Help desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 1 >

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.

June 30[edit]

regarding the page name RAJNI TIWARI[edit]

Resolved

– Lourdes

hello , i have recently made a page titled "Rajni Tiwari" , although I have provided many references to the page yet the page says that "I doesnt contain even a single reference hence it may be deleted within 7 days" . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishraa1 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How Do You Create a User page within all the guidelines?[edit]

How Can I create my user page. I just created this account and hove no idea what to do. I have read every referenced article on it in Wikipedia and am very extremely confused. This page seems like it can help me ( It is called the Help desk on every article about articles about how to make articles I have gone to). I wanted to also create a draft for it before I made it live to hopefully run it with a volunteer and see if it was fine. But I got confused on the article to make drafts and all of the guidelines. Is what I am asking violating any of the rules and guidelines? I hope I haven't broken any here! Should I put references to these Wikipedia articles? Please help me here! I read above while editing this question about article that I should, so I will. Also, what is a template? Are these the wrong questions to be asking here? Am I doing anything wrong? Have I done anything wrong? Why is this so hard to understand? Is that question against the guidelines? Can someone explain why all these brackets? Am I allowed to just copu and paste links? let me know if how I put the links in is wrong, because as you (the reader/ whoever gets this) can see (or read) that I have no idea how to do this. I am impossible to explain things to,so I might need several answers or an entire article to explain to me why all these articles of articles on articles about making articles about whatever the article is on and what are all the rules in doing so. I hope I am not causing anyone any problems. Please help. I have tons more questions, but I don't know if they are answerable, or if they belong here, or what. Do any of the questions that I have asked here and am asking (this question) belong here? Are they against guidelines? Someone please help. As I said before, I will blankly post links and I know they are going to be posted wrong because an article posted on this subject said something about bracketing and some what, but I don't understand. Have I written this wrong? Well anyways, here are the links: 1.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ivan_Zarco/sandbox/Ivan_Zarco&action=edit&preload=Template%3AArticle+wizard%2Fuserpageskeleton&editintro=Wikipedia%3AArticle+wizard%2FWizard-New+edit+instructions+userdraft&summary=&nosummary=&minor=

2.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Where_to_get_feedback_on_an_article_you%27ve_just_created

3.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft

4.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Link#Wikilinks

5.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages.3F

6.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing

7.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Cheatsheet

I also have many questions about the user page and what I can put for links. I will need a personto help me.

             Ivan Zarco (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Ivan Zarco[reply]

P.S. Did I do anything wrong here, please let me know.

Ivan Zarco (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Ivan Zarco[reply]

@Ivan Zarco: Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. I can't see what you've previously written, as it was deleted, but it appears you created a promotional article, or a CV/Resume, on your personal user page. This page is not for hosting Wikipedia articlea, and also not an appropriate use of that page as it's intended use is to tell fellow editors a little bit about you and to assist your editing (see WP:USERPAGE.

We have an Article Wizard that will guide you through the process of creating a draft article and then submitting it for review before it's included in the encyclopedia. I strongly advise you to use that. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, so CV/Resumes are never appropriate content for articles. See the page Your first article for more explanation.

In order for an article to be approved, it must meet our notability guidelines and also have references for all the content. If you do not have these, you'll find you won't have much success if getting approval for the article to be included.

One suggestion is to read other articles on a similar subject that are already included in the encyclopedia and see how they are written and what sorts of sources they use. That should give you a good idea of what the expectation here is.

To answer some of your other questions, you're in the correct venue on this page to ask questions - I hope some of these answers make sense. Feel free to ask any further questions by editing this section and asking further questions. CaptRik (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what's the best way to publish an article on wikipedia[edit]

I'm new to Wiki, and am little confused. I want to submit an article to wiki. But I'm not sure about how to go about it. Is 'going through the article wizard' is the best way? Or, one can start with 'stub' way?

Regards, Dr. Dabby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dabby (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dabby You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. The wizard walks you through the process and creates as a draft initially, which provides some protection. If you create an article directly, it will be immediately subject to appraisal and possible deletion procedures Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Your first article. --CiaPan (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at my list of Wikipedia contributions, why are some grayed out with a strike through?[edit]

When I look at my list of Wikipedia contributions, most are listed with a normal date. Some, however, are listed with the date crossed out (struck through) and in gray font. What does that represent? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They have been WP:REVDEL'd by an Administrator as content viewable within your diffs would have contained something unacceptable. It's almost certainly not your contributions that are the problem, merely what would be displayed if you view that specific revision of the page. CaptRik (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, I've reviewed your contributions and don't see anything like what you describe. Can you point out the exact diffs? Lourdes 14:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xender Lourdes:, I see what he's referring to here Special:Contributions/Joseph_A._Spadaro. Look at the contributions at 02:45, 02:47 and 02:55 on the 29th June. Looking at the history of Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language you can see they are part of a large set of redacted edits. CaptRik (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They have in fact been oversighted. Admins can tell because even they can't see the deleted revisions. It's not so easy for non-admins to tell, but one giveaway is that there are no visible log entries for the deletions in the history of the page. Since the username was also removed, this can also be caused by stewards locking an account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CaptRik. Joseph, zzuuzz is absolutely right. The entires have been oversighted by an oversighter Mike V, but not because of stewards locking any account, but because of an editor forgetting to sign in while posting a new section. Although I know the editor's name, I shan't place it here. Not an issue with your contributions anyway. Lourdes 14:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I learned something too :-) CaptRik (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but ... I did not understand one word of the above discussion. So, can someone explain in plain English what this is all about and what this means? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the edits on 29 June... Just before you edited, someone edited without having logged in revealing their IP address. After they realized this, they asked (and Mike V responded) to make it so the ~~email~~ IP address couldn't be seen. All of the edits that included the IP address including yours up until that point were made inaccessible. This is shown in your contribution with the cross-out grey.Naraht (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case you wonder why this has been done, IP adresses are personal information - it allows to roughly know a computer's physical location, and it allows to track across multiple internet websites (which is a feature, not a bug; but still, there is a difference between "Wikipedia's webmaster knows your IP" and "anyone reading the page knows your IP").

I corrected you, Naraht. Hope you do not mind.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A serious issue[edit]

I noted this big mistake on Wikipedia. This mistake is that Template:Service award progress states that to proceed to next service award level a user needs to meet either the time or edit requirement. Whereas Wikipedia:Service awards states that a user needs to meet both requirements to proceed ahead. If the latter is true then the whole template will have to be changed. Can it be automated-the edit count and time count automatically updates. If what the template says is correct then it should say -

this is just rough data info

Currently, this editor has earned a Veteran Editor IV (or Tutnum of the Encyclopedia) service award.
To get to the next level, Senior Editor (or Labutnum), he or she needs to meet the editing or time requirement (requirement met earliest shall be considered)

Progress towards the next level (by edits): [ 0 / 4000 ]

That percentage bar shall come here along with percentage.

or

Progress towards the next level (by time): [ 0 / 30 days]

That percentage bar shall come here along with percentage.

--Varun ☎ 18:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble figuring where on Template:Service award progress it is stated that either requirement can be met: could you give a link to a page where it is incorrectly shown? It appears that the sandbox version does indeed say or, but this shouldn't be a major problem unless it is move to the main template. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this was the case but was fixed on the 12th of this month, try purging the page where you see the problem. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 20:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I thought we were all here to build an encyclopaedia. Apparently I was mistaken. ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who on earth cares? Give yourself whatever award you want; as long as it's not actively offensive or disruptive, nobody except you cares what's on your userpage. ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok actually i thought id tell u but its ok i dont use it! Varun ☎ 14:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Question[edit]

If I have a question about what cleanup message is needed for an article (in particular, one that was recently moved from draft space to mainspace by its author, but the question is general), is this the right place to ask? I suppose I could ask in a more specific place, but I don't know how widely watched other places are. In particular, if I think that an article is hagiographic rather than neutral, what cleanup message is in order? An overly promotional article about a company can be tagged as reading like an advertisement, but I have a BLP in mind instead. Non-neutral articles in Articles for Creation will be declined, but, I understand that once an article gets into mainspace, being overly promotional is not a basis for deleting it unless it is blatant enough to qualify for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. Some articles are ambiguous advertising, and some BLPs are hagiographic. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can specify whatever reason you choose using format: {{Cleanup|reason=Whatever reason}}; see: Wikipedia: Clarify the cleanup

Or are you looking for a specific template? From the list (here), {{peacock}} might do. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1904:9CA2:35F0:1D79 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Peacock' seems like the best one in the case in point. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how to log in without email if forgot password[edit]

I made a Wikipedia account to entre for wla. I feel that I can win the competition, but I forgot my password of my account and I have registered with an email. Is there any other way from which I can log in?

182.64.162.212 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. However, if you have registered an email address when you created an account, and your email account is still active, you can request that your password be mailed to you. What is wla? If you are having difficulty with English, we have more than 200 Wikipedias in other languages. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles referring to themselves[edit]

Assume an article called "Abc" has sections "qwe" and "xyz". In section "qwe" there is a sentence "blaa blaa blaa. (See section "xyz")" or similar. In other words, the article mentions that one should read more, about some aspect mentioned, elsewhere in the article.

Here's an example in the wild: Radium and radon in the environment#Radon in air.

What is the accepted position on this practise and metatext in articles in general? I am sure there is a manual of style page somewhere discussing this, but I can't find it. Voltteri (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems harmless. The absence of a MoS page discouraging it supports the view that it is harmless. Maproom (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I gather this is fine. Voltteri (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exact reason for putting dates (months, not days) on maintenance templates?[edit]

Hey, I was curious about this. I live in Japan, where it's already been July for eight hours, but in GMT I just made a couple of edits at the very end of June and the very beginning of July. I removed a clause that seemed problematic to me in one edit, and then re-added an altered version of it and tagged it as requiring a source. The first edit was in June and the second in July, but I had already decided the statement needed a source (and essentially requested one by removing the statement) in June.

For the majority of editors of English Wikipedia, who live in North America, the tag was unambiguously placed on June 30.

My question is thus: Does this matter at all? Was there any particular reason why maintenance tags are dated by month and year, rather than day and month and year, and if so does it matter which month we give for tags placed immediately before or immediately after the end of one month in a certain time zone?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: The month and year are just for maintenance categorization. For example, the {{no footnotes}} template sorts when that cleanup tag was added into Category:Articles lacking in-text citations by when it was added. It does not really matter if it is off by a month. --Majora (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]