Help desk
< May 3	<< April \| May \| June >>	May 5 >

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.

May 4[edit]

5 Boro Ride[edit]

To Whom it May Concern

My name is Andrew Galambos and Sal Cirami and Steve Bauman are the original three members of the AYH Bicycle committee ( I was President) whop came up with the idea of the 5 Boro ride. There is a lot of mis information in both the NY Times article and on the Wikipedia.

if there is anyone who wishes to contact me, I would be glad to provide the accurate information as to the the 5 Boro ride.

Andrew Galambos [redacted phone number] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.181.133 (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We base our content on what reliably published sources say about the subject. If you have evidence that the NYT (or other sources used in the article) have issued clarifications/retractions, please use the articles talk page to show those corrections. And please note that as someone with a conflict of interest, you should not be directly editing the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation[edit]

While reviewing articles at AfC I found that articles in the Category:Pending AfC submissions have the 'draft article not currently submitted for review' tag. What should I do. Should such articles be reviewed or not.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Skr15081997: Look for the "Review waiting" notice at the bottom. If there is one, then it should be reviewed. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the text in that tag that states "Note: the submission-received box appears at the bottom of the page at first. If it's there, your draft has been submitted correctly, even if this message is still shown."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about references[edit]

Hello, I would like to ask if I could use a reference to a Wikipedia article from a website, without asking for permission, if I provide a link to the website its self. Is it legal or illegal? Also if it isn't legal do I have to contact the website and request permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxineJones00 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maxine. I'm not sure quite which way round you are asking. If you are talking about linking to (or using) Wikipedia material elsewhere, the answer is yes you can, almost without limitation: see reusing Wikipedia material. If you are talking about inserting a link to another website into a Wikipedia article, then there are no legal issues (unless that site itself breaches copyright), but Wikipedia's rules are very restrictive: see External links. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IP? Do you understand?[edit]

When I was browsing wikipedia, I got a "New Message"!

It said the IP in which I am browsing has made some corrections to a wikipedia page and have to fix it. Fine... but can't you force users to make a login if that country/ISP gives dynamic IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.20.235 (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a six or half-a-dozen question. Yes we could force IPs (dynamic or not) to log-in, and in time, we may have to. However, if receiving such warnings worries you, and you think that logging-in is a good idea, why don't you have an account? - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No.. not that it worries me.. I was just wondering.. also since every now and then I see that the range of IP address being blocked for editing, why not force it that way it prevents/deters from unwanted editing.. I have a account though.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.20.235 (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a widely held belief that freedom for anyone to edit without an account is central to the Wikipedia mission/ethos. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an account, why don't you use it? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Review Newly Created Page[edit]

Could someone review my newly created page (Douglas Robert Nowicki) to make sure there are no gross errors on it. I am happy to correct. Thanks! Jcs7708 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The basic issue is the lack of third party reliable sources (sources that are not directly connected to the church), which is one of the basic requirements for a subject to have a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll work on. There is plenty of stuff and a lot of it was difficult to wade through. You've given me some good direction. Jcs7708 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search turns up articles about allegations of misconduct on his part including a civil court filing. Completing the article may be a real challenge with respect to the biographies of living persons policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those and chose not to include them because they all come from the same source, "Misconduct in Latrobe," which doesn't seem to meet the criterion of a reliable and neutral source. But are you saying that completing the article generally might be difficult with respect to the biographies of living persons policy or just including that information concerning the allegations? Jcs7708 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to be reliable, and in most case independent of the subject, but they do not have to be neutral. If there are many reliable sources extolling something and few criticising it, or vice versa, a neutrally written article will generally follow the sources, noting any significant dissent in the sources, or the lack of dissent if there is none, and being careful to credit any judgmental or evaluative text in the article. I haven't looked at "Misconduct in Latrobe", but if it appears to be a reliable source critical of the Archabbot, then its contents should be mentioned in the article; but if they are reported nowhere else, or if other sources dispute them, then they should not be given undue weight. Incidentally, the lede should mention what part of the world Nowicki is active in. Granted you can find that by clicking on the link to the Archabbey, but you shouldn't need to click any links to get a general picture of the subject of an article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see multiple sources that refer to alleged misconduct. They may all be related. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Durand[edit]

it bears mention the inaccuracies in your article. Much of your documentation is 'heresay', so,as a distant relative of Earl Durand, I would like to point out that the deputy shot in front of his parents home was done as a last resort of self defense, and to defend his family, when law 'enforcement' opened fire indiscriminately. It was never, ever his desire to hurt or kill anyone...he was essentially a very peaceful man who cared about his community...remember, all of this began when he was poaching wild game to feed starving people in his community, to which the law turned a blind eye...until he and some of his friends made the mistake of accidentally (?) shooting someone's cow. During those last days, he was forced to defend himself. During the shootout where Orville Linaberry and Arthur Argento were killed, there is at least a 75 percent chance that they were killed by friendly fire...a fact that even those who were present admitted, as they agreed that it was dark, they were all frightened, inexperienced, and "shooting at shadows". The alleged attempt at robbing the bank is also a falsehood, as there is absolutely NO proof that his intention was to rob the bank at all, although he did have a bit of an arrogant wiseguy streak and thoroughly enjoyed teasing and taunting the local authorities, much to their embarassment and bruised pride. He did NOT 'level his gun' at Tip Cox, witnesses inside the bank at the time stated that he was trying to defend them from the crazed vigilantes outside, firing blindly inside the building, and that Earl tried desperately to help get them safely out of the building before any more innocent lives were lost. It is very easy to imagine that he may have been trying to fire his gun to defend, protect, or even warn, just as easily as you apparently feel that he meant harm, which, again, there is no proof to support. The bank president, though claiming 15 minutes of fame, did not kill Earl Durand...Earl's own bullet did that...this animal shot into a corpse. Representatives from my family, including my father attended the screening of the movie in Powell, I remember it vividly. While many people left, many also remained. The community was very divided by the actions that had occurred...Earl...supposedly a bloodthirsty murderer...had saved many of their lives by hand delivering poached meat to them during the Depression, and although some have claimed that there were 'legal means' he could have engaged in to help the starving, jobless people in his community, that is quite frankly, false. Sadly, as time wears on, those of us who are able to recount what we know of the story are gone, leaving people to guess, or misrepresent the truth, and someone who deserves to have what was good about him remembered, will go unrecognized as anything other than a monster, which is a very small part of who the man was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.46.142 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was in pretty bad shape. However, as I did a clean up, none of the sources I found verify the claims as you are making them. If you have any reliably published sources that support the propositions you are making, please bring them to the articles talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]