Help desk
< August 13	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 14

Question about posting new articles

Hello,

I just created my first article and submitted for review. It's currently in my sandbox, marked as under review. I see that it can take a few weeks or even over a month for review. Can I work on and submit a second article while the first is being reviewed? I'm not sure, because my sandbox contains the first article, and I can't seem to find a way to create a new sandbox "page". Do I have to wait until my first article is either approved or rejected and moved from the sandbox before I can work on my second article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie S3704 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can create as many drafts as you like. To create a draft page called foobar (replace with the name of your article) in your own userspace create the page User:Stephanie S3704/Foobar. You can also use the Draft namespace, in which case create the page Draft:Foobar. SpinningSpark 00:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the old draft to User:Stephanie S3704/Ulticom. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie S3704 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Marshall (actress)

Hi there,

I am writing in regards to the page "Hannah Marshall (actress)" as the page is not developed. She is cited in several links on the page and her recent successes in The Infinite Man, Packed to the Rafters and ANZAC Girls and now NCIS in America should require an update of her material. I am happy to help provide anything you might need but would love to have a more detailed page of one of NZ's top actresses. There is a link to Hannah Marshall the fashion designer but it needs to be made clear she is a separate and successful individual.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raftersfan1 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page Hannah Marshall (actress) does not exist at all, rather than not being developed. You can suggest an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles or write a draft yourself and submit it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. In either case, you will need to show that she meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). SpinningSpark 10:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the page a little Gioto (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Terminology

Hi, I would like to formally protest the biased use of the term 'Pro-Russian" on the Eastern Ukraine page. This page does not include any information about the current government being Pro-Nazi, nor about the Genocide of the Eastern ukrainian People.

There is no such 'group of people' which one would classify as "Pro-Russian" they are in fact Ukrainian Citizens and have been since the inception of Ukraine as a county. To label these people as "Pro-Russian" has in fact started to create what is being referred to as "rusaphobia' and both serve only to divide a country which is in a civil dispute and to create fear on a nation which through the OSCE has been shown and reported there have been no border violation by Russia, no Shelling into Ukraine from Russia nor have there been boarder violations.

however, there is indisputable proof the Current Pro-Nazi Regime is in fact performing Genocide on their own people, going so far as to use illegal weapons (White Phosphorus which can melts through a persons jawbone, cutting the legs off an activist on the city's steps, nailing a three year old to a cross in front of his mother and then dragging the mother around the township square 3 times (3 kilometers) till she was dead.

There are human atrocities being committed every day by this regime. And we have the video to corroborate it.

This is a biased page on Wikipedia and I would request a page whose terminology can be verified and who facts can be corroborated by a third party such as those in align with the mandate of Wikipedia. Until such time, I ask this page be taken down.

With all do respect. eossipov - Journalism is writing about something someone doesn't want others reading about. The rest is just gossip. - Albert Einstein. 03:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Elaine Ossipov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eossipov (talk • contribs) 03:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reading after "pro-Nazi". Complaining about bias with an even greater display of bias of your own does not make a convincing case. SpinningSpark 10:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, for long years after the Great Patriotic War, the USSR maintained anti-fascist organisations and created the appearance that it was standing against continued fascism in the West. I wonder if this has penetrated into the general consciousness and created a sense of "they're against us, so they must be pro-fascist"? Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody have a link to this article, and the disputed edits? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

Eastern Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SpinningSpark 11:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions

As I am a new user I have a few questions:

Is the wiki markup similar to HTML? What is "nowiki"?

I need help with learning the wiki code or markup. --1999sportsfan (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimarkup is similar to HTML, but not the same. WP:Tutorial and WP:Cheetsheet may help. The "nowiki" tags are used if you don't want something to be Wikimarkup, but want it to be plain text. For example, normally putting the text "Elephant" in double brackets produces Elephant. However, with "nowiki" tags, you get [[Elephant]]. Click "edit source" to see how I did it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of HTML will work in wikitext, see Help:HTML in wikitext. However, wikimarkup is preferred unless there is no equivalent. SpinningSpark 09:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why is my article still marked for deletion?

Why is my article still marked for deletion, when its been corrected so that all now lives up to Wikipedia criteria?

I can see my changes are saved, however it doesn't change the doubt about the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseVind13 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you are talking about Mikkel Hess. It is still marked because the deletion debate for the page is still open. At the moment it looks like it is going to be deleted. If you have anything to say in defence of the article you need to say it now on the deletion debate page. By the way, you already had an answer to this further up the page but seem to have ignored it. SpinningSpark 09:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the new user a welcome box on her talk page - it is frankly a bit poor that a new editor can create an article, someone nominates it for deletion, and come to the help page twice before anyone gets round to actually offering a welcome. DuncanHill (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to welcome new users. You are not so welcome to criticize others for not doing so. Frankly, I considered providing the user with a link to the deletion debate of the article and encouraging her to take part to be far more urgent and useful than a welcome message with lots of links to pages that do not immediately help with her problem and reading them might just succeed in distracting her long enough that she is not able to take effective part in a debate that could close at any moment. Thank you. SpinningSpark 11:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the URL of a redirected Page

Dear Experts,

We have an official page for our institute as mentioned below.

Great Lakes Institute of Management : LINK 1

We have a campus at another city named Gurgaon in India and we were having an old page for this as under

Institute of Energy Management and Research : LINK2

Today we have redirected the old page(LINK2) to the new one(LINK1) and the old link now displays the updated information from the official page. We have done this using #REDIRECT method.

The issue which we are facing that the old link (LINK2) URL requires to be changed and we want anyone going to LINK2 should permanently redirected to official page (LINK1) and LINK2 not visible anymore.

Could you please help us in managing this.

Regards,

Ajit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmaster ajit (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you would like the Wikimedia servers to set up a URL redirect for a single Wikipedia page to suite your business needs. The answer is no. We don't have the ability to do that as Wikipedia editors anyway, but the developers would certainly refuse if asked. By the way, it is not your "official page" at all, it is our encyclopaedia article. SpinningSpark 10:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...it is our encyclopaedia advertisement feature." would have been more accurate. - X201 (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit, you seem to be under the misapprehension that it is possible for a Wikipedia article to be your official page. It is not possible. A Wikipedia article does not belong to you, and you have no control over its contents. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed editing a existing topic

Hello all,

I am new to the editing pages of Wikipedia. I am no IT expert and am a bit shy in trying to change anything in case I delete a page. I need to improve one specific page and I have a complete article that has been published in paperversion in an encyclopedia. Is there anyone who can edit the text the i wrote in such a way that it can replace the existing text currently on Wikipedia? Thanks for any help provided

Ivo Snijders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Parismou (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before we can do that, we need to know the copyright status of the dead tree version. Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted material. Which encyclopedia is it published in?--ukexpat (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale replacement of an existing article is very seldom the way to work here. You are much better off making incremental improvements to an article, adding neutral, reliable sources as you go. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New article or split existing article?? Two radio stations using same name.

Got a rather unusual situation here and not sure how to proceed. There is an existing article for KZEP-FM, which recently changed format in San Antonio. The confusion lies in this change. There are now two stations in San Antonio using the name "KZEP", however, they are under two official call signs. When KZEP-FM at frequency 104.5 changed its format from classic rock to urban contemporary, it also moved its original classic rock signal to its translator at frequency 93.3, with the official call sign of K227BH. However, that station now at frequency 93.3 is also known as "KZEP" on the air, and per articles that I can cite, is referred to as "KZEP-HD2". The new urban contemporary signal being broadcast at 104.5 is known on the air as "Hot 104.5", but officially does still use the call sign KZEP.

To me it's fairly obvious that the article KZEP-FM needs to be cleaned, but I'm unsure which of these two options is the best way to go. Should I "split" the current article into two sections, one for the current urban "KZEP-FM" at frequency 104.5 and another for the classic rock "KZEP" at 93.3; or would it be better to write a completely new article most likely titled "K227BH" for the classic rock station, and add disambiguation links as needed to both articles??

Your feedback is appreciated. -- Creed90952 (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're separate stations, so I'd say that we need to create a new article and add a hatnote to the existing article. But which one should be created anew? My first suggestion is to check sources from the FCC to see which one they consider to be the old station and which one they consider to be new, comparable to Succession of states in international relations. Once we know which one they consider to be the old station (if this can be ascertained), the existing article should be reshaped to cover just that station, and we should then write an article on the new station. No idea what to do if they don't state which station is old and which is new. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the advice. Since the rhythmic station has kept the call letters KZEP, I think it will be best to re-write the existing article KZEP-FM to solely reflect this rhythmic station, and copy most of the history over to a new article for the classic rock station. Will be working on getting these articles written shortly, thanks again for the feedback. -- Creed90952 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the classic rock station is now covered at K227BH.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest golf courses or time line

I do not see Highland links Golf Course listed in Truro Massachusetts 1892 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.126.90 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact title of the article you are referring to and what help is it you require? SpinningSpark 16:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Errors on Medcan Wikipedia page

Greetings,

I have recently been making edits to Medcan's Wikipedia page (Medcan Clinic), and was encountered by user - Unforgettableid. This user has refuted my edits repeatedly for various reasons, despite that they are completely in the wrong. The following is a list of my concerns:

- Wikipedia is about facts and is a modern day "encyclopedia". The comment on the Medcan page that outlines a Danish Meta Study doubting the value of "physical examinations" should not be allowed as this has more to do with "Physical Examinations" and not Medcan as an entity.

- The Danish Meta study states "it has cast doubt on the idea that annual physical examinations are useful screening tools". That statement right there implies the study is "unsure" whether physical examinations are useful screening tools. If Wikipedia is facts based, again, it should be removed.

If these 2 reasons are not sufficient enough to have these discussion points removed, we would like to edit our page to ensure there is no mention of "physical examinations", or the mention of them only pertains to services offered.

We understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be a medium for advertising, however, we do feel it does provide people a very earnest representation of out company. Therefore, we would like our page to be as factual and non-partisan as possible. But having comments on a study that is not generally accepted (casts a doubt), and have nothing to do with Medcan as a company is wrong and appears to be slander towards us.

I appreciate your time and look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrgalal (talk • contribs) 15:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Amrgalal: Nobody owns any Wikipedia pages. See WP:OWN. Having an account that seems to solely promote a company is criteria for blocking. See WP:BLOCK and WP:COI. Please do not bring content disputes to the help desk. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are in a content dispute with another editor, see the advice at WP:DISPUTE for guidance on how to proceed. CaptRik (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article on CPCs

Wikipedia should be factual, not opinionated. The page is full of everything CPCs do wrong, leaving no good words about what they do right. The first sentence is incorrect as well, as many centers DO NOT coerce women to keep their baby. Someone, please create a more factual page, instead of a biased one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.152.159 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you talking about? CPCS? Piguy101 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis pregnancy center. --erachima talk 18:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is, in my opinion (but I am Catholic), very biased. I have tagged the article. However, the place to discuss this is the article talk page, Talk: Crisis pregnancy center. Be careful in editing the article itself, because it is subject to discretionary sanctions intended to deal with disruptive editing due to the controversial nature of abortion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]