Help desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

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 2[edit]

Article not listed in category?[edit]

OpenNIC currently has [[:Category:Alternative Internet DNS services]] in its footer, not being listed in Category:Alternative Internet DNS services because of the : prefix. Is there any reason for not listing this page in the category or was it an error by an editor? Edit: This seems to have happened in this diff, seems to have something to do with an AFC submission? Pinging SwisterTwister. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saturnalia0: Yes, it's because drafts and other items not in mainspace should not categories enabled. If you feel the page belongs in the category, merely remove the colon. Links in talk page posts should also have a colon inserted before the pagename so there is not a link between the TP and the article. I.e. [[:OpenNIC]]. Eagleash (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: I'm not sure what you mean with the last part. For mainspace articles there is no difference between [[:OpenNIC]] and [[OpenNIC]]. If you think [[:OpenNIC]] will omit an entry at Special:WhatLinksHere/OpenNIC then it's not true. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thanks I'm not sure how I came by this knowledge, whether it was something another editor imparted or the fact that multiple editors seem to adopt this practice. It does lead me to ask though; if you use for example, {{subst:uw-vandalism2|pagename}}, if you look at the source afterwards, when the message has been expanded, a colon will have been inserted in the coded page name. Also on Commons it is done so images will not display in TP posts I believe. Eagleash (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: An initial colon ensures an inline link is always made regardless of the type of wikilink. Without a colon, [[Category:...]] will add the page to the category, [[File:...]] or [[Image:...]] will display the file, and [[xx:...]] where xx is a recognized language code will make a link under "Languages" in the left pane. It doesn't matter in which namespace the code is placed. Templates to make links will often add a colon in all cases just to be safe, e.g. if pagename happens to be a category or file page in {{subst:uw-vandalism2|pagename}}. It would be possible to code the templates to test the namespace and only add the colon when needed but there is no reason for the code complication. The colon makes no difference when it's unnecessary. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Horlick[edit]

I would be grateful if you could help me. On my page, there is a section about Bernard Madoff. I have made the point many times over the last 9 years that I did not manage the hedge fund portfolio of Bramdean Alternatives, which held a position in Madoff managed funds. This was managed by RMF, which was part of Man Group, which was the largest manager of hedge funds in the world at the time. This was misreported in the press and was the subject of a libel action between me and the Mail on Sunday. The Madoff paragraph was removed some time ago and now it has reappeared. It gives a misleading impression of my career in fund management and I very strongly believe that it should be removed. I have tried three times in the last few days to edit it out myself, but the edits have been reversed. I have been extremely patient about this. As a professional person, my reputation is very important to me. Please let me know how this can be rectified.

Nicola Horlick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhorlick (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is copious advice on your user talk page about how to handle your conflict of interest. The place to suggest changes is on the article talk page, and in the box at the top of that talk page there is a link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this now. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nhorlick. The founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales is currently leading a campaign against fake news. This appears to be the situation you have found yourself in, where you have to prove your innocence against a tide of negative reporting. Given your profile, Jimmy may find you valuable to have on board in his fight against bad reporting. Suggest you contact him directly for an opportunity to chew-the-cud. Post the suggestion on his talk page. P.S. Should I still keep the bulk of my portfolio in income producing properties or should I start thinking about moving it else where? Aspro (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have sought advice through the usual channels here and will pursue this. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think, when in doubt chuck it out. The whole section should go. Reading through the references amounts to no more than hearsay, which is not encyclopedic.Aspro (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Caryatid & Aspro, I think your direction and assessment is correct: this can and should be handled in-house. It is ridiculous for all that we "doth protest" as editors at WP that when a subject comes to the Help Desk for assistance we simply say: "try the Talk Page"; where most often it does not receive the correct set of editorial eyes nor a neutral point of view. I just saw an editor delete an entire article's content because the header tag was "old", and this was considered valid and constructive. I hope you both are able to yield results boldly and finally. Good luck! Maineartists (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I have made the necessary changes, summarised on the article talkpage. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing using subject's website[edit]

I'm currently creating a page for a non-profit, and I've used the non-profit's website as a footnoted source for material, much of which is backed up by outside references. When presenting my work to the foundation, board members have expressed concern that this could be a problem. Is this a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majicmarty (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Majicmarty. First of all, I infer from "presenting my work to the foundation" that you are paid to make your Wikipedia contributions, in which case it must be disclosed per this link. I assume you are talking about User:Majicmarty/sandbox. The board members are mostly correct, but there is a subtle distinction to be made.

First, Wikipedia requires that its information be verifiable. Because of that, the use of primary sources (i.e. what a source says about themselves) is acceptable for noncontroversial statements (such as the official name of the organization, its postal address, its board members), or the views of that organization, but not for much else. Any statement of fact that could be supported by a secondary source rather than by a primary source should be sourced there (but notice that press releases, interviews etc. most often qualify as primary).

The bigger problem though is that you need to demonstrate that the topic of the article is "notable" in the Wikipedia sense of the term. This means roughly "has been described at length in reliable, independent sources" (usually, press articles or published books). As it stands, your article does not show that; if the Little Village Foundation is not notable, any article about it will be rejected.

Finally, while this is no obstacle to publication (although the article needs to be edited further), the style of writing in that draft is quite unacceptable. Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, which does not to advocate a particular position, or promote particular persons/organizations/products/etc.. This is related to the points above. For instance, culturally significant music albums / deserving, but underexposed individuals and groups} is pure PR-speak: it makes vague assertions that cast the subject in a positive light, but none of which are supported by independent reviews. Similarly, all have contributed their musical talents in support of the artists is peacockry with zero factual base (except "they work here", which is already implied by the previous sentence). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply, Tigraan. And thanks for the clarification regarding my virgin sandbox creation. I'm not being paid in any way for my work on this project. It's a labor of love for an organization I believe in and executed at the group's request. I'll address the issues you describe and proceed accordingly. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majicmarty (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a page from wikipedia[edit]

Hello, can a page be deleted from Wikipedia? I am contacting you from the City of Williamsburg. We have created a page on Facebook called Kiwanis Park. This page is the same name as your page that had all wrong information on it. We do not need two Kiwanis Park pages out on Facebook but unfortunately, Facebook is telling me they cannot delete the one page that has all the wrong information because it is owned by wiki hub which I am guessing is you.

So, can Kiwanis Park, Williamsburg be deleted from Wikipedia?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwilson23185 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cwilson23185: the creation of the Wikipedia article Kiwanis Park, Williamsburg about a ball park in the US does not justify the deletion of another Wikipedia article Kiwanis Park, New Brunswick about a similarly-named ball park in Canada. Maproom (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwilson23185. Not to be snarky but you "guessed wrong". Wikipedia is a site of the Wikimedia Foundation and has nothing to do with Wiki Hub.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwilson23185: You didn't link it so I don't know which Facebook page you refer to or what "wiki hub" is (maybe WikiHub?). My searches gave no good results matching your info. Wikipedia does not make Facebook pages except maybe a few about Wikipedia itself. Facebook or their users can copy Wikipedia pages. The Wikipedia article Kiwanis Park, Williamsburg will not be deleted just because somebody else may have copied it. Even if we deleted it here the copy would probably not be deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: this is a continuation from here: Change Header Name on a Page. Maineartists (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what to do with article about a living person[edit]

Hi everyone,

I stumbled across the article linked to above, and until just a moment ago it looked like this. I removed the worst promotional content and tried to fix the lead to make it at least say who this person is, but the result is still not very satisfactory IMO.

For one thing, I have no idea why this person is notable, so I find it difficult to phrase the lead accordingly.

Also, I don't see that the second paragraph provides any encyclopedic content either. My gut feeling would be to throw that out too, but I am reluctant to do that because then practically nothing is going to be left.

Any ideas? --93.212.229.181 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it needs to be deleted, WP:AFD is the process by which to initiate a discussion among people to decide if that is the best course of action. --Jayron 32 16:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed the article for deletion. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to nominate the article for deletion, but Maproom beat me to it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, the "this article's entry" link at James Mannon is a redlink. I've not come across this before. I wonder what went wrong. Maproom (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't now. I've noticed that happening a lot. It just seems to take a minute sometimes for the browser to bypass its cache. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention deletion because I really cannot judge this person's notability. I don't mind having the article in here (if it indeed is an article, not just a substub), and I don't mind if it is deleted either. I was just unsure about how to proceed, since after I had done all the work I could on that article it was still very unsatisfactory. --93.212.229.181 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can. Look for reliable secondary, independent sources that treat the subject in detail (at a minimum try Google Books, New Archive and Scholar → fail to find them? → you've done due diligence to nominate on the basis of notability → nominate for deletion → see if anyone else can find the sources you didn't → if not, it will likely be deleted and rightly so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Sure I can" what? I said I have done all the work I could on that article, and that's that.

Look. This is volunteer work we are doing here. I have no idea who this gentleman is, or why he has a Wikipedia article, or if he should. And what's more, I don't care.

I did more constructive work on his article than anyone else has for months, and I brought it to the attention of more experienced users. And now I am most certainly not going to waste my time looking for secondary sources on an article that may not be worth it in the first place. I don't mind if anyone else does, and I don't mind if the article is deleted either.

But I do mind this attitude that I have come across here more than once, trying to push other users to do more work on parts of Wikipedia they can't or don't want to do more work on, for whatever reason. Please respect what others are willing and able to do in their volunteer time, or you'll be pushing them out of Wikipedia rather than in. --93.212.233.204 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was telling you what to do. You had said you could not judge the notability of the person. The response was telling you how you could judge the notability not that you had to, ~ GB fan 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GB fan is right. "Sure you can" was in answer to your statement "I really cannot judge this person's notability". I was explaining what is involved in making that judgment and how you can act on it. (I was also implying, for future reference, that your time might be better spent on five minutes of googling for sources and nominating for deletion than improving a subject that may not be notable in the first place.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse[edit]

When I click on any of the examples below, three of them open together. What can I do for each one to open independently?'

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

111111

CONTENT 1

222222

CONTENT 2

333333

CONTENT 3

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

CONTENT 1

</div>

CONTENT 2

</div>

CONTENT 3

</div>

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.194.254 (talk)

You can use separate names as long as they start with mw-customcollapsible- and mw-customtoggle-. See below example. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

111111

CONTENT 1

222222

CONTENT 2

333333

CONTENT 3

Rollback vs Twinkle?[edit]

Is there any difference between Twinkle's rollback feature and the rollback feature given by applying for its right? Also, would applying for rollback permissions be redundant due to Twinkle's rollback? Blorper234 (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are very similar, but there are some slight differences. Both Twinkle and the MediaWiki rollback feature can revert an edit with a single click. With Twinkle, you can easily add a reason for reverting. Also, rollback adds links to other pages like page history and the watchlist, while Twinkle's rollback links only show up in diffs. See WP:ROLLBACK#Additional tools for a bit more on the differences. In my experience, MediaWiki rollback can be useful when page patrolling with your watchlist or recent changes page since obvious vandalism can be reverted with one click, but I tend to use Twinkle more frequently because of the ability to customize edit summaries and easily place warning templates. clpo13_(talk) 23:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) According to WP:Rollback they are the same. RudolfRed (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not make applying for Rollback permissions redundant? Blorper234 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle offers three rollback options which I find very useful: one being for good faith edits, one for rollback with edit summary prompt and one for blatant vandalism. The last one does a very similar task to the rollback obtained using rights and is often used in the same context. Although I use the one offered by Twinkle, the other one has a nice feature that shows the number of consecutive edits done by the same user (for example, [rollback: 5 edits] or [rollback: 8 edits]). This helps in judging to what extent my revert is going to be effective without manually going through the revision history. As for it being redundant, the Rollback rights obtained by applying require a qualified editor reviewing your edits and seeing if you are likely to use it for good or not. So, some tools such as STiki and Huggle (both are useful for reverting vandalism and more powerful than Twinkle for that matter) can only be downloaded and used by those who have the rights as it is a good measure of the trustworthiness of the person. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 22:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]