, reliable sources of information to demonstrate notability, then you should cite them. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 23:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c x 3) I hate repeating what my colleagues have already said, but I spent a good amount of time on this response and it does say some things not already addressed

:@DoctorHT: Hey DoctorHT. As to the first part of your question, you don't (and such uploads of magazines scans, etc., would be a copyright violation). We do not require that sources cited to be online and many of the finest published reliable sources are not (or are behind a paywall). Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. So, if the paper sources you are talking about are reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject of the proposed article, please go right ahead and cite them (see Help:Referencing for beginners for an easy guide to the mechanics of doing so).

As to the second question, you do not necessarily need to contact anyone about the previously deleted article, but you would be well advised to do so (by contacting User:Mark Arsten, at his talk page regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Man) to preempt a challenge under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. In short, if an article was deleted on the merits (after discussion), a new article on the same topic is subject to this speedy deletion criterion if it is basically the same unimproved content and fails to address the deletion basis. Here, though the deletion debate is a bit cryptic, the issue was notability, which will be addressed (and rendered moot) by your new article containing sufficient citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources that address the topic in some detail. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email contact[edit]

Hi...

I received an email from Paul Erik on Wikipedia and I do not know how to respond to his question. His email had a no-reply address. Can you please assist me in getting a response back to him?

Thanks...

FrankeJo1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankeJo1 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that he used the "email user" function to send a note to you? If you have his user name, you could post on his or her user talk page (unless it is a confidential matter). If the email refers to a particular article, you could post on the article talk page and ping the user or post on the user's talk page to notify of the discussion. If none of the above applies, then I don't see an easy way to respond. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Erik left a note on FrankeJo1's talk page. If that's what you're talking about, FrankeJo, then just reply by editing your talk page (i.e., User talk:FrankeJo1) as I have just done here on this page. That's how most of our discussions are done around here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can reply in the same way he emailed you by clicking Special:EmailUser/Paul_Erik - that's the same as going to their page, User:Paul Erik, and clicking 'email this user' in the side-menu thing. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi, I did not send any emails. I left this message and this one too but received no replies. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wiki article on Harold E Puthoff and my edit on 11 February[edit]

P123cat1 (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)I have posted a question about this to the "Reference" help desk, I'm afraid. This is the first time I have used the Wiki help desks, hence my mistake. You will find my query there.[reply]

Re. (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Re_my_edit_on_11_February_on_Wiki_article_on_Harold_E_Puthoff)

You can contact Goblin Face by creating a new section on User talk:Goblin Face. Here's a direct link: [6].

See Help:User Talk Page Postings for more info. 88.104.19.233 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123cat1 please see the talk page article for Harold E. Puthoff. I have addressed your concerns. I also recommend you look at WP:RS because the reference you cited was a conspiracy theory alien website and not a reliable source. Goblin Face (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

　 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.15.10 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]