Help desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

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 20[edit]

Query about deletion of all the editing i've done...[edit]

I edited a page (Gaddi Kutta) in past but now all it's content is deleted and i can't find it in deletion logs.I don't know why all the content was deleted as what i put was all legit as i use to have most of the Indian mastiffs some of them hard to find now a days. (may be some grammatical errors were present). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki ed red (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are clearly in the history, and were reverted in this diff with an edit summary of "Unsourced edits by Wiki ed red" - What you "know" from personal experience is not sufficient for Wikipedia, all the information you add should be supported by references to reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: Can we not keep his contribution and add a {{citation needed}} tag (strictly, together with Citation and verifiability maintenance templates category)?

Mahidant mastiff is also a close relative of tibetan mastiff as their environment of origin is similar(Himalayan range).^{[citation needed]}

- Rishidigital1055 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC on a WP:AFD discussion?[edit]

Are this kind of requests ok? As far as I understand, the procedure applies only to articles and the conduct of users. Avpop (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. It is certainly unusual, however, you are not correct that RFCs apply to only articles and users. They can be used to discuss policy pages also, or any page in the Wikipedia namespace. However, they are supposed to be used on the talk page of the page in question. So one could have, for instance, an RFC about an AFD, perhaps discussing whether it was being conducted properly, but an RFC within an AFD is just conflating two different processes. AFD already has a system for bringing these to the attention of interested editors. If the editor does not feel this is enough they may post neutral notifications on appropriate wikiprojects etc. Spinning Spark 11:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Literature[edit]

Reference help requested. Got the error message about my edit to add Brandan Chapman to the fiction writers list. I understand that the 'reflist' needs to be added somewhere, but I can't really find where. I do see that the citations I added are '1' and '2' when the citations before and after go in numerical order. So if I could get a clear explanation of where to add this reflist thing, that would help solve the problem. Thanks, Ragnosk (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ragnosk, you don't need to use ref tags on that page. You can simply supply the links that you're using as references after your article suggestion. Dismas|^(talk) 10:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mark melymick[edit]

Please explain why info page about Mark Melymick was taken down?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.90.220 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Melymick was deleted because it was created 10 June 2013 without any references of any kind on the article. It sat until 21 June 2013 and no one added any sources to the article. It was decided that all articles of living people of living people created after 18 March 2010 must have sources or they will be deleted and since the article never had any sources it was deleted. GB fan 16:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cannot log in!!!![edit]

Hi there,

I just had to create a whole new user name and profile because I couldn't log in under my old one. Wikipedia said they were sending me a password reset email, but it never came (which has happened before).

I want my old profile back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcolmannyc (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked your spam folder for the password reset? Is your email account the same as it was when you created the account originally? What is the original user name? (I see that you are using a new registered account.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Death Of Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Re your article on the "Death Of Marilyn Monroe", allow me to insert the following link........

http://www.williambranhamhomepage.org/lmonroe.htm

Allow the public to consider ALL aspects related to her death.

GL - Editor of the above referenced HomePage and link on the Death Of Marilyn Monroe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.16.131 (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Wikipedia includes information only from reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) and personal webpages are not considered reliable. --Jayron32 17:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying and school bullying problem[edit]

The bullying article keeps getting clogged up with material that really belongs to school bullying. Is there a banner I could use to request to editors to put school bullying material in the right place ? Just putting a note about this on the talk page is unlikely to be effective as many editors dont look at talk page.--Penbat (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A banner on the article with instructions to editors is not appropriate. Using {{also|School bullying}} might help a bit but the best solution is probably to use an edit notice. The linked page explains how to request an edit notice if you don't already know a friendly admin to do it for you. Spinning Spark 18:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can try this, ostensibly intended for readers, but also useful for editors.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a hatnote to the article as suggested by Wavelength. As Wavelength notes, a hatnote is nominally oriented to readers but is also useful to editors and is permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cheers--Penbat (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

while a banner on the article would not be appropriate, a special notice above the open edit box (like the one that pops up here on this page) can be placed if there is consensus, although they are rarely effective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. Open edit boxes are often not effective. (We get too much posting of personal information at the Help Desk that needs to be redacted, for instance.) However, hatnotes are visible to both readers and editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible it could be effective. I requested an edit notice for an article for a book because people kept adding story info from the film adaptation to it, and those kind of edits are practically down to zero at this point on that article. It's really a matter of how many people who edit the article catch, pay attention to, and understand the notice. - Purplewowies (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CODASYL Acknowledgement[edit]

One of the sources in the COBOL article is the CODASYL Journal of Development, which requests that any work that reproduces part of it begin with a rather lengthy acknowledgement (pp. iii–iv). However, it goes on to say that for shorter quotes the acknowledgement is not necessary. Although there are several references to the journal, none I believe are more than a "short passage". Is it still worth including the acknowledgement (like many others (mostly compiler manuals) have done) or is the citation in the article sufficient?

No, and if the article is breaching the copyright of the journal then the material should be removed. I have no view, and have not looked to see if it is, but that is the position. Text must be released under a free licence, if an acknowledgement is required (beyond the attribution in the reference) then it does not belong on Wikipedia in the first place. Spinning Spark 18:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using those materials as references (and indeed including short quotations from them) is perfectly acceptable "fair use" under US copyright law and Wikipedia guidelines, and does not require any acknowledgement.--ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, guys. The acknowledgement is not required, and the journal says that "Any organization interested in reproducing this ... in whole or in part ... is free to do so", so I'll follow your advice and leave it out. Thanks again! EdwardH (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable sandbox use[edit]

Dear editors: A discussion at WP:MFD led me to look up acceptable uses of the sandbox. I had a little trouble finding the information, which turned out to be at Wikipedia:About the Sandbox, although I'm sure I must have read this when I first joined Wikipedia. It basically says that if it's not nasty and not copyright, you can create it in your sandbox. Does that mean that it's okay to create a whole article on a topic that already exists in the main encyclopedia and keep it there for a long period of time? On other user pages, I believe that this type of content is unacceptable under WP:FAKEARTICLE. Are sandboxes an exception to this? Is there a policy page that covers this and mentions sandboxes specifically? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. The first sentence at your link says, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content". CTF83! 19:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found Help:My_sandbox too, and by following the instructions in that I can create User:CaptRik/sandbox. As this is in the user namespace I assume WP:FAKEARTICLE applies still therefore if the article is obviously not being worked on then it's fair enough to delete. I might be misunderstanding things though... CaptRik (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAKEARTICLE does apply, especially to POV fork/copies of existing articles created to maintain bad versions.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you have said pretty well agrees with my interpretation, but I seem to be the only one at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User:DVMt/sandbox who is expressing this point of view. Perhaps someone who has had more experience with MFD could check this out, so that if I am in the wrong in this particular instance I can remove my !vote. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a fake article to me. As TRPOD says, that policy in particular applies to POV forks, which this is. As to the other editors who say that the policy doesn't apply because it has a sandbox banner, I think that they are mistaken. If I were not required to assume good faith, I would suggest sock-puppetry, but I am required to assume good faith. In other words, never suggest that those who disagree with you are impersonating themselves when they may just be mistaken. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, everyone, and to Robert McClenon for contributing to the deletion discussion, which otherwise appears to have degenerated into a messy content dispute. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a professional wikipedia article[edit]

Good Day ma'am/sir,

How to create an article like this? Facebook

I have an article but I want to look like that :) What I mean is, the box on the right side.

Hope you will help me.

Thankyou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngeloFabia (talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Infobox. And good luck with the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start, take a moment to digest how to make proper wikilinks - I edited your message above to remove the full URL and use the wikilink [[Facebook]] to create the link to the article.--ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]