Help desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

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.

September 4[edit]

C.E. Poverman[edit]

i have my article approved and published in wiki - now I wish to add a photo/info box to the right side of the page - what is the 1st thing I do Tvdockum (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it then add the infobox to the top. Places to add images are often in infobox templates. CTF83! 07:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvdockum: The template that you're looking for, as CTF83! only just suggests, is Template:Infobox author. The template will have a place to put the image in to it. As far as uploading that image, and others, see Wikipedia:Image tutorial. That said, a lot of work is still needed for that article and I'm frankly surprised that Timtrent moved it into the main article space. Dismas|^(talk) 13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for moving a draft to main namespace are very little to do with the additional work required to knock it into shape. They are, pretty much, the inverse of an AfD discussion. While I have often pushed a draft back for tidying work I make the judgement each time about whether the main namespace is the better place to do this. We neither expect nor require perfection from our new editors. We simply require articles which will probably survive a deletion discussion. So, Dismas, I thank you for your surprise. We should be surprised more often. Surprise is a great thing. Fiddle Faddle 20:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article mostly just needed a little prettifying - the tone and sources establishing WP:GNG were well above the standards of most newly created articles. Far better to have an ugly but NPOV and sourced article than a "pretty" ADVERT / unsourced fan page! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the explanation. I can see the point. Dismas|^(talk) 06:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk:Holy Child College of Davao[edit]

Rules and Regulations[edit]

Rules
Don't edit the Holy Child College of Davao wikipedia page
Only the Adminstrator wiil edit the Wikipedia page
Avoid to vandalism our Wiki page
Avoid to delete our wikipedia page

These rules are strict to follow it because if you not follow the instructions it will be a punishment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.77.181 (talk • contribs)

No there won't. Please read WP:OWN. The above assertions are obnoxious as well as absurd. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also doesn't currently have an article titled Holy Child College of Davao. It did, but it was deleted almost a year ago as a copyvio/promotional page. --Jayron32 12:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::And which article is this? Category:Holy Child College of Davao? An article disguised as a category. Or maybe Template:Holy Child College of Davao, all creations of User:Holy Child Student. And Draft:Holy Child College of Davao seems to be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The category has been nominated for deletion. The template is tagged for speedy deletion. The above assertions are a (poorly worded) illustration of article ownership, which is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User contributions[edit]

On my "User contributions" Page, some of the items are listed in blue; other items are listed in gray with a strike-through and italics (such as ~~this~~). See here: [1]. What does the strike-through represent? Is this something new? I don't think that I noticed it before today. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that the edit has been oversighted.--ukexpat (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits may have either been redacted or suppressed. These are two methods (also known, confusingly, for historical reasons, as REVDEL and OVERSIGHT) for removing edits from public view. The first can be done by any administrator. The second can be done only by a special group of functionaries. All of the edits that are struck through were to one article during one period, and an administrator removed the edits during that period from view because some of them were inappropriate, and should not be viewable even by viewing revision history. This does not imply that the edits by the OP were inappropriate, but that they may have been sandwiched between inappropriate edits. For more information on the removal of edits from public view, follow the links to the description. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't notice it previously because this was the first time that you edited an article that had to have this sort of special intervention applied. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

having neutrality of article checked[edit]

Hello, how do I go about having the neutrality of a recently posted article checked? It's heavily sourced from multiple sources, including many Wikipedia links for persons and places mentions; substantive language is quoted from other sources rather than asserted by the author. However, a note has appeared with possible questions about its neutrality. I'm not sure how to go about resolving this. Thanks very much! Swoodard2 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swoodard2, it would really help if you told us which article you're referring to. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, it would be easier to check the article if the multiple uses of the same reference were tidied up. I can see one used 9 times separately. Worth looking at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much -- Various people have helped clean up the article in several ways, and now I wonder how we go about fixing the issue flagged in the banner across the top, and then, when appropriate, removing the banner? Swoodard2 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Skövde[edit]

Hello!

I work at the International Office of Högskolan i Skövde (University of Skövde, in English). I would like to request the change of the name of the University of Skövde on University of Skövde because it is still wrong. Skövde University College is wrong.

There is a reference # 1 on the bottom of the page, but if you read the information on the link available in the reference, you will see that the name of the university available on UHR's webpage is University of Skövde! Please remove the name Skövde University College at the beginning of the page University of Skövde and Reference 1.

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards, Andrea— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.98.198 (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done in this edit.--ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An addition to the article on Saint Ambrose, which was submitted for review.[edit]

I submitted an addition to the article on Saint Ambrose for review on the views of Saint Ambrose in regard to the poor on 7/8/2014, with a possible revision on 7/11/2014 (most likely it was just a resubmissionBalenceinall (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC) of the same exact article on 7/11/2014). I have not noticed any response in the article on Saint Ambrose or in my sandbox or in the talk pages in which I also stated that I was submitting the article for review. When can I expect some response? My username is balenceinall.[reply]

This must about Balenceinal's contribution to the talk page of the article on Ambrose. Maproom (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see that you submitted a suggestion at Talk:Ambrose on 12 July. Nobody has commented, so I would suggest that you go ahead and try adding the content to the article. If anyone objects then it can be discussed further. Your sandbox is something that wasn't submitted for review, so I wouldn't have expected anyone to comment there. Looking at your sandbox further I see that you had tried on a number of occasions to submit it for review, but without success. The reason for the failure is that you have an unterminated reference. You have an opening <ref> tag, and everything from there until a closing </ref> tag is taken to be part of the reference. You don't have that closing tag, so the submission tags weren't processed. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, I see that you also have misformatting within your references, which is why they are not showing properly. You have opened with a "{{ citation", but not closed with a "}}". --David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates on information given in Wikipedia[edit]

Why is no date given on information added, provided etc in Wikipedia? This is a problem generally with all information given on the Internet. One never knows is something is new or old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.141.132 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general an encyclopedia should not include information that will rapidly become outdated. Potentially dated statements can be marked with the template {{as of}}. If you look at the history of an article you can see when it was last updated, and within the history the option "Revision history search" will invoke the Wikiblame tool to enable you to find out when (and by whom) a particular item of text was added to the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to write about someone on wikipedia[edit]

Hi, There are many famous personalities which are not yet covered on wikipedia. i want to know the procedure of how can we or anyoneone write about them.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.32.254 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing would be to open an account. It is free and more anonymous than editing via IP.

Next you should read the Cliffs Notes version of what is required for something to be the subject of a stand alone Wikipedia article. :Then, if you have access to the published sources necessary, then you can try the Wikipedia:Article wizard or the articles for creation process.

If you dont want to create an account, you can make suggestions via the "request an article" process - which is more likely to be acted upon if you are also able to provide links and sources.

Welcome and Good Luck! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article For Submission Needs Worked On[edit]

The winner of the latest LPGA golf tournament doesn't have a page on here. I submitted an article, but it hasn't been reviewed. Here is the page:

Draft:Austin Ernst

It was submitted on September 1, 2014. Thank you very much to whoever chooses to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.234.41 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without any reliably published sources your submission as it is will not be accepted. See the basic requirements for a stand alone article -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it hasn't actually been submitted yet. When you've addressed TRPoD's point about references to reliable sources, you could submit the draft for review by using the green button labeled: Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]