Help desk
< February 15	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 17 >

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.

February 16

Uploading photos that are not yours

I see many images on Wikipedia that don't get deleted due to copyright such as File:BigBangTheoryTitleCard.png and many others, I want to upload them, how without copyright, Thanks, TBrandley (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can only provide an image "without copyright" if you created the image yourself and then put that image into the public domain. You can't do it for someone else's work. RudolfRed (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading of fair-use images is very limited: They are stored into English Wikipedia files, and not Wikimedia Commons (where the free images are uploaded). Most news photos taken by other photographers, except police crime photos in Italy, are almost impossible to get approved for upload. However, small-size title cards, such as for movie posters or album covers can be uploaded, but as small images and preferably in "blurry" JPEG format. See the complex fair-use policy (WP:NFC), at section Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images, which explains the limits for each type of non-free image, such as logos, currency, or TV show screenshots. Again, the image must be small and almost "blurry" or rarely, allowed by written permission from the professional photographer. For a general idea about all types of photos, it might take about 3 days of reading over the various policy texts and viewing some of the other TV title-cards or album covers to see how they posted the fair-use rationale texts. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Just to clarify a bit: Wikipedia has some very restrictive policies that do allow, in very limited cases, the use of copyrighted images in Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for all of the details. Only if an image meets every requirement there may it be used in an article. --Jayron32 02:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPA When Editing

For the symbols window "IPA (English)" we have all the letters that aren't on a keyboard (ɹ is curiously absent), followed by a pre-made list of non-keyboard vowels and diphthongs. That's all fine. But for the full IPA window, the order goes like this: "plosives, fricatives, nasals, approximants, trills/taps, co-articulated sounds (?), implosives, clicks, vowels, superscript modifiers, several letters with diacritics in no apparent order, three affricates, tonal symbols, two more letters with diacritics, and the {{IPA|}} template". I think that menu could really be improved; I don't tend to think of the type of articulation, but of the place. In addition, there are no combining diacritics other than the pre-made ones, so occasionally I've had to open a word-processing document to get those diacritics. Inter change able|talk to me 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's made by MediaWiki:Edittools.js and can be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Edittools. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report on your (todays featured picture)

daily you are putting common images in Today's featured picture in the main page of Wikipedia,

think different and try to put the inventions and discoveries and something different where the users can think about it or to know about it

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.147.74 (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The featured picture may well be of a common collared lizard, and thus 'common' (at least to the minority of Wikipedia readers that live in places where one might encounter them), but the image is anything but, when looked at in detail - click on the picture, and look at the original at full scale. It is, in my opinion, a masterpiece of photography, capturing in astonishing detail the subtle colouration of its scales, and other features that a cursory glance might miss (it has details that even Dürer's Rhinoceros seems to lack: and this is no product of an artist's imagination, unless you consider the products of natural selection to be art - which they may well be). I'd say that this is precisely the sort of featured picture we need more of - something to be admired as an image, rather than just an illustration. If this image doesn't make you think, you aren't looking close enough... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. It's about quality of the picture and not importance of the subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for 2/16/2012

Article at this link is in a hidden category stating incorrect format. Editing done by several people has produced an 'encyclopaedic' result. Can someone remove the hidden admin commentbox asap? Blurbzone (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DONE. I have untagged article "Geoffrey William Griffin" from {essay-entry..March 2010} & retagged {Refimprove}. Other people have been recently editing the article, so there might be edit-conflicts at this hour. -Wikid77 05:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

When is consensus established for a proposed edit? A few editors and I have been discussing a proposed edit to the page Democratic Party (United States) on the talk page since last year. An RfC was called back then as well. One editor has reverted back all changes relating to the proposed edit, leaving things stagnant. Has a potential compromise been reached or shall it be left as is?

Also, the same editor that was reverting back edits has insisted that users who submitted their opinion back in October of 2011 have been invalidated. The editor has justified this saying the previous opinions have no "bearing". Is this correct?--Drdak (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seek a compromise by WP:Consensus: The current policy, WP:Consensus has been updated to explain methods to reach a compromise agreement with most editors, as would be done in the real world: an edit will be allowed but only to include the compromised phrases (perhaps not exactly what anyone would prefer separately). If an editor refuses to compromise, then it might be necessary to report them to WP:WQT, and please be careful not to hint at any insult of them or that could backfire as being blocked or banned from editing. Let others decide to characterize someone else's actions as being slow, stubborn, hostile or obstructionist. In general, any stated prior opinions on a talk-page should be considered as still "valid" and if needed, the prior editors could be contacted via user-talk for further opinions, but only in sets of equal pro-and-con at the same hour with the simplest of bland announcement to join the discussion, or risk being blocked for improper WP:CANVASing, with a "slanted" notice, as attempting to "vote-stack" the discussion by contacting a "disproportionate number" of pro/con editors rather than an equal number of each viewpoint. The first level of formal complaint is typically at WP:WQT. If disagreements reach the point of a WP:ANI notice, then the person being targetted is most likely to get blocked, so also file a separate counter-notice which questions the actions of the other person (and reserve 3 solid days to refute innuendos or slanted comments about the situation). Generally, ANI incidents only sanction the person who was the subject of the complaint, rather than the person who did the most "wrong". The ANI incidents do not investigate actions of all involved (which is often tedious), only the person who is the target of the complaint is likely to get investigated and blocked. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia as homepage

i don't want wikipedia as my home page. i did not request it and it keeps popping up everytime i go online. how can i get rid of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.176.166 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not responsible for making it your home page; so this is a general knowledge question rather than a question of how to use Wikipedia. They may be able to help you at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Tell them there which browser you use and which page you would like for your home page. —teb728 t c 08:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About FAHRENHEITº magazine

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheitº_(magazine) is online but needs "reflinks", unfortunately I have tried several times to apply them but I haven't been luckier at all, I hope you can orientate me about how to use them, I have read the the section but I cannot understand "how". Thank you in advance. --Dan Prior (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the first one for you using the Template:Cite web All parameters, horizontal format, although I deleted unused fields. Many of the fields can be picky, so previewing is highly recommended. Dru of Id (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it does not sounds so complicated, I will try to do the rest by myself, do I have to contact the person who added the template with the indication about the quotes when I finish, so he can delete the message? Best --Dan Prior (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once there are no bare urls, any editor may remove that template, as it will no longer apply. It is not one that limits who may do so, as long as it has been resolved. Dru of Id (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing request tag

Please advise whether I as an editor should remove this request tag after completing a copy editing project, or whether someone else does it. Sometimes I remove it myself, so it does not continue to appear as if the project is waiting for someone to tackle and so that it is removed from that long list of copy edit requests, but sometimes I cannot because the tag is not accessible to me (such as with the "Red" article I just finished copy editing). What should be done? I cannot seem to find an answer among all the helps and tips. Thanks in advance for some instruction. --Remotelysensed (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you have addressed the problems that a tag is drawing attention to, then you should remove the tag. You can remove the tag by editing the lead section - in this case it is a {{Spacing}} tag, one I've never seen before.

Perhaps those links would be better as a three-column or four-column list? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help please on how to get a table back!

Help please! This is NOT vandalism - I was genuinely trying to do something to the article List of chocolate bar brands in the way of tidying its presentation. When I tried it, I seemed to lose the table format! How can this article go back to being a table, please? Any advice will be much appreciated. Thank you in advance for any help here, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it in this edit. You removed the top part of the table markup. I just pasted that part from an older revision back into the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and I've corrected a link that your edit broke. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Project Gutenberg

Where a book has been digitised by Project Gutenberg (PG), is it acceptable to link images into Wikipedia pages? To avoid having to download and upload to Wikicommons, I would prefer to simply embed the link to the image file at PG. There are no copyright issues (original publication 1897, PG licence applies to the electronic version). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin of Sheffield (talk • contribs) 12:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't hotlink images— either upload to Wikipedia or Commons. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feared as much. Down/up will almost certainly get blocked by our firewall. Thanks anyhow.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is already a bot which can do the work? Sorry but I cant find one right now... --McZusatz (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium - History of Louis de Potter - Data quality

Dear Wiki Volunteering Team,

There are 3 pages about my ancestor Louis de Potter, one in English, one in French and one in Dutch.

Each of them contains discrepencies (EN/FR/NL) which I cannot correct due to diffetent contributors' opinions.

During more than ten years, I have throughly studied his life with our family records and my personal archives.

During the past 3 years, I wrote a detailed book about him togethar with a team of reputed senior history experts.

This book about Louis, with over 500 precise references, was published and widely distributed in Europe and the USA.

I then tried to improve the Wiki pages and was each time "overruled" by a user who would erase the proposed changes.

How should I do to harmonize the 3 pages and improve quality? I am convinced of my data accuracy and prepared to be challenged on each line, but not silently overruled by persons with avatars.

Is it possible to create a more transparent history group rather than contributors called 'Boing!' or 'Revenger' or 'Prince'?

I believe in a dialogue with persons who mention their real name and topic credentials for better data quality/dialogue.

Could you please help connect with the persons in charge of the "Belgium project" and start from there? Thank you beforehand.

Best wishes to Wiki,

Nic de Potter, history expert on Louis de Potter MBA Informations Systems Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas de Potter (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any dispute about the article in English Wikipedia, I would expect to see it at the article's talk page, but there is nothing there. Where are the disputes about your edits? Your own knowledge and research is not permitted on Wikipedia, see WP:OR, but if you can provide references to independent reliable sources I am sure that other editors will listed to your suggested edits. As for the Dutch Wikipedia, that is totally separate and any problems needs raising there. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Nicolas de Potter shows all your edits to the English Louis Joseph Antoine de Potter were made 26 December 2011. The page history [1] does not show the usernames you mention. Many of your changes are still in the article. Some of your changes were appropriately reverted, for example replacing the infobox image with a non-existing image, and writing some names in all capitals like POTTER de DROOGENWALLE. Under "Languages" in the left pane are also listed Danish and German. Editors are not required to mention their name or credentials. See Help:Using talk pages for how to discuss an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TeX formatting for maths articles - help needed.

Hi, I've just started editing Phase retrieval, and the modulus signs look very strange within the <math> tags. The same code works fine in LaTeX and in other mathematics articles (such as absolute value), so I'm a bit confused as to how to sort this one out. Also, there is no spacing between the f and the bracket of f(x), which due to the font looks awkward. Anyone more familiar with this ? Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:VPT.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetooth spam

Pardon my creating new topic this way, but it's the only way I've found to leave this message.

In the article Bluetooth (comm protocol), someone has cleverly hidden their name and the message "add me on facebook" to the text of the section "Security overview. I can easily manually delete the insertion, but that would not add the vandal's name to any watchlists, or whatever is appropriate. From this handheld, I cannot reach the "Edit History" page, or edit the "Discussion" page, which are issues with the software of the "mobile view" which I think should be addressed. Since there are no topics on the "Talk" page which haven't been archived, I coudn't put my comment there, where it belongs (sorry). In the mobile view, at least on a 2" screen, the jigsaw-globe logo eclipses the "edit" and "history," and sometimes the "talk" option, as well. I can highlight a selection, but if I click it, I find myself at the "featured article" page: usually quite interesting, but unhelpful when I'm on an obsessive/compulsive mission to copyedit or to revert vandalism. Ragityman69.171.187.14 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sign of a message mentioning facebook on the rendered page, its html source or its wiki source. What exactly do you do to see this "cleverly hidden" message? Are you sure it isn't some feature in your browser, for example caused by the character '#' which is sometimes interpreted as a hashtag? In Wikipedia and many other places it is used for section linking, for example to the preceding section #TeX formatting for maths articles - help needed. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the User:ClueBot NG already solved this. --McZusatz (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. I saw the article had not been edited since long before the post here so I didn't examine the edits. If you still see the vandalism then purge the page or bypass your cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I don't believe it to be a cache/purge issue, because I've never viewed the article before. I believe I see why it hasn't been noticed. When I switch to the "desktop" or "normal" WP, it's not there! I was not aware a change could be made in one version which would not be automatically mirrored in the other. What I am seeing, inserted in section 8.1, "Security, Overview," in ONLY the "Mobile" version, paragraph 3, after the second sentence("While Bluetooth has its benefits...", the request "Jordan Hay, add him on facebook." I didn't spell it out before, assuming we'd all see the same text. Surprise,surprise, as Gomer would say.

Rags69.171.178.18 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As McZusatz showed it was reverted in [2] 18 hours ago, in the same minute as it was added. Pages are cached by our own servers for performance reasons. Wikipedia is a top-10 website run on a small budget. Readers, especially unregistered users, are sometimes served a version which is not the latest. This can happen even if they have never visited the page before. If you edit the page then you would get the current version without the facebook message. The procedure at Wikipedia:Purge should force the current version to be displayed for a reader but I don't know how it works for mobile devices. The problem with seeing old versions is most common if you view a redirect like Bluetooth Wireless Protocol instead of Bluetooth. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in information in the article about Edward Brian (Ted) Seago

In the text it is written " advised on camouflage techniques for Field Marshal Auchinleck, with whom he had a lifelong friendship." Should be :Field Marshal Harold Rupert Leofric George Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis. Please see " Alex, the life of Field Marshal Earl Alexander of Tunis" by Nigel Nicolson, 1973. Best Regards

Doc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.10.239 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is good information, but this issue should be raised at Talk:Edward Seago. --Jayron32 15:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luminato festival Wikipedia entry

Good morning,

In full disclosure, as to not infringe on Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines for organizations, I am an employee of the Luminato festival (a festival of arts, creativity and culture) in Toronto, Ontario. Luminato's wikipedia page is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminato

There are major updates required to this page (IE. there is a staff listing including the festival's past Artistic Director, which still notes that he works with the festival). There is somewhat confidential information included in the current page, that should not be included (IE. Festival Advisory Committee Members - note this Members list is greatly outdated).

Also, the last festival this page appears to updated with is our 2010 festival.

We as an organization will not go in and make the necessary updates, as we respect Wikipedia's processes, but we ask that someone amongst your editorial volunteers or board assist with this.

For reference, in August 2011, we began requesting update assistance on both the "Talk" tab of the Luminato Wikipedia page, as well as in the "WikiProject Toronto" page, and have not yet received a helpful response.

We appreciate your assistance and attention.

Kindest Regards, Allison Saretsky Interactive Marketing Manager, Luminato Festival — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.121.214 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, I see your comment on the talk page. The only thing that you might want to add on the talk page is where the information on the change in staff could be found, either on your website, or preferably something from a newspaper or other source...Naraht (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a page is out-of-date you can tag it with Template:Update : just edit the page to place {{Update}} at the top. That helps people find it to update it, and lets readers know. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for being so forthcoming in declaring your affiliation to the festival. Not many people in a similar position do, which results in headaches all round! Brammers (talk/c) 13:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons

Resolved

Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can some admin please move this file to commons? Thank you --McZusatz (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are new, I took the liberty of putting a template on your talk page. If you make your request there someone will be along to help you.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you may not be around for several days. I figured an administrator would want to know the problem.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My article draft is ready. How long will it take to be published ?

Draft of my article is ready. What should I do now to get it published. Explain me Step-by-Step in Detail.. I am totally new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas11004315 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Vikas. The full process for submitting the article can be found at Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. I would recommend reading the section on core issues, ensuring that what you have written is ok. Once you are happy with the article, place {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} at the top of your article. Someone will shortly review your article and either move it into the mainspace (publish it) or decline it and give you advice on improving it. Best of luck. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add birthday

Is it possible to add a specific birthday to the main page " On this day..." ?

I just want to add so that my wife's birthday shows up for just one day - just for a suprise for her .. is this at all possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzy p12 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that's not possible. Wikipedia is read by millions of people every day; if we added every birthday, the main page would be incredibly long. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If she is notable by Wikipedia's definition, then yes; but otherwise, sadly no. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think David read the question properly. It's about Wikipedia:Main page#On_this_day... If she satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) then she could get a Wikipedia biography and perhaps be listed in a place like February 16#Births, but she wouldn't get on the main page. The main page gets millions of views per day and content has to be restricted. Wikipedia has millions of articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

I have several questions. I am a bit overwhelmed by all of the instructional text

1)- Where to I post an article I want to have accepted? I presume it has to be reviewed first, correct? 2)- How to I upload 2 photos to the article?

I registered with Wikipedia under the name general1234. I am uncertain of my status. On 2-12 I responded to an automatic email that was suppose to confirm my account. I can't find where my account is listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by General1234 (talk • contribs)

To submit a new article to Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. That will allow you to write up a new article, submit it, and have it reviewed by a more experienced editor. To upload new files, there is a similar page which you can find at Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is registered and you have correctly enabled email. At Special:Preferences (linked on "My preferences" at top of any page) you can see some information about your account. It's optional whether to create a user page for your account at User:General1234. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PrimeHunter. 1)- If I post an article at User:General234 will it be reviewed there for submission? 2)- How do I post photos to this specific article? I am not clear about what Wikipedia Commons is. If I post photos there do they get linked to my article somehow? 3)- I have a formatting issue that is best looked at to be best understood, so I would like an editor to look at it before it is displayed to the public. I would also like to post the article and the photos at the same time. The photos are my photos. I own them. Thanks General1234 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by General1234 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page User:General234 is a Wikipedia:User page. It is for information about you as an editor and/or for notes to yourself. Please don't post a draft article there. For how to create an article see Wikipedia:Your first article. For how to upload and use photos see Help:Files. —teb728 t c 07:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

editing of pages in Hungarian Wikipedia

Dear Helpdesk,

I would like to express my concerns regarding the policy of editing pages in Hungarian Wikipedia. There are some self-appointed admins who must approve every single instance of editing. I believe this is in contradiction with the basic guidlines of Wikipedia, the *free* encyclopedia. This policy in Hungarian Wikipedia is even more worrying as these self-appointed authorized people accept or reject changes often on an ideological basis. The Hungarian Wikipedia is therefore very far from being free. Please consider this case and demad that this policy of approval should cease as soon as possible because it is hurting the basic guidelines of Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards, Boci33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.89.196 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but we have no say on what policies are in place at the Hungarian Wikipedia. Each project sets their own rules and guidelines. If you have any questions about the English Wikipedia, however, we'd be happy to help. TN X Man 17:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing we can say is that no admins are self-appointed. Wikipedia:Administrators have to be given their user rights in all languages. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user is referring to WP:Flagged revisions or WP:Pending changes, one of which is in use on the Hungarian WP. Those users also require that right to be given to them, I'm pretty sure.- Purplewowies (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dana Gibson illustrator

Sir: Can you tell me if the above artist's works, namely the Gibson Girls are in Public Domain or are they still copyrighted, and if so who holds the Copyrights? 216.139.112.137 (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Feb 16, 2012[reply]

This question would be more properly asked at the reference desk. The Help Desk is primarily for the assistance of editors with technical problems editing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.92 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Ammendment To The American Constitution Page

There is an inappropriate text at the top of the Wikipedia article for the 2nd Amendment.
I tried editing the article myself, but was unable to locate the text. Please see below:

"everything about USA is stupid only americans like it mexicans dont"

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessmoore 84 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it by removing {{USgunlegalbox}} from Second Amendment to the United States Constitution but I can't figure out what's wrong with the template. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. The article vandalism was reverted well before your change, but may have gotten hung up in the cache. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. First time that's happened to me. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

editing reference question

Hi. I don't understand the comment on this article not being accepted. The book is described in general terms and the link to it is given and the same for the petition and the link is given, and the only quote on immunotherapy's effectiveness is referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlemke (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the "History" tab at the top of the page of the article you are having a dispute over, you can see every edit, including yours and any after yours that may have undone your edits. You should, instead of raising the question here, start a discussion at the "discussion" page for the article(click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page when you are viewing the article you want to discuss) and then invite the person or persons who reverted you by leaving a note on their user talk pages (click the "talk" link next to their name when viewing the article history page). I hope that clears things up for you! --Jayron32 23:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference does not mention Sanderson, the book, or the petition. All facts in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable by references to reliable sources. The references that establish the notability of the subject must be independent of the subject. By the way what is the subject?! The book? the petition? cancer generally? —teb728 t c 06:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]