Help desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

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 14[edit]

How do i see myself in wikipedia after publishing page?[edit]

I have written a page in the "talk" page on 13th,june,2013 but others dont see me in wikipedia pages as yet.My query is when would people see LORD REALTY PVT LTD in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LORD REALTY PVT LTD (talk • contribs) 05:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for promoting your business <--- click here. — The Potato Hose 06:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wikipedia it NOT an advertising service or hosting service, it's also NOT a directory. Additionally if you would like to have your company described in Wikipedia, read guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and notes about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, followed by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (especially self promotion). --CiaPan (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the user name LORD REALTY PVT LTD has been blocked.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

light-scopes[edit]

How do I get someone to create an article on Light-scopes? It will be in the same category as proctoscopes - surgical instruments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.170.37 (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Requested articles is the place to ask for a new article if you don't want to write it yourself, though I suggest that you first discuss your ideas with the subject specialists over at WP:WikiProject Medicine. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

councelling[edit]

hello i hav got my medical cut off 189.75 will i get mbbs sheet in councelling including the second or third round of coucelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.203.189.39 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information and sockpuppet accounts.[edit]

Hello, I'm looking for some help of how to deal with some users that are repeatedly adding information about so called "titular abbots" to articles about English Abbeys. User:Abbot gordon and User:Abbot of croyland

These titles are false: they are self-assumed. These people are calling themselves bishops, archbishops and all sorts of nonsense "his beatitude..." "his excellency...". They have no connection to the roman catholic church or to the former abbeys themselves and appear to have no formal or official religious training or qualifications. I repeat- these titles are self assumed.

Most of the time the additions are not referenced. When they are, its a crudely self-made website littered with spelling and grammar mistakes, and copied pictures found online. Eg. "Please Note: All those ordained by Most Rev Dr Michael Cox were given the title of "Marian Apostle" (MA) and this is part of ordination and cannot be revoked by no one. Once a priest - always a priest for life with title!"
-Cannot be revoked by no one. Not exactly inspiring faith in its factual accuracy... and rubbing in the fact these titles are self assumed not recognised.

Just to further stress how false these titles are, they added one saying they were "titular abbot of Croyland Abbey, Wellingborough‎"... which is a manor house and was NEVER an abbey!

My question is how to deal with this? I have been very gentle this far, correcting the articles and politely asking for references. But my corrections have now started to be reverted and the number of articles being affected is quite large. I'm not sure it's quite classed as vandalism, but its extremely disruptive and very time-consuming to correct.

Thanks for your advice --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like vandalism to me and should be reported to WP:AIV if they persist.--ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was mention in the subject line, but not the article, of sockpuppet accounts. Two registered accounts were mentioned that have similar disruptive editing patterns. Would CheckUser be in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abbot of croyland last edited in September 2012; the other editor started editing in May 2013. So no, Checkuser is definitely not in order; WP:SOCK issues are relevant only when two (or more) useraccounts are working together, or where an account has been blocked/banned (not the case here) and a new account with similar behavior appears. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abbot Gordon posted to my talk page, but posted at the top rather than the bottom, a mark of a newbie, but a newbie who is posting nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there is going to be any reasoned discussion between that editor and anyone else here. (I'd compare this situation to dealing with someone who is part of the sovereign citizen movement, for example). The editor just changed another article with the usual nonsense (which I reverted), and I just posted a final warning on his/her user talk page. The next (similar) editing of an article should result in one of us asking for a block, via WP:AIV. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit tag issue[edit]

The category Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit has a notation, largely correct, that it has a large backlog of articles. However, if an editor decides to work off the backlog by editing some of the older, less recently tagged, articles, the most common result is that the article looks fine, no apparent spelling, punctuation, or grammar errors. A check of the history then shows that the article has been edited since the tag for copy-edit was added. The issue seems to be that copy-editors are doing what Wikipedia has asked them to do, improving the quality of the articles, but not removing the tag. A properly copy-edited article that is tagged as needed copy-edit is, of course, better than an article that is correctly tagged as needing copy-edit, but the tag, and the resulting list in the administrative category, wastes the time of editors who are trying to clean up the encyclopedia. Can a request be included in the main category, and possibly the monthly sub-categories, reminding editors that, if they finish the copy-edit, they should remove the tag? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good suggestion, but the editors here at the Help desk almost certainly aren't the ones to ask about this, or to see it implemented. I suggest posting at a page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, where there are editors who will follow through on this if they agree that it's a good idea. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I appeal a "sock puppet" finding and semi block?[edit]

I was editing anonymously in good faith and got involved in an edit war. When I realized i couldn't reason with this person, I followed the rules and disengaged and reported the edit warring on the board per policy. The Admin just ruled that I violated the sock puppet rule and semi protected the page. I checked the rule and I don't see his point. I think he did what was easiest for him to get it off his desk. Nothing was done to the other side, which means that he has been rewarded for breaking many rules, and has limited participation due to his contentious editing.

How do I appeal this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.32.229 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems likely to me to be a WP:SOCK (or WP:TROLL) posting. The other edits by this 178 IP address (a) are tendentiously argumentative and (b) exhibit more-than-expected knowledge of Wikipedia's internal processes. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user here is using communist era propaganda on a page, while also refusing to recognize as a reliable source a history professor who has been invited to lecture at Oxford university in the U.K. and is also recognized as an authority on the subject in Poland. I think most people would consider that it should be the other way around.

The rule about IP's and sockpuppetry is here: “Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred. “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry#IP_sock_puppetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.33.133 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have XXX stuff written on the following link and I have no idea how to report it.[edit]

I was looking up bio-data on Billy Ray Cyrus's wife, and I found XXX-smut. I am an older person who does not know how to report it to anyone. Can you forward this to the proper channel, so the smut can be removed? Thank you. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tish_Cyrus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.75.94 (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was vandalism and was soon reverted. It's no longer on the page. Thanks for the report! Charmlet (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple English Wikipedia has a different administrative structure from the English WP. I've reverted the vandalism and left a note on the Simple AN for local admins to take appropriate action. Acroterion (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the reader ended up at at the Simple English Wikipedia is that it has an article (stub) on Tish Cyrus, and we (regular English Wikipedia) do not (so Google sends interested searches to the article that does exist). If I were an involved editor there, I'd probably push for a rule that they don't have an article unless the regular English Wikipedia has an article. It could save them a lot of grief, I think. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Simple English Wikipedia have the same requirements for sourcing and reliability as the English Wikipedia? If so, can a Simple English Wikipedia article be copied to the English Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their list of policies and guidelines, I'm not seeing verifiability or its equivalent. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]