Help desk
< August 4	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 6 >

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 5[edit]

Using the book creator on wikipedia[edit]

Hello. I have been trying to build a book using the book creator but having problems returning to a book I created. First, I saved my book and downloaded an epub version to proofread offline. After this, I wanted to add further pages but was no longer able to do this. I recreated the same collection of pages but this time I did not save the collection as a book. To test how this works, I logged out to see if my collection would still be there when I logged back in. This worked, so I continued to add pages to the collection. However, the next time I logged out and back in, everything was lost! I could not even find my original book that I saved and downloaded previously. I clearly am not understanding the process, so any help would be much appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiammafe (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits which you have made are listed at Special:Contributions/Fiammafe. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this it? Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, thanks. But how do I add additional pages to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.107.180.73 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Click "open in book creator" and then carry on as before. I believe that manually editing the page and adding articles will also work. SpinningSpark 17:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Why didn't I see that before...? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiammafe (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable to put a WP:GARAGE article in your own userspace?[edit]

I know articles like that are deleted in mainspace but is it acceptable if you move the article to your own userpage and then request for deletion the redirect caused?Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep it there if you are working on it and it has a chance of becoming an acceptable article, but you cannot indefinitely keep junk. It might be speedy deleted as web hosting, or promotion, or as a fake article. Meters (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, a fake article would not be a speedy. but could still be deleted. Meters (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FAKEARTICLE. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about articles or essays? The above comments are correct, that userspace is not a suitable place to permanently store articles unsuitable for mainspace. However, the WP:GARAGE page is an essay. It is perfectly OK to have essays in your user space. If you have accidentally created an essay in mainspace then you should definitely move it and request deletion of the redirect. SpinningSpark 17:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The header mentions "article" so it seems the user is asking about an article which meets the definition of the Garage Band essay. Not very likely a new editor (double digit edits) is writing essays himself. Meters (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing down or deleting a site[edit]

How do we close down a site for an entity that no longer exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarij (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you are referring to a Wikipedia article. You don't need to delete articles about things that don't exist anymore. Wikipedia has many articles about things that don't exist anymore. The Roman Empire, Queen Victoria, and Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9, among millions of other things, don't exist today, but we still have encyclopedia articles about them. --Jayron32 12:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Whether an article should be deleted because the topic is not notable, the information in the article is unverifiable or on some other ground is a separate issue, but the fact alone that an entity no longer exists would normally be irrelevant to the consideration of whether Wikipedia should have an article on it. Providing the name of the article would make your question vastly easier to answer concretely. For a general treatment of deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solarij's contributions list suggests that this is about University of Indianapolis – Athens Campus. Maproom (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayron32 notes, notability is not temporary. Once something has been notable, it remains historically notable. In the case mentioned by Maproom, the real issue is not whether the article should be "closed down" or deleted, but whether it should be expanded. It probably should, and the stub tag is the request for anyone with additional knowledge to expand it. An educational institution that no longer exists but was once notable is historically notable. I suggest that the original poster also read the notability guidelines. Many Wikipedia editors do not fully understand them, but the examples given by Jayron32 illustrate historical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solarij has been steadily removing material from the article in a "slow delete".--Auric talk 22:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it to more or less how it was before Solarij started hacking at it - I fixed various errors and updated it to say it closed down. However, the article has no references, so it's notability is clearly questionable. Sources need to be located and added or it can be taken to AfD. I'll not be exercising either option as I'm about to go to bed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adding VIAF[edit]

How do I add a VIAF authority control to a publication on my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmccullough (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmccullough: Have you looked at the documentation at {{Authority control}}? If you had or have now and still have a question, please advise with the specifics of what you tried but did not work, and what you're looking to do. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help, it seems I am being attacked as a woman writer[edit]

I've had multiple flags on my page in one day, suggesting something more systematic than someone trying to maintain page integrity. The notation is that my page is for a minor poet. The fact is, most poets are minor while alive; very few become famous. The page does not represent a COI as it is unbiased in affect: all facts are cited. All poets are minor while alive. I am a midcareer poet with several books, award, fellowships or scholarships, and two edited anthologies with University presses. The credentials are on par with many other poets of the same career stature, and in fact, this smacks of a systematic attack on women writers. Since the credentials here are analogous to those of male poets of the same career stature on Wikipedia, this page should not be deleted. I posted on the Talk page, but I think the persons doing this are clearly biased against women and also have technological skills I do not. Before I start posting all over Facebook about what I believe is a gender based attack, please take a look at this and help resolve it. Thank you. Laura McCullough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmccullough (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people), and in particular, the section on creative professionals. Wikipedia determines whether a subject meets our notability criteria based on significant coverage in third-party published reliable sources, and the article currently lacks this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common and understandable for people to refer to a page about them as "my" page. However, the culture at Wikipedia strongly discourages this, mainly because we have had issue with editors who act like they Wikipedia:Own articles (see the link for our policy)

We discourage people from editing articles about themselves, because we strive for independent and neutral writing, something that is virtually impossible to do about oneself. We do have mechanisms in place (e.g. posting on the article talk page) for subjects to identify problems which we may have missed.

Wikipedia has a gender imbalance of editors, but this does not, in itself prove that there is a gender based attack. That can be investigated, but it is a serious charge, and should not be made lightly.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article in question, at the AfD page and at the editor's talk page. There is not one comment anywhere by any of our editors that has anything to do with gender. In fact it is Lmccullough who is using bullying tactics, threatening to damage Wikipedia's reputation if the editors here do not comply with her wishes. The article contains no references to independent reviews or news articles about this poet, and does contain information copy-pasted from other websites without copyright release, and so it is unacceptable in its current state. Whether a poet is male or female, Wikipedia will only accept an article if his or her poetry has been written about extensively by journalists, poetry reviewers, or other authors in established publications, and the article must include references to these sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not bite the newbie. I put a welcome message and some notes on her talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc - I think a little bit of "bite" is justified when the newbie uses threats of blackmail and patently false accusations of gender bias (which happens to be a rather hot topic in the "back rooms" of both en:WP and the WMF) in an attempt to force us to accept an article that clearly fails Notability. I fully agree with and support Anne Delong's response above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As explained elsewhere she got a completely negative response which didn't cut her any slack as a newbie. (I've done it myself a few times, so it happens.) She wrote elsewhere that she searched the internet, with what terms I don't know, but found a number of articles about women gap/hostile environment/whatever so even if that wasn't the case this time, she easily could interpret it that way. (And some articles/comments are quite graphic about various incidents.) She lost her temper and as an individual used to speaking her mind in the outside world and unfamiliar with various policies on threats, etc., she let loose. It sure would be helpful to have a short, fun video on the biggest No No's for when people register. I keep meaning to make one myself :-) At least will have to look and see if anything new and cool since last time I looked. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Yeager archive[edit]

Bunny Yeager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am the agent/archivist for the Bunny Yeager Archive. We terminated our contract with Schuster Galerie Berlin, but they continue to insert their website as the OFFICIAL Bunny Yeager website and list exhibits in Europe for her work that to my knowledge never took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edchristin (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Edchristin: You were reverted by Wikipedia editors because you removed material from the article without giving an explanation. The material you removed is cited to reliable sources. You should discuss the issue on the article talk page, but it is simply not going to be enough to claim you don't believe the exhibitions took place when sources say they did. I don't know about the "official website". Not sure how a person who is dead can have an official website, but presumably that was her official website when alive. It does not strike me as very relevant who your organisation now has a contract with. You should probably also read our conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from directly editing the article yourself. SpinningSpark 18:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Downs article[edit]

In the article there is a poorly written sentence. It is:

Their suspicions heightened when Downs had called Robert Knickerbocker, a married man and former colleague in Arizona with whom she had been having an affair upon arrival at the hospital to visit her children.

It sounds like she had the affair upon arrival at the hospital. Perhaps better . . .

Their suspicions heightened when Downs had, upon arriveal at the hospital to visit her children, called Robert Knickerbocker, a married man and former colleague in Arizona with whom she had been having an affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.25.202 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can be BOLD and edit the article yourself. SpinningSpark 18:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you haven't edited an article before, at least not from this IP address, here is a short guide: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing : Noyster (talk), 18:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting this. I have made the change you suggest. Maproom (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kritzman article[edit]

I created a draft of an article on Mark Kritzman on my user page, and when I thought the draft was ready for publishing I went ahead and published it as an article here -- Mark Kritzman. However, I have had multiple people tell me that when they search for the Mark Kritzman Wikipedia page on Google, the result that shows up is a link to the draft on my user page instead of the actual article. Is there a way I can fix this? Should I delete the draft, and if so, how can I do that so that it won't show up in any more searched? Thank you! 200Boston (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 200Boston, that is probably due to the searchengines cache memory. They store their links and it can take some time (weeks to months) for a low visited webpage to be changed in their hits. This will probably all turn out fine in due time. It would be best to wait it out. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience it doesn't take that long for Google to catch up to changes here - usually only two or three days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want search engines to index your draft work, you can add __NOINDEX__ at the top of the page. Scarabocchio (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outgrageously propagandistic article on Ikuhiko Hata[edit]

I have tried contacting Wikipedia before about this article. It is outrageously one sided and misleading. Some friends of mine attempted to change it, only to be incorrectly branded as sock puppets and banned from access. I wrote to Wikipedia about the problem, and was told to edit the article myself. I did this, and posted a clear explanation of the reason for the edits on the talk page. My article has now been completely vandalized. Almost all the comment added for balance (and important statements of information) has been removed without any explanation or discussion. The person who vandalized it has not responded to any of my comments on the talk page. PLEASE will you now stop this blatant use of Wikipedia for political propaganda purposes. EGeorgianaK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.107.174 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for enquiries on how to use Wikipedia. Your problem is better addressed on the talk page of the article concerned. Britmax (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Join in the discussion already taking place on Talk:Ikuhiko_Hata but remember to provide a clear explanation of what you believe is one-sided, and why then discuss it with other interested editors. Also it's not your own article and you have no special say on its content. See WP:OWN. CaptRik (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not vandalized, and your allegation that the article was vandalized is disruptive. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that a content dispute is not vandalism. (One edit was reverted as vandalism, but it was also not vandalism.) You are unlikely to get what would otherwise be reasonable issues about neutral point of view addressed by the claim of vandalism. There has been more bold editing, addition and removal of content, than discussion on the talk page. As suggested above, discuss issues of balance and point of view on the talk page, and withdraw any allegations of vandalism. There has not been vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]