Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 November 26

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.

November 26

Please remove the Marin Magazine Page

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.

---

Hello,

Due to this article being frequently changed, I am requesting it be removed. Edits were made to fix the problems mentioned, and yet, were reverted back to its original condition due to Wikipedia monitors. This is not the first request, so please delete the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marin_Magazine

Thank you.

MarinFan14 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The article being frequently changed is not a reason to request its deletion. You may nominate the article for deletion via Articles for Deletion, but the deletion discussion will focus primarily on notability. If you have issues with the article content, discuss them at Talk: Marin Magazine. If that doesn't work, read the dispute resolution policy. Frequent changes to an article are not a reason to request that it be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

M4A1

there is a mistake on the page about M4s the M4A1 is NOT fully auto. I know this because I am in the US army and I would like that misprint fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.30.127 (talk)

This US Army document states that the M4A1 is fully automatic. Do you have printed sources to prove that it isn't? I'm afraid we can't just take your word for it: Wikipedia articles need verifiable sources. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

J. L. Hudson's

A new article was just posted from the Detroit Public Library (DPL) contradicting the information about J.L. Hudson and his first store. The wiki article says his first store was in Detroit in 1881. The DPL shows a picture and evidence that the first store was in Ionia, Michigan in 1870. Just thought you should know. http://digitalcollections.detroitpubliclibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A146124 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.190.187 (talk • contribs)

You can discuss on a talk page, either Talk:Joseph Lowthian Hudson or Talk: Hudson's. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Chepang page

Someone has been adding false information after Novemeber 04, 2012. Somebody after this date has been changing words and making references to my book on the Chepang that are not reflective of the facts. I am sure anyone who looks into this can see who is editing and posting lots of false and defamatory things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.238.52.82 (talk • contribs)

Is the article in question Chepang language or Chepang people? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that the article on the people has been subject to vandalism by unregistered editors, but not in the past few months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You refer to "your book", but only the article on the language has a reference to a book. I don't see anything that appears to be defamatory, but I don't know anything about the Chepang people or Chepang language beyond what is in the article. The place to discuss article content is the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Create New Article - Bishop Steven Bennett Sr

I would like to create a new page for my father who is the Pastor of a large Medium size church with about 1300 members and sees about 250-420 of them each Sunday. Please assist me in creating this page.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsols47 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 November 2014‎

Please read the conflict of interest policy with regard to creating an article about a member of your family. You can request that an editor who does not have a conflict of interest create the article at Requested Articles, although it is very backlogged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Book rendering failed

Keep getting same error regardless of article selected to convert to PDF for save/print: Book rendering failed, There was an error while attempting to render your book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.179.16.231 (talk • contribs)

This is the only edit to Wikipedia that has been made from this IP address, so we cannot guess from your contribution history exactly what article you are trying to work with. However, I am inferring that you tried to print multiple articles and got the same error each time. This is probably due to the details of your web browser and PDF settings. The editors at Village pump (technical) might be able to help you if you specify in detail what operating system, what web browser, version of web browser, and version of Adobe Acrobat you are using. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Create Page

How can I create a Wikipedia page about my company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalvithlani (talk • contribs) 06:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is "please don't"! For longer answers, please read, or at least skim, the FAQ page for businesses and organisations, particularly the sections "Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on my organization?" and the one after that. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Info. about Albert Einstein

Dear Wikipedia Webmasters,

I collected a lot of info. about Albert Einstein and put them all in a Timeline base as you can see it here: http://einstein9.com/

starting from the Birth day till the death including the Quotes/Publications all sorted inside the Timeline based on the event date

and i wanted to add it to the Wikipedia as a Link but don`t know really how can i do that?

any help here?

thank you

regards

Anwer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einstein9 (talk • contribs)

@Einstein9: You probably can't. For external links we have guidlines that do not allow links to personal websites and for article content itself we only use material that has been verifiably published by reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight and not our own personal investigations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Exploit IN Site

Hey I was just sniffing around your website and i found a full path disclosure exploit in your site;

http://www.gramshow.com/wiki.php?id[]=File:Holi-Celebration.jpg

Hope it will help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.236.145 (talk • contribs)

That web site is indeed recognized by my computer security software as dangerous, and so is blocked from being displayed. You are right that the web site is dangerous. However, that isn't on Wikipedia, but on an unrelated wiki. If you did find it by sniffing around this web site, as you say, then that link may have been an improper external link. If a page on Wikipedia contains a link to that infected web page, the link should be deleted. You can delete it, or you can provide us with information on where the link was. If you didn't find a link to that web page on Wikipedia, then that isn't "our" problem. You can send an email to postmaster@gramshow.com and notify them of the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

aggressive language by experienced editors

I apologise if this is the incorrect place to make this statement. However, given that I am new to the labyrinthine project that is Wiki, I want to state that I am rather bemused by what wiki editors regard as abusive/offensive behaviour, given the aggressive language of some editors. I have been reviewing this page looking for some guidance and have been put off by the responses newcomers/would-be contributors receive from some editors. AndytheGrump's recent response to a question about how to create an entry for someone is a case in point. May I suggest that editors also refrain from personal judgment and borderline invective when responding to reasonable questions, no matter how ridiculous an editor might regard said question. My personal experience is that detailed answers, giving clear examples, provide much better instruction to would be contributors than does ridicule. To the point, clear instruction also saves everyone a lot of time. Please editors, set the example you would have the rest of us follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.37.227 (talk)

thank you for your perspective. however, Wikipedia is not a free webhost/advertising platform and there is no need to mollycoddle those whose sole interest is to utilize Wikipedia as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly true that helpdesk responses can be a little ... brusque, shall we say? at times. Part of the reason for this is that many of the editors here have long and bitter experience with first-time editors who completely misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose, and think it's basically a version on LinkedIn. We do, I admit, get somewhat jaded, and so responses such as, "Just don't bother," when confronted with yet another marketing intern who's been tasked with creating an article about their employer do tend to become commonplace.

You might find the Teahouse a better place to look for help and advice; it's designed to be a welcoming place for new editors and has a specific code of conduct for responders. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Take it from another perspective: virtually all Wikipedia editors (users would be a more correct term) are volunteers. They do not get paid to do this. They do this to genuinely help potential useful contributors interested in building an encyclopedia. The reality however, is that they must face dozens of paid PR representatives from various companies each day, all doing their jobs very badly by somehow mistakenly assuming that Wikipedia is the ultimate advertising platform. In this case, being blunt is actually the kindest thing Wikipedia users can do, rather than allow said PR people to waste weeks or months creating articles that are doomed for deletion from the start. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Paul Terry (actor) Wikipedia page

To whom it may concern,

In recent days I have discovered the removal of a Wikipedia page. The page belonged to Paul Terry (actor). I am writing to you to request that Paul Terry’s Wikipedia page is put back up on your website. I was devastated to find that the page had been removed and that I could no longer read through the information that you provided. He was most famously known for the starring roll of James in the hit film James and the Giant Peach. He also played one of the main characters in Microsoap. I, and many others would really appreciate it if you could re-upload the page to your website.

I look forward to hearing from you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.188.130 (talk)

The article was deleted for the reason given here. Maproom (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:REFUND. --  Gadget850 ^talk 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Help:Job queue

How is it possible for the job queue to run into the several millions? Yes, I understand that it's not a cause for alarm; I'm just trying to wrap my head around the concept. Right now, it's at 11,821,132, and seeing that there are currently 34,341,342 pages of all types, including talk pages, redirects, etc., I find it hard to believe that more than 1/3 of all pages in the wiki need to have images changed, bluelinks changed to redlinks, redlinks changed to bluelinks, or templates changed. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please either restore or fully delete my Wiki page

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.

---

My Wikipedia page was taken down several years ago. However, I have just seen the discussion which led to its deletion (which is public), and it contains a number of factual errors. For example: "The sources do not support the claims made, for example in the Notting Hill Rapist case the police didn't ask him for assistance, they just partially agreed to his offer of "help" and let him hold a knife." This is incorrect. I have never volunteered to assist in any police investigation, ever. And in the Notting Hill Rapist case, I was contacted by the police and asked if I would be willing to help. The statement that the police only "let him hold a knife" is also incorrect. I spent several weeks working with the police on that case. I had access to various other items of evidence (and information), and I was taken by the police to the scenes of attacks. I couldn't care less whether or not I have a Wiki page, but I do care about the fact that you have a page about me which is accessible to the public and which contains false (and actually defamatory) information. The other statements made in the discussion of my page are also incorrect. I would appreciate it if you would either restore my page or delete it altogether. Thank you. Zak Martin http://www.zakmartin.com/

I have read over your report that "your" Wikipedia page was deleted several years ago. It appears that you are saying that, although the article about you has been deleted, the Articles for Deletion page is available to the public, and that the Articles for Deletion page contains factual errors. I think that you should request that the incorrect information in the AFD discussion page be redacted. You can send an email to an administrator in the category Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests

You haven’t said what article has the deletion discussion, and we don’t want to know what article it is, but you will have to identify the article in question in the email.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:REFUND. --  Gadget850 ^talk 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure whether Requests for Undeletion will help. Since the original poster has said that some of the statements in the deletion discussion are visible to the public and are false, it appears that the deletion was done by a formal deletion discussion. Undeletion is used for articles that were uncontroversially deleted, and normally results in the deleted page being moved to user or draft space for improvement. If the community discussed the deletion, and the comments that are visible to the public are false, then it would appear that redaction or maybe suppression of the questionable or false statements is what is needed to protect the original poster. Any of these approaches may be appropriate, but that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have courtesy blanked the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Martin per his request. -- GB fan 17:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

X!'s Tools

What has happened to the edit counter? It doesn't show any record of edits performed by me but shows full record when I search for other users.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Skr15081997, I see your stats. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I had the same problem, I could see other peoples but not my own. I cleared all my cookies for wmflabs and refreshed the page, which fixed it.Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see my edits now without even clearing my cookies. I don't know what happened earlier. Is it some sort of bug?--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Skr15081997, Tools are unstable. See [1] and [2]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling. Unstable tools are causing great losses.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat related question for those in editcountitisists anoymous, what happened to List of Wikipedians by edit count and List of Wikipedians by article count?? Valenciano (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Valenciano: At least one is still active: Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Public Domain, Google-digitized ??

I want this image for the article Camas pocket gopher. It was published in 1855 and I think it should be public domain. However, it is listed under the following license:

Public Domain or Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized: In addition to the terms for works that are in the Public Domain or in the Public Domain in the United States above, the following statement applies: The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes. Note: There are no restrictions on use of text transcribed from the images, or paraphrased or translated using the images.

Any thoughts on what tag I could use to justify an upload? How is it that google can scan a PD image, then claim copyright? Is this legal, or just their "request"? Thank you. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is their request, "enforced" only through technical means to make it difficult to download them en masse. They acknowledge that the images are still in the public domain, and they can't do anything to prevent you from doing whatever with items that you download. Just mark {{PD-old}}. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Hathitrust blurb on the subject is at http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-google (which might be suggestive of "PD-Google" as a tag, but we don't have that). It doesn't look like google is claiming copyright, more like requesting attribution and non-rehosting. Their rationale probably has to do with ensuring that they can still take down images should they find that they have erred in assessing them to be PD. Reuse would prevent that. Linking to their copy should not be a problem, but it does introduce a certain commercial aspect (in that they will derive AdWords revenue).

We used to have a license tag "PD-Google_books" on Commons, but that was deleted per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Google_books so I've asked Hedwig in Washington to chime in here. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This "enforcement" technique has made it difficult to download the images. I've resorted to taking screen shots of the images and copying/pasting, which degrades image quality. If anyone has advice on the best way to get around that, please speak up. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's what I meant about making it difficult through technical means. I've never heard a better way to get images than what you're currently doing. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done See here if interested. File:Thomomys bulbivorus Brandt, Johann Friedrich 1855.JPG —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

I am trying to find where the cite errors are but struggling to find my way around this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinrossgibbs (talk • contribs)

@Martinrossgibbs: If you're talking about Draft:Martin Ross, you had an empty reference. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with South Beach Diet

Hello, this request is surely more complex than one typically finds here, but it's still very much a "how do I fix this" kind of question. Specifically, I am looking for assistance on the South Beach Diet article. Since the summer, I have been working on behalf of the South Beach Diet brand to make improvements to the article. Due to my financial COI, I have followed Jimbo's "Bright Line" advisory and refrained from making direct edits. I am instead looking for consensus from other editors about problems in the article and then working with them on wording and sources to fix them.

In October, a few editors spent the majority of a weekend overhauling the article and adding medically sound sourcing. While I appreciate their work, there wasn't much discussion about the changes (despite an active Talk page at the time) and, through their efforts, some extremely problematic language was added to the article. Of major concern is the term "fad diet"; this term is currently used as the sole attribute describing the diet in the introduction. Not only is it not a neutral term, it's not well-sourced, and represents the judgement call of one editor.

I brought up these issues on the Talk page—and even got some support from two editors on this specific point—but there has been little movement over the last several weeks and productive conversation has completely stalled since the 12th. I asked the editor who added "fad diet" to consider reverting this one change, pending further discussion, and was rebuffed. I have been patient with editors and always polite, but the harmful wording remains prominent and I believe that the only way to get it resolved now is to invite others to weigh in and make changes.

The conversation on the Talk page is quite lengthy, but I've tried to link to important threads above. Please let me know if there are any questions. I'd also like to request that editors remove "fad diet" from the article pending further discussion—simply reverting just the introductory section to the previous version (see this diff) would be an improvement. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

assertions that the view of atkins as a fad diet as limited to a single person do not appear to have a solid basis - the view seems to be quite widely held [4] [5] and per policy WP:UNDUE should probably be represented as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have any specific questions about phrases in the article, as it appears that you do, a Request for Comments is an appropriate way to get consensus on whether to include or exclude the phrase. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@TRPoD—Well, I'm not asking about Atkins, but about South Beach. And I'm not suggesting that the phrase cannot appear anywhere in the entry, rather that it is not suitable for the introduction—certainly not absent any other explanation, as is now the case. This is why I am asking to have the introduction rolled back to the more informative (yet still flawed) version pending a fuller discussion.

@McClenon—I have many more criticisms of the article than just one phrase; I'm concerned an RfC about this narrow point would be overdoing it. But I may resort to that if I can't find someone open-minded and willing to spend some time looking at the broader issues. Anyone here of course is certainly invited. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no shortage of sources describing South Beach as a 'fad diet': Daily Telegraph [6], Time [7], Times of India [8] are just examples... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have multiple issues with the article, rather than one issue, you could try requesting moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andy—It's worth reading closer to see that the term "fad diet" only appears in the headlines of those articles, never in the text. (Grabby headlines are a common problem in the popular press, which all of these sources are.) And I'm afraid this illustrates a challenge I've faced with this topic—I'm not singling you out, Andy—folks have tended to be dismissive of this topic and relied upon first impressions rather than looking carefully at the issues.

@McClenon—Thanks, perhaps that's a better venue for seeking assistance on this issue. Happy to field any follow-up questions or comments. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Abir Chatterjee

hi,

I created Abir Chatterjee, it currently has a warning, I have added many external references, how to get rid of this warnings? the chat session did not help.

The warning is simply the result of a template that was added at the top of the article. If you think that you have corrected the issue, you may remove the template by editing the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

citation warning

Page Abir Chatterjee have this warning even with several leading newspaper referencesAchau24 (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC).

Achau24, I expect you mean the framed message (or "tag") at the top that said "additional citations needed for verification". A dozen or so extra references to major media have been added since this tag was placed, and the article now seems fairly adequately sourced, so I've removed the tag. Any editor is entitled to remove a tag if, and only if, they consider that the problem highlighted has been resolved: Noyster (talk), 18:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Photosynthetic Quantum computers confirmed in 2007 first proposed in 2001 - updates to Wiki article on Quantum Biology

Confirmation at: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/May/PhotosynthesisWorksQuantumComputing.asp Original proposal at: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0108087 Also see: https://www.msu.edu/~hitchco4/Smh6.pdf for final version with images.

If you can improve a Wikipedia article, especially with reliable references, please do so: edit the article and make the improvement. See referencing for beginners for how to handle the references. Alternatively, if you don't feel ready to edit the article, please put your suggested improvement on the article's talk page (and sign your comment with four tildes ~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Error On Page: 1856 precedes 1879

Dear Wikipedia,

Error on page: Helena Blavatsky

1856 predates 1879, QFW [Quote From Webpage]:

"In 1856, Blavatsky's memories about living in India were published in the book From the Caves and Jungles of Hindustan. The book was composed of essays written from 1879 to 1886 under the pen name "Radda-Bay". The essays were first published in Moskovskie vedomosti, a newspaper edited by Mikhail Katkov, and attracted great interest among the readership.[49] Katkov republished them as an attachment to The Russian Messenger along with new letters written specially for this journal. In 1892, the book was partially translated into English; in 1975 it was fully translated into English."

I hope you can see that the above paragraph cannot be historically correct. VanGoeden (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Alternatively, you can discuss it on the talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been changed to start "Blavatsky's memories about living in India in 1856 were published ...".[9] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation key

Where do I find a pronunciation symbol key on the site?

Try Help:IPA. --Jayron32 21:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Gentium Law Group

POlease delete this _now_. I have no professional connection with this group but understand that there is a litigational issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ J.h.parish (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 November 2014

This article was deleted 5 days ago [10] Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If you prefer a less public contact for your concerns, you can also use mail - see the info and adresses at Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Readers. But you would need to be more specific about the exact problem - it isn't really clear at the moment. With the article deletion, the problem should be solved. GermanJoe (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)