Help desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

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.

July 7[edit]

Reference problem[edit]

Hi there I have a problem with reference number 56 on the page Lupton family. Have I done something wrong? Thankyou Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.85.156 (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, in this edit. The |accessdate= parameter was specified as "July 7 2015". The citaton templates don't support that date format, they support "July 7, 2015", and "7 July 2015", and "2015-07-07". If an editor inserts an invalid date, or a date not in one of the supported formats, the error message is displayed, stating which parameter has the issue. DES ^(talk) 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page written by subject[edit]

I was looking at the pages for Mihkel Harilaid and his company Black Walk It was written by his employees and very inaccurate and self promoting. Is this allowed? Can I pay someone to write me one as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.75.36 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy on paid editing and our tems of use strongly discourage such editing, and require that it be opnely disclosed if it does happen. I will look over the pages you refer to. Thank you for letting us know. DES ^(talk) 03:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird has happened at that article. I had a look at it, found it excessively promotional, and making excessive use of upper-case. I started work by removing some of the excess upper-case, and saved it with the edit summary "reduced excessive capitalisation". But when I now look at what the edit history claims I did with that edit, I am shown as having added 1687 characters, including "Mihkel has pushed himself to become an industry leader". That really was not me. Maproom (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you started from a version before DESiegel's edits of this morning, and thus you reversed DESiegel's edits which had removed much of that material. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was possible for that to happen, at least not without taking deliberate steps to make it happen. Anyway — TheRedPenOfDoom has now done an excellent job removed the hype again. Maproom (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also re-removed the exact date of birth which you reinserted, Maproom. Please see WP:DOB. Perhaps that was part of the overlap. I suspect that with multiple edits going on, the edit conflict detection logic is not perfect. DES ^(talk) 13:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was any overlap: DES and AnomieBOT had finished editing by 03:46, while I was still thoroughly asleep. But I am credited with reverting the article to a pre-DES state which included the DoB. I did not add the DoB, or anything else visible. I know nothing about the subject and have read no sources on him. Maproom (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no overlap in editing time, you must have started your edit from an earlier version, not the then-current version. In such a situation, you don't get warned of an edit conflict, because there is none. You should, however, have seen a warning above the edit window, saying "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed". - David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translate[edit]

I have found a page in German how do I find it's equivalent in ENGLISH04:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)04:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)04:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)101.164.207.101 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the left side bar of every page in every language Wikipedia, there will be a list of other languages in which that topic of that page appears and clicking on the language name will take you to that article/policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if English doesn't appear in the list, it probably means that nobody has yet written an article on the subject in the English Wikipedia. There isn't any kind of automatic translation. --ColinFine (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Access from old browsers[edit]

Since WP changed the access to a secure https access, I can't read articles from an old browser like IE6, for instance.

Shouldn't be possible to redirect accesses from IE6 (or others) to a non-secure server?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.160.236 (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that is no longer possible, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#HTTPS_by_default. DES ^(talk) 13:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IE6 is no longer supported unfortunately and we are now a secure-only website. There no longer is a version of Wikipedia and friends that is accessible from a non-secure server. You should truly consider updating to something more modern, and/or encourage any system administrator of your system to do so. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the system administrator and I don't need anybody telling me that "IE is unsecure blah blah blah". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.160.236 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way, but the decision to use only connections with https and other security measures not compatible with IE6 has been made on a site-wide basis, and I rather doubt that it will be undone. See the discussion linked above for the reasons this chamge was made, and the objections that various people raised, to no effect. DES ^(talk) 17:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convolutional neural networks[edit]

How does one add references in MINOR CHANGE entry?

The ref I wish to add is: <Graupe, Daniel (2013). "Principles of Artificial Neural Networks", 3rd Edition, World Scientific.>

grauped — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grauped (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the question? What do you mean by MINOR CHANGE entry? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, I'm still not sure what you mean by minor change, but with this edit you added <ref></ref> to the article Convolutional neural network with nothing between it and then put the reference information in your edit summary. What you should have done was this: <ref>D Graupe, Principles of Artificial Neural Networks, 3rd Edition, World Scientific, 2013</ref>. See? the reference goes in between the <ref></ref> tags.

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref[edit]

I clicked it and posted the source, I don't know what else to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.203.157.228 (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. You left the beginning ref tag from the previous source, but deleted the actual source and the closing /ref. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 July 2015‎

Nature of a reliable source; Adding "living person"[edit]

what is a reliable source? I have references to all that is about the man. where do I add, "a living person"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Master Bob Jenkins (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Is this in reference to Frank E. Sanchez, Master Bob Jenkins? If not, to what article are you referring?

In general a reliable source is one that has a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. For most purposes, major newspapers and magazines are reliable sources. Books published by major publishing houses are usually reliable sources. Peer-reviewed academic publications are almost always reliable sources. Statements by the subject of the article and other self-published sources may be reliable for simple uncontroversial facts, and for the subject's own opinions, but are not usually reliable for value judgements or possibly controversial facts. Strictly speaking, it always depends on the specific source, and on what fact one is relying on the source for. A source might be very reliable for one sort of fact, but not for another. For ordinary biographical articles, news coverage by reputable news organization (printed or online) is the most commonly used sort of source, and will do nicely. Note that a source must be published so that other readers/editors could, in theory, verify the reference. It does not, however, need to be available free of charge, nor online (although if it is that is convenient). See the links above for more information.

Oh, a biographic article is marked as being about a living person on its talk page, by using the "living=Yes" parameter on the Biography project template. This will put the article in the proper category, and add a warning to comply with the Biographies of Living People policy (BLP). Does that answer your questions? DES ^(talk) 22:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two sources currently cited on Frank E. Sanchez, one is on http://www.guampedia.com which seems to be based on user-contributed content. If that is correct, this is probably not considered a reliable source. The other is to http://maotw.com/gmg/s/sanjitsuryu.html which does not indicate who writes or checks the content, but looks to me like an individual's personal product, helped out by user-contributed content. if so, that would probably not count as a reliable source either, unless the person is a reputable noted expert in the field. One may ask at the reliable sources notice board if a particular source should be considered reliable for a particular purpose. When posting at the notice board, always indicate what fact(s) in what article a source is to be used for. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable sources may be found through this search here. Please try to attribute your sources, not just include a naked link. For example, if you were to use Black Belt magazine, found through that search, provide the name of the magazine, name of the article in it, who it was by, the month and year of the issue, the page number and so on. The source you used in the article is not per se unreliable, but there's nothing about it to indicate it meets our standards. I have added two categories to the article, including living persons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]