Help desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

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

March 24[edit]

Editing TV show episodes in advance[edit]

Hello, I am trying to establish if there are any specific guidelines about editing TV show episode numbers in advance. I keep coming across an editor (120.147.113.111) who routinely advances the number of episodes a TV series has telecast, before the episode has aired.

A current example is the Have You Been Paying Attention? article. The 13th episode went to air yesterday (Sunday 23 March 2014, Australian time) and yesterday this editor has already changed the number of episodes aired to 14 with the notation "as of 30 March 2014", a full week in advance. On Fridays he/she changes episode numbers for shows that don't go to air until the next Monday late afternoon (Million Dollar Minute, Millionaire Hot Seat). I have tried to communicate with this editor but they choose not to respond; I have also put an note in the episode number editing section saying "only increase number after the episode has gone to air". Again the editor chooses not to do that and continues editing in advance.

I personally feel that editing in advance is incorrect but maybe I'm getting 'carried away'. I would greatly appreciate some assistance. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{infobox television}} states that the num_episodes parameter is only for the episodes that have aired/been released and that any other number requires a WP:RS. - Purplewowies (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

any claim of episode numbers should be sourced. depending upon a Wikipedia editor to find and accurately account for all episodes and somehow assume that is a valid representation is beyond WP:SYN simple math of looking at content in one source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your speedy and helpful replies. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No sources in this page[edit]

Hadith of Gabriel, it should be tagged, but how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fundarise (talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it with a few things, but right now, it's little more than a collection of quotes, and it might even be a candidate for deletion... - Purplewowies (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

superseded articles[edit]

A couple of years ago i did some research on combinations and permutations. I subsequently went back to review the subject and found it had been replaced. Is there any way to access superseded articles? Michael Addison 50.131.118.74 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing complicated has happened (eg. deletion), history of a page can be accessed by clicking on the "View history" tab next to Edit tab. See WP:PAGEHIST.--Glaisher [talk] 06:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Data stickies[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Generally speaking, is this a topic notable enough to be worth investing my time into writing? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 09:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

given that the hits are almost entirely repetitions of the phrases " Data stickies is a design concept, but not necessarily a pipe dream" or " dataSTICKIES are the next generation of data portability" i would say that someone is doing some press release flooding of the interwebs. "The graphene-based sticky note flash drives, which are only in conceptual stage right now, " , i think WP:TOOSOON, wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTALball. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious "}" bracket in Maid to Order[edit]

In the Maid_to_Order#External_links

After the IMDB link all the entries have an extra "}" after the film title:

Why should that be? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i think it was an issue with a typo at the templates themselves [1]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The extra "}" has been removed from all the templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad

sorry. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super, thanks y'all. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake[edit]

On page about VAPIANO restaurant you have mistaken. There are no restaurants in Latvia as it written in article!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.134.39.59 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; the source cited does not mention Latvia so I have removed it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't create subpages such as User:Dougweller/common.js.[edit]

Trying to create User:Dougweller/common.js I see the edit field flash up then disappear, leaving me with no way to install a script Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.js pages are treated specially and may conflict with some scripts. I have created the page for you. Are you able to edit it now? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no. I see "→ Go to editing area" but clicking on it does nothing. I've never been able to get further than that. This is in Firefox and Chrome and IE. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your skin? Does [2] work? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have enabled wikEd at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets then try disabling it on the icon

in the upper right corner when you edit .js and .css pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much PrimeHunter - that let me add the script User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js but it's not working yet. I'll fiddle with it tomorrow. Thanks again. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BYPASS your cache and it should work if you added it correctly. Looking at your common.js page, I see that you copy & pasted the actual code of the script. What this means is that your copy of the script won't be maintained for you, and is rarely a good idea. I suggest that you replace all of the code on that page with importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js');//[[User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js]] so that way whenever Writ Keeper updates his copy, yours will also be automatically updated. Happy editing and good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Writ Keeper saw your ping and fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I recommend that an administrator be stripped of Admin status[edit]

I have been editing a long while (I think about eight years) and never wanted nor was offered Admin status. A relatively new admin is, in my opinion, causing trouble by thinking he is now Dictator of the World and can do what he wants without consensus or discussion. (I can give you the appropriate links but I imagine you are rather busy.) To where should I put this discussion? To strip an admin of his status because it is a privilege not a right, and in my opinion is abusing it. I thought about WP:ANI but that seems the wrong venue. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would usually be a normal case of WP:BRD but since the other editor has admin status and is using it as a kind of golden crown, that is not what admin status is for. Especially when something comes up at, as it happens WP:RFD to which I am a regular contributor and come with views sometimes agreed with sometimes not but always with my homework done. Si Trew (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read WP:RFCC ensuring you have tried all the other avenues described before raising it per the appropriate guidelines there. CaptRik (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, not quite so tersely: You start by getting agreement that there's been serious misbehavior. Consider a "request for comment". (NB the "minimum requirements for making an RFC.) If it's agreed that serious behavior has taken place, he'll be told to shape up. If he ignores this and continues, he'll be in trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, a discussion about someone without notifying them? Not a good idea. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this seems to be about Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 24#Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_22#Chimping out - please folks, look at that before commenting again. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, Doug. Also, I have to chuckle about "relatively new admin". I had already been an admin for a year when Si Trew registered his user account. Anyway, that's by the by and I won't clutter the help desk with any more on this topic. — Scott • talk 15:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Flemming is a Hit Piece[edit]

Blatant propaganda...

There are some clear BLP and NPOV violations, eg "Flemming launched three unusual media campaigns to support his biased documentary" but this would belong at WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOST EDITS AND ARTICLE[edit]

Dear PrimeHunter, Thank you for your reply regarding my lost edits and articles. My new acc is aas JOX67 I think maybe my last one was JOX1967. i am at a loss to know how to find my lost workd.

Thanks again

JOX67 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOX67 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is/was a @JOX1967: who was working on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martin McEvoy. (you can go to the "Special User Contributions" page and type in user names Special:Contributions/JOX1967 )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the section #Lost all my edits and my curent article further up this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hockering, Norfolk.[edit]

The Church in Hockering, Norfolk is St. Michael's.

You have a picture (and name)of St. Mary's, North Tuddenham on the Hockering page. Please can you correct this. Heather Flint - Churchwarden Hockering St. Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.101.147 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is File:St Michaels church in Hockering (geograph 1920315).jpg the right church to display in Hockering? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched to PrimeHunter's suggestion after reviewing www.norfolkchurches.co.uk. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox linked to article after creation[edit]

Hi,

I used my Sandbox to create a page for the Cosmology Large Angular Scale Surveyor (Cosmology Large Angular Scale Surveyor), and then I tried to wipe my sandbox clean and start a new article there. Unfortunately, that also wiped clean the main page listed above. How do I unlink the two so that I can use my sandbox for something else?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom.essinger.hileman (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tom.essinger.hileman. When the page was moved from your sandbox to its final destination, Wikipedia automatically left a redirection in your sandbox (it always does that when a page is moved). To get to it to edit it, you need to pick it, and it will show you the destination page; but just underneath the title it says " (Redirected from User:Tom.essinger.hileman/sandbox)", and you can pick that link to go back to the actual sandbox. You'll find if you edit it, it contains just the text "

#REDIRECT Cosmology Large Angular Scale Surveyor

{{R from move}}" and you can remove all that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tom.essinger.hileman (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No password reset email[edit]

I have not used my Wikipedia account 'Theron McCollough' sense 2011.

I put in my username and ask for password reset but email never comes. I have tried with both my username and my email address, searched user logs and can not find my profile. I want to maintain this as I have made entries and want to maintain my Wiki clout.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.100.59 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by User:Theron McCollough can be seen at Special:Contributions/Theron_McCollough, so it was 2012. If Help:Logging in#Login issues and problems or Help:Email confirmation#Known issues do not help then you have to create a new account. The old password will still work after a password reset (assuming the mailed password) is never used, so if you get new ideas what the pasword may have been then just try them. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) (It was actually used in 2012 [3]) Are you sure you are looking at the same e-mail that you assigned to the account? Are you sure that you connected your wikipedia account to an e-mail? have you checked your spam filter? 22:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

I was wondering if i was alowed to sell books with alot of information from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.120.93 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is allowed, but you would have to meet certain conditions. See reusing Wikipedia content. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about numerous wikipedia citations making up most of a published work?[edit]

I wonder how to cite Wikipedia in this special case in publishing, where a compendium, e-learning material or book author (compiler or editor) would use numerous Wikipedia citations for providing bulk, factual text, effectively dominating the work, only still embedded within the compiler/'author's own narrative. Is there a term for this? Is it ok? Could it still be a one-author book? Or is it an anthology? Should Wikipedia authors be acknowledged, perhaps listed, and if so, how? Is it being done, with examples of ok and perhaps not-ok use for guidance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofloc (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia generally have dozens, if not hundreds, of authors, including people who make just a single change. It would be impractical to cite them all. On the page about citing Wikipedia, the authors are left out of the major citation styles. Those who wish to know the specific authors can check the page history. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]