Help desk
< June 20	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 22 >

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.

June 21[edit]

What action is required if AnomieBOT leaves a message?[edit]

Re article Medal of Honor. AnomieBOT left the following message 'This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (June 2016)'. The article is up to date and I do not believe it is missing 'newly available information'. Further improvements should occur incrementally. Do I just delete it? Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT did not leave the tag, it just added the date to the tag, which was left by @66.191.43.18: a couple of hours earlier. If the tag is inappropriate, or the issue it raises has been addressed, just remove it. Rwessel (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBot doesn't tag articles. AnomieBot only puts dates in tags on articles. An unregistered editor tagged the article yesterday (20 June) indicating that there had been a Supreme Court case. AnomieBot then dated the tag. If you disagree that the tag is needed, you can discuss the tag on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both replies. I will follow the advice. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headingley[edit]

Please add the link - Headingley Stadium - in the category section at the bottom of this page i.e., the Headingley page. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's already linked in the hatnote, in the lead, and in four other places in the article, including the "See also" section near the bottom. It also does not appear that Category:Headingley Stadium is really an appropriate category for this page. Rwessel (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Headingley Stadium is a sub-cat of Category:Headingley. So it's correct to say the article about the 'parent' cat. should not be placed in the sub-cat. Eagleash (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protected from creation by administrators[edit]

Hello, FIrst, a big thank you for the really interesting wikipedia that is built collaboratively. It is really humbling to see the size and the content within it.

I am trying to create a wiki page for an author and thought leader, whose publications are available. I tried creating the page and was immediately deleted by the admins. Even though I mentioned that it is a work in progress and I am updating the article with references to support it. Now when I try to create the page, wiki tells me the page title is protected from creation. Is there any way I can restart the process, I can do it in phases, or put up only the portions where I have the solid references.

The page was titled 'Shaheen Chishti' and I hope to continue working on it.

Grateful for replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spcobide (talk • contribs) 09:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Spcobide. I'm sorry your first experience of trying to edit Wikipedia has been frustrating. Wikipedia is a very big and complicated animal with many rules and procedures, and creating a new article is rather a difficult task: it is unfortunate that so many new editors plunge straight into such a difficult activity. Please read Your first article carefully, and then, if you decide that Chishti meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability, use the Article wizard to create a draft where you can work on it gradually. Please be aware that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of the article, or his friends, relatives, associates, agents, or employees, have said about him: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with him have published about him in reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers). If you cannot find such sources (which do not include any of his publications) then there is no point in spending time on an article (that is what Wikipedia means by "notability" - it doesn't mean importance, or fame, or influence, or popularity).

Note also that articles must be neutral in tone: "author" is a neutral, factual description, but "thought leader" is not, and should not appear in any Wikipedia article unless it is directly quoting an independent source. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColinFine. I have read the wikipedia rules and completely agree with the philosophies on which is it built. I also understand the complex nature in which this beast has evolved. However, my frustration was more with the admins being unwilling to help, or maybe my own inability to ask for help in the right places. I would follow your suggestion and start from the articles wizard to begin it fresh.

Grateful.

First, I see that the page that was tagged for speedy deletion (which may have already been deleted) was not tagged on notability grounds, so that "work in progress" should not be a reason to avoid deletion. It was tagged on tone grounds, as purely promotional in tone. Second, I see that the original poster now has two drafts in draft space. Submit them both via Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third, I will add that the reason why the subject is now protected against creation is that the original poster tried to submit it three times, and each time it was deleted, before they came here. In general, the sooner you ask for help rather than just pushing your way through Wikipedia, the sooner you will get advice, and the better off you and Wikipedia will be. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an article and citing a youtube documentary as a source[edit]

There is a youtube documentary that I would like to cite as a source on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Simmons

Here is the documentary: shadows of doubt

I have not been able to find the reference documentary in IMDB or any other source for it but it is referenced in the article.

When adding a reference I am able to click the 'Cite' at the top of the typing window and then I see Templates on the left which has 4 options. 1.) cite web 2.) cite news 3.) cite book 4.) cite journal

I was able to find Videos_as_references

Which indicates: You can use the cite video template (click on the "cite video" tag) to help you format this information

I can't seem to locate these: cite video template and cite video tag.

Any clues appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macmiller111 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, I wouldn't use the Youtube video that you've featured here within the article. My suggestion is to use the video in the External Link section. See below on how to use the External Link section. (Also, I think you should read our guidance on WP:Reliable sources and on why your article may be deleted if it doesn't cite good sources soon. Maybe you could read WP:Your first article). Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

== External links ==
* [http://example.com/link_1 Link 1]
* [http://example.com/link_2 Link 2]

It is an existing article that I was just trying to improve because it lacked citations. The video definitely seems to meet the following criteria which I found on another page: It's okay to cite movies, TV programs and videos as references, as long as they meet the reliable source criteria for other sources. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments.

I don't have anything to do with the article, just trying to make it better. Maybe the video is not reliable for some reason that I don't understand. It was a major documentary that featured the points of the case and represents both sides (the victim and convicted persons). Macmiller111 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. While I had left the earlier message, I had added a few citations to the article to help you. I'll give a look to the article and see how best to incorporate the youtube link. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macmiller111 and Xender Lourdes: As far as I can tell, the Youtube account that uploaded that video has shown no evidence of owning the rights besides having the name "Free Vincent Simmons", and that video is therefore a likely copyright violation. We should not be linking to full copyrighted works if we don't know the legal status of the linked work, per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Intelligentsium 00:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Will keep that in mind. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help about the citations. I also added some.Macmiller111 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About bots and templates[edit]

I edit mostly in nepali wikipedia and very less/none here in english wikipedia. I just wanted to ask if it's possible to import/something like copying bots and templates in nepali wikipedia. I understand the use of bots and templates, however I don't know anything about programming. Hope, I'd get some reply.

Thanks!!! Learnerktm 11:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templates can certainly be imported to ne.wiki. Any admin there should be able use Special:Import to import templates (or anything else) from here. I don't think that this applies to bots because they are owned by their operators. In the bot case, if there is a bot that interests you, you should talk to its operator to see if it is compatible with the rules and languages used at ne.wiki.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learnerktm. They'll need to be aware that some templates depend on other ones, and some depend on Mediawiki extensions. I don't know if all Wikiipedias have all extensions, but I suspect not, so they may have to install them. This is not a job that admins can do. --ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Maintenance" displayed above all pages[edit]

Why am I seeing the word "maintenance" displayed at the top left of all pages in the main frame (except for Special-space pages)? I am guessing it is a gadget, but I have no clue which one. Or am I off-base?

Image showing "maintenance" displayed on all Wikipedia pages

RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 11:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it and I tried enabling all gadgets. Please give an example page, your language at Special:Preferences, your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, your browser, and say whether you see it when you log out. You can also try to clear your entire cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter, I inserted an image in my original edit. My browser is Chrome and I tried bypassing and completely dumping my cache. I did an inspect on the source, and the entire "maintenance" bit is contained in a div for xtools. Looked through my gadgets and I don't see anything off-hand that mentions xtools. Also my language preference is English and my skin is Vector. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 11:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the issue is meta:User:RegistryKey/global.js. That page is loaded in all wikis. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegistryKey: That would be the xtools gadget, which is currently broken due to some very strange code. See the meta documentation page, and feel free to poke me if you have any questions, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 20:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost in an edit war, other poster won't respond to me[edit]

On The_Game_(rapper) page, another poster has made some edits that are unsourced and are possibly vandalism or if not, rumors or unsubstantiated claims. Given the player's history of making seemingly constructive edits, I lean towards not vandalism, but I'm not sure. The claims are related to molestation.

There is a citation at the end of the sentence but that citation was there before the content in question was added. The link in the citation was dead but I found a video with that name online and updated the reference, and when I watched the video, nothing was said about the rapper having been molested/needing surgery/etc. There were only claims about his sister, which I'm not disputing.

I deleted the content twice but he reverted. I posted a comment on the talk page, pinging him, and also on his user talk page, but he has not responded. In fact, first he deleted my comment off the talk page.

I requested a "Third Opinion" but the person declined to answer because "only one person was involved in the discussion" since the other poster won't discuss on the talk page.

I commented on a recent editor's user talk page to see if he'd weigh in but I haven't heard anything.

Is there an easy way to just get someone to help me figure out next steps? I really don't believe the content is accurate and would like it deleted since this is a biography of a living person but I don't want to just keep reverting his edits. What do I do next?

-KaJunl (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you've read WP:DR, but you may have already. My view is take this to WP:BLPN and get more eyes to it; and if that doesn't work, report at WP:ANI, but only if the situation gets absolutely unmanageable. In my opinion, the stuff should not be there in the BLP, but then, I don't know any other context of the BLP. Like I said, get it to BLPN. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xender is correct, it would seem to be something that should go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (WP:BLPN) where experienced bio. editors will be able to assist. The information appears 'controversial' and unsourced from what you say so should not be included in the article. ANI won't get involved in content disputes but if the editor continues to insert the info against consensus &/or policy he should be reported there. Eagleash (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the Third Opinion, because of a limitation on Third Opinion, which is that it only applies when there has been discussion, not when there is an editor who edits but won't discuss. I agree that the edit is not vandalism. This is really a two-part question. First, what should be done in general when an editor edits but won't comment or discuss? Second, what should be done when these edits involve a living person? In the second case, the BLP noticeboard is appropriate. A Request for Comments is in general appropriate, but is a tedious procedure that takes 30 days. I will add that the policy on edit-warring defines a bright-line 3RR rule and states that other edit-warring is also undesirable, but I would say that some editors are so cowed by the general rule against edit-warring that they permit themselves to be intimidated by a stubborn editor. In this case, BLP does apply, and there are other editors at the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the OP's TPage comments at the article and also Robert's comments re 3rd opinion. The other editor (warned) had no real right to remove these. Eagleash (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the other editor has made the situation easier. The unexplained (and not capable of being explained) removal of content from an article talk page makes this a conduct dispute. My advice now is that if there is any further disruptive editing, it should be reported at WP:ANI, except that the template for unexplained removal of content from article talk pages warns that it can be treated as vandalism, so that that can be reported at WP:AIV, a quicker forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments all, and Robert thanks for getting back to me. I have posted to the biographies of living persons board and will see what comes out of that, if I'm still lost after that I will look into some of the other options listed here. -KaJunl (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is continuing at BLPN, with the comment that the article is a mess because of unsourced statements. Also, I have notified the editor who removed material from the talk page without explanation of the possibility of ArbCom discretionary sanctions for BLP violations. If that particular editor resumes disruptive editing, you may report them to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KaJunl, I have reviewed the content and have warned the user for not following WP:WELLKNOWN (and also for removing talk page comments). In BLPs, any controversial statement need to have multiple verifiable sources as citations. If such multiple sources cannot be found, the stuff should not be put within the BLP. I have left a note about this to the user in question. I'll keep a watch on their further actions on the said article and report if required at ANI. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this possible[edit]

Does anyone know if it's possible, through a gadget, script or otherwise, to disable saving the page if one presses enter while typing in the "edit summary" box? Seems to be a poor design decision as 99.9% of us are capable of pressing the "save page" button and it's just an accident waiting to occur Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit summary and .3CEnter.3E mentions User:Anomie/nosubmitsummary.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help neede asap[edit]

I need help from someone one My file File:Dubai3.png has been nominated for deletion even when it has all info and tag etc required can someone pls help me and prevent it from deletion. --VarunFEB2003 ^{Talk • Contribs • Guestbook} 13:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nominated for deletion because you uploaded it in violation of copyright law. Your statement "creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party" does nothing to change that. Maproom (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit a deleted article[edit]

Hi, I wrote a article about a temple, which happened to be my first wikipedia article. The article was deleted based on the comments, "Used for advertising". Since being my first article I did not know much.

The article is about a temple. wherein I find that instead of fully deleting the entire article, Those sections or lines which deemed to be as "advertising or promotional of personal interests" are deleted, the article will be of general informative in nature.

Can i edit the article and repost the article?

Or should I create a new page with the "Promotional contents" removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.110.40 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this question about Vanamamalai Perumal Temple? If it is, you should not try to "repost" it, but you can edit and improve that article. Maproom (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't sure about whether a draft article will be accepted, try submitting it via Articles for Creation and get the advice of experienced editors who will review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Academic titles[edit]

I understand that in biographies, people are not normally referred to by their academic titles (Dr. Isaac Asimov) since their academic qualifications can be described in the text, but what about references to academics in other types of articles? For example, the curator of a museum - Dr. Moldy Artifacts - does he/she get a title? Leschnei (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think MOS:HONORIFIC addresses this. Dismas|^(talk) 14:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is MOS:DOCTOR. Academic titles are generally not honorific. I know I worked very hard to earn mine. EdChem (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had read both of these, but they refer to biographies. The only reason I thought it might be different in other types of articles is because a museum article (for example) won't generally go into great details about the director's (for example) education. I just wondered if the guidelines were any different here. Leschnei (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They apply to information "... in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles ..." (emphasis mine, see leads of these guidelines). Personally I'd skip them in almost all cases - a person's accomplishments and credibility are measured by their whole biography and work, not by 3 letters in front of their name (but that's just a personal opinion of course YMMV). GermanJoe (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all three of you. I have been removing titles of this sort in my copyediting and wanted to make sure that I wasn't making a glaring error! Leschnei (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections to the equation of time contributors.[edit]

Your depiction of how the two components contribute to the equation of time is incorrect. If you will send me an email address I will send you a paper explaining the new correct understanding. Thank you Alan Friot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.157.82 (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't work by e-mail, but by references to published reliable sources. If you have suggestions for improvements to an article, the place to make such suggestions (and to provide the relevant sources) is on the talk page of the article. If you are referring to the article Equation of time the talk page is at Talk:Equation of time. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some inexperienced editors think that Wikipedia has an editorial board that is responsible for article content to which email can be sent. If the paper that is mentioned was published in a peer-reviewed journal, that the original poster can cite the paper. (The one situation in which an editor can validly put their own work in Wikipedia is if it was previously published in a reliable source such as a peer-reviewed journal.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]