Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 August 24

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.

August 24

Article about John Dehlin

John Dehlin recently graduated with his Ph.D. but the person seeking to control his web page is preventing the information from being updated.

John Dehlin

Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brolap (talk • contribs) 03:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is controlling any wp article, as indicated. The user above, with fewer than 20 edits over a number of years & all but two being on this article, is seeking to use the web page of the subject's article as the source. The article already states that the person has a doctorate, but has for a period of time had an appropriate cn tag attached to it. There would appear to be some coi, as the most recent edit by this user removed what has appeared to be a legitimate see also item, because the user didn't like the article. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Universal Troubleshooting Flowchart

Hi, I realize this is not exactly the right post for this. I went looking for a Universal Troubleshooting Flowchart and found the management oriented one; that - basically covers yer butt. The missing Gem of that chart, is a box, between "did you touch it" and "no problem". It's the box that asks: "Are you tasked with fixing it?" -- This is a viable market for accurate information on a global scale. I know where to start it - Three easy boxes! The following answer selections can only be actualized by the expertise YOU already have in house - the cross referencing of global knowledge. I hope you will expand this concept. I also hope you will see fit to helping me stay alive!

Best regards, Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by LabMan77 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

LabMan77, this page is for questions about how to use/edit Wikipedia. What is your question? Or given that you said "I realize this is not exactly the right post for this." what do you want someone here to do? DES ^(talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Article provided for review

Dear Wikipedia Helpdesk,

I have submitted an article for review last Monday and I was wondering how long it will take until the article is reviewed and if everything is in order, put online. I am a first timer in writing articles and I am not quite sure if I have done everything correctly. The FAQs do not give any hint on this question either.

Many thanks in advance. Kind regards Trend71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trend71 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to User:Trend71/sandbox: it has not been submitted for review, as you haven't clicked the big blue "Submit" button near the top. If you do submit it, it will certainly be rejected, as (among other things) it is entirely promotional and has no references. Maproom (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Darioush_Bayandor

After a short editing on this page on 22 August 2015, of which a summary was provided, I noted that an error message in red prints with the following content appeared on the top of the page: " Cite error: The named reference Economist was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Reference to "Economist" by the original creator of the page is no doubt related to London Economist weekly magazine which published a review of the book on 13 May 2010 (for full original citation see footnote 8). I will be grateful if the error message be removed and few hyperlinks ( words like France or Malaysia) thanks Khashayar1966 (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Done - Hello @Khashayar1966:, I have restored that named reference in the article. An easy way to do that is 1) Look into "View history" 2) Check for the last "correct" version 3) Copy/paste the lost reference into the actual article version. Common terms like "France" are usually not linked, unless really necessary to understand the article. GermanJoe (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist Bolded and then not...

Right now when I bring up my Special:Watchlist, most of the articles go bold for just a second and then go non-bold. I presume I've got a selection in my preferences fighting with something in one of my .js or two things in my .js fighting with each other. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

I've noticed that too the last few days. I don't know what's causing it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Is "Display pages on your watchlist that have changed since your last visit in bold" enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, at least not for me. I don't know about Naraht. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't.Naraht (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

My "Display pages on your watchlist that have changed since your last visit in bold" is not enabled - the problem seems to be that they come in in bold and now take about 2 seconds for the bold to be switched off - causing an annoying jump/refresh. I'm using W7 IE11 Vector skin - what OS/browser/skin are others experiencing problems using? Arjayay (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This VPT post started about a different issue, but also contains information about the bolding/unbolding glitch (see the last few messages in the thread, I have the same glitch). Can only provide the link though, I am no expert and don't know additional details beyond the thread's info. GermanJoe (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the VPT, I didn't realize this was as widespread as it appears to be. I'm running Chrome on Win7SP1. Well this isn't resolved, but now I know that it is on WP:VPT. Thanx!Naraht (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to keep the bolding then try to enable the gadget. I'm not sure about the sequence of events but it may be something like this: Years ago the Wikimedia foundation added a feature with watchlist bolding of pages changed since your last visit. Some users here complained and the English Wikipedia made code to override the Wikimedia feature by default, but also made an opt-in gadget to accept the feature. I use the gadget so I haven't noticed a change but something recent may have delayed the default override for users without the gadget. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw this and went and looked at my preferences. On the gadget tab in the watchlist section there is a new option, "(This loads the base style for the watchlist. Please do not disable this option.)" If you disable it, the bolding stops showing up and it acts like it did before for me. The .css that it loads was created by Edokter, maybe he can provide an explanation for the behavior. -- GB fan 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have the first two enabled and I am not seeing a bold-unbold flash. I cannot explain the behaviour. The base gadget loads even before Common.css (top), so you should not see a flash. The fact that you don't see it with the base gadget off, puzzles me. Trying a little something, see if it works. In any case, I'm going to change the setup, because the current setup is due to a change that was made in ResourceLoader. That prompted a few hacks I want to get rid off. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding external links

I'm trying to add external links for music artists to some World Wide Release Database (WWRDB) sites such as CyberNoise and němý.cz - these sites are similar but in some respects better than Discogs, AllMusic, Musicbrainz as they often contain missing or accurate information not on those sites and in most cases this in depth information is not on Wikipedia either - therefore they are useful links to add. But when I add a few I get this warning:

It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession. This is often a sign of people spamming Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites. Before you continue you may wish to review Wikipedia's policies of external links and spam as these may help you decide whether these links are appropriate for Wikipedia. Please feel free to ask at the Help Desk if you have any questions

So I'm asking the help desk - is it okay to keep adding these links which are just like the links to Discogs, AllMusic, Musicbrainz, etc? If not, can you explain why because the Wikipedia pages I'm trying to add these links to sometimes have Discogs, AllMusic, Musicbrainz, etc links and if they are there why can't the CyberNoise, němý.cz, etc sites be there?

Graham Needham (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Forget doing any kind of apples to apples comparison to prove your links are "just as good because..." or should not be included because "they are not as good for X reason...". There is no need for us to travel down that path because your basis for seeking to add these links is utterly tainted and invalid. You are intimately connected to these companies and are demonstrably here for a promotional purpose by the very fact of your connection to these companies, your financial gain if they gain, coupled with what you are doing. That's the baseline as I see it. Intent matters here greatly. I do not mean you came here with an evil intent and are editing under any sort of subterfuge. Nor do I mean to imply you came here knowing what you were doing was against our policies. What you're doing is natural and would not be a problem at many other sites. But it is very unwelcome here and it is a problem from the vantage point of our policies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Two quick things that I see here.

1. It would be better if adding these links to many articles were discussed with people who are interested in the topic, such as those at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music. That way the community can come to a consensus as to whether or not they are appropriate.
2. One difference between Discogs and CyberNoise is that one has an article here (and has therefore been found to be notable in the industry) and the other does not. Dismas|^(talk) 20:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

World War 2 veteran, need to add my Dad

Hello, I want to add my Dad to the list of surviving World War II vets, he is 91, How do I do it....

Name: Beatty Thomas Brown, Born July 6, 1924, he was a riflemen in the Americal division, 32 enfantry, Company E, fought in the south pacific. he was over there for 4 years. he got a purple heart and other bravery metals. philipines, buganville, etc. Said he was on alot of islands over there fighting. I would love to have his name on this list, so if any of his buddies are still living, they might see his name. He can really tell you some stories and most all the time tears will come in his eyes. . God Bless him and all those men who served their country.

Thanks so much, Becky, his only daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becky Brown Beasley (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Becky, I very much appreciate your father's service. However the list contains those who are notable for *other* reasons like for example having been the Governor of Idaho. While the Wikipedia list is long, it by no means is a complete list of everyone (from all of the countries involved) that are still alive. By comparison, a similar list for World War I up until a few years ago would have included everyone who was a World War I survivor since there were *many* fewer of them (being up around 110!) and thus it made them notable. I very much agree that we are losing rapidly the members of the Greatest Generation, but at this point a complete list would still be way too large for Wikipedia.

There are other places that are more likely to help connect United States Department of Veterans Affairs, American Legion, Disabled American Veterans and the similar.Naraht (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User page global settings

I was wondering how I can set global settings for my user page, so that when I'm on other sister sites like Wikimedia Commons, my user page there will show the content I've already entered on Wikipedia. I know this is possible, as I've seen some editors doing this. However, I couldn't find any adequate documentation anywhere that shows you how. Here's an example. If anyone has any experience with this, please let me know. Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The page to which you refer has a link to mw:Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage, which may help. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I checked that first, but it wasn't in any kind of form that I could understand. Was hoping someone with experience doing it could weigh in and decipher it for me! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved

David Biddulph, I figured it out. First, I came across this page that mentions you need to set your Meta user page, which will populate your user page automatically at every wiki where it hasn't yet been created. I simply copied part of my Wikipedia user page to that Meta user page, and voila! It is now showing at Wikimedia Commons! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Notability Edits

This is in reference to this page: Marching Chiefs

The list of Drum Majors under the "Drum Majors" section was recently removed due to not being "Notable," however under under the "Lists of People" section on the WP:Notability (people) page, the following is stated: "On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable."

It is reasonably arguable that the aforementioned example of a list of past presidents of a school is analogous to a list of Drum Majors of a University Marching Band, and therefore the list should be able to contain "all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable."

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.35.252 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The list was unsourced. Is it verifiable? Is there a list on the school's website or elsewhere that could be used to provide support for the list? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

CIA

WHY HAVE ALL MY REQUESTS BEEN DECLINED OR IGNORED/ CIA INTERFERENCE? ------ PEOPLE BE AWARE - the WEB ain't a place for free speech - buy a 1950's typewriter, start passing handwritten communications - or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.77.166 (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sort of. It was not technically the CIA operating, but an NSA operation mostly composed of CIA members. They issued what was supposed to be secret communiqué to the admin rouge cabal specific to your editing, and I am writing this post as a whistle blower at great risk, so I hope you appreciate it. It is not safe for me to say more.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you've said too much, if you know what I mean.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

More seriously: Your requests for assistance have not been ignored. See WP:Help desk/Archives/2015 August 19#I was banned unjustly while trying to engage with an individual.. If you pose a question here, you need to check back more than once a week to see your answers (or, in this case, to provide answers to a question needed to assist you). General Ization ^Talk 18:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

General notability guideline?

I had started an article quite a while ago about the recent comic World Of Lumina but I noticed a weird message telling me "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.", what does that mean and what am I supposed to do exactly? I can't bother with looking for an answer if you want to delete the page just delete it but not every time I try to write something for Wikipedia and providing information they always have an excuse for freakin' removing it. I'm just sick of that. So tell me, what did I do wrong this time?

Edit : All of the information written are either from their main website: http://www.worldoflumina.com/#!home Or given to me through e-mail by their publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elshobokshy (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Elshobokshy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: a tertiary source. It is only interested in subjects that people have already thought it worth writing about, and an acceptable Wikipedia article is based nearly 100% on what other people, unconnected with the subject, have written about it. Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject says about themselves - anybody can write anything they like about themselves - so an article based mainly on their own website will always be deleted. If you want to write an article about a subject, start by ignoring absolutely everything they have published about themselves (you can add a bit of it in later), and write only what has been published about them by others - not them, their family, their friends, their agents, their publishers, but people unconnected with them. And information that has not been published at all cannot be used at all.

--ColinFine (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You may not have realised, but in the message at the top of the article the words in blue are wikilinks to pages which give further information. The words "general notability guideline" are a link to Wikipedia:Notability. In WP:GNG it says "If a topic has received significant coverage in WP:reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That means that information from the subject's website or e-mail from the publisher cannot establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. Similarly blogs are not regarded as reliable sources. You may wish to re-read some of the useful links which were given in the welcome message on your user talk page before you removed it. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)