Help desk
< August 1	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 3 >

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 2[edit]

Internet Archive / web.archive.org[edit]

I once found the info / help page on how to use the three possible website archives, like Internet Archive / web.archive.org, but now trying to search the help pages for either "Internet Archive" or "archive.org" gives me lots of results, but none of these seem to be the one page I once found. Since it happens frequently that a page once existed and was accessible with its original URL, it happens regularly that the host no longer has the original URL.

I don't recall what the bot was named which finds such URLs by itself (could be giftbot²), because that way I was able to do some edits since I used the infobox of that bot (it places these info on the talkpage) to find the needed info (since not always the bot suggested web.archive.org is the one that should be used. I think the info of how to use these website archives should be easily found in the wikipedia:Help area. Cheers Dietmar Lettau (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dietmar Lettau: You want Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Pre-emptive_archiving. Wikipedia:Link rot might also be helpful. I think the bot you're talking about was likely User:InternetArchiveBot. Though you may also have been talking about the different archives shown by Template:Query web archive. Let me know if you have further questions or need clarification. Opencooper (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:WEBCITE and WP:WAYBACK. clpo13_(talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: 'Criticism of Facebook'[edit]

i have posted a user comment to this post called 'Removing Posts' and is drawn from personal experience. I seems to have disappeared. Can you tell me where I can find it or what has happened to it? It needs the image uploading, which I couldn't seem to achieve.

regards

anna.smith.thailand (user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna.Smith.Thailand (talk • contribs) 11:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's probably the "personal experience" part. Articles on Wikipedia are based on reliable published sources for verifiablilty. Britmax (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Anna.Smith.Thailand: the talk page of the article Criticism of Facebook is intended for discussion of the article and how to improve it. Your contribution to it was deleted by another editor, McGeddon, who was following the guideline at WP:NOTFORUM, and judged what you wrote to be more appropriate for a forum for discussing Facebook than for a discussion of the Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Click the "View history" tab [1] to see what happened. Your post was removed with the explanation WP:NOTFORUM. Click it to see what it means. Articles should have material published by reliable sources so your personal experience cannot be considered for mention in the article, and then there is no reason to post it to the talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusted

Talk: 'Criticism of Facebook'[edit source] i have posted a user comment to this post called 'Removing Posts' and is drawn from personal experience. I seems to have disappeared. Can you tell me where I can find it or what has happened to it? It needs the image uploading, which I couldn't seem to achieve.

regards

anna.smith.thailand (user)

I want my text back you snobby ******. Please email it to me then I will close my account you pompous *****

and never ever use you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna.Smith.Thailand (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of the previous section, where it was explained why your comment was removed. Pppery (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna.Smith.Thailand: I combined your post with the previous section. Your text is easy to get back. Click "Contributions" at the top right of any page to see a list of your edits. Click "diff" to see your changes in an edit, or the time stamp to see how the whole page looked. Another method: I posted a page history link [2] where you can click "prev" or the time stamp at the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, accounts cannot be closed if you mean deleted, but you can just stop using it. See also Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent by Semi-protected account[edit]

I was sent a message, which I could not reply to because it is a semi-locked account. He decided to change an edit I made, which I had received confirmation from a personal source. However, I could not reply to him because of that. Please address as to why he can edit, message, and tell me how wrong I am but it does not allow for me to do the same. My information did not violate any copyrights and it was verifiable, especially within a few seconds of change from the major networks, even though i have verified sources with my background.

Thanks, Matthewwillson29 (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matthewwillson29. I assume this refers to your edit on Iván Nova and its subsequent reversion by A guy saved by Jesus. Firstly, claims must be verifiable rather than true to be in an article, you didn't provide a source. ~~Secondly, I am not sure what you mean when you talk about a semi-locked account — you should be able to~~ You can discuss the edit on the article's talk page (Talk:Iván Nova). A guy saved by Jesus left a message on your talk page explaining why they reverted your edit. I hope this clears up any confusion, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Matthewwillson29: Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that our content is based on information already published by reliable sources. Your edit [3] gave no reference and had no edit summary. Users are not allowed to use personal knowledge and private sources. The burden of proof is on the user who wants to add something. Others don't have to disprove it to revert it. User talk:A guy saved by Jesus was semi-protected for a month by an administrator due to disruption. You can see some of it by clicking the "View history" tab and look at the gross edits by the multiple "Jasonski" accounts. The semi-protection seems very justified. You can edit semi-protected pages when your account becomes autoconfirmed after at least 4 days and 10 edits. You can reply now on your own talk page with {{Reply to|A guy saved by Jesus}}. If you use this code in a signed post then the user will be alerted, like this post alerted you. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Reply to|PrimeHunter}} {{Reply to|@Crh23}} Thank you both for your responses. I understand the concept of sourcing, I do it everyday. I did not know about the Reply HTML code. This will help, anytime I tried to access talk to chat with him, it said his profile was Semi-protected and the autoconfirm had to be completed, it wasn't a matter of me editing his page, just trying to message him. There needs to be some way to unlock his profile if he provide a message to message him in return, but keep any information about him other un-editable or editable with approval, meaning it only goes live once they have reviewed and approved the edit to their own page. Just suggestions.

Matthewwillson29 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewwillson29 You can start a conversation with anyone anywhere, just by linking to their username (which templates like {{u}} and {{reply to}} do automatically). If their talk page is not available, the talk page of the article or your own talk page serve as perfectly good substitutes. For future reference, the {{reply to}} template is used without the tlx| bit at the beginning, like this: {{reply to|Matthewwillson29}} but without <nowiki>...</nowiki>. The tlx part stops it from actually working, and displays it as a link instead. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:364a:5350:3dd9:341b:28ed:d16a (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Refers to Vic's Ice Cream.

Resolved

.By David B. Eagleash (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can a new entry be made when the "title" is being used to refer to another organization by the same name?[edit]

Hi Wiki-peeps! I want to create an entry for One World Cafe in Halifax. It was a popular community center and award-winning music venue. https://www.facebook.com/OneWorldCafeHalifax/ Unfortunately, another business in Utah is already catalogued under that name. What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.89.165 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see WP:NCDAB. Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you could name the article One World Cafe (Halifax). clpo13_(talk) 18:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, IP user, we have many examples of articles about subjects with the same name: we put something in parentheses after them, such as a place. But if you are considering creating a new article, please understand that this is quite a difficult thing to do, and if you don't do it properly, your efforts may be wasted. I recommend you read Your first article carefully, and if you decide that the subject meets our criteria for notability, then use the article wizard to create a draft. If you do that, you probably won't have to worry about the ambiguous name, because when you submit your draft for review and somebody accepts it, they will sort out the naming. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying editors to comment on a sockpuppeting case[edit]

In a sockpuppeting investigation case, is it appropriate to send a message requesting comment (if relevant by first-hand experience) to the talk page of the latest editors involved in conflictive discussion with an editor now subject to SPI? Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baffling reference errors[edit]

So I was changing the citations on this article from a long form to a short form, specifically the "harvnb" style. At first everything seemed to be working smoothly, but now I'm getting multiple errors about names not being defined and <ref[/]> tags missing, even though everything is, to my knowledge, defined and clearly there. This occurred suddenly at this edit. Any help would be appreciated. Indy beetle (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The error was actually in [4] where you wrote <ref/> instead of </ref> four times. I have fixed it.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]