Help desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 7[edit]

How to use an Inline Cleanup Template (or something similar) to request units be added to data & help editing the Lonomia page[edit]

Hey Help Desk people! I was browsing through Wikipedia, just enjoying myself, when I stumbled across the Lonomia page. In the "Toxicity" section, I saw this statement:

The LD50 of the Lonomia venom is 0.19; however, due to the small amount of venom in the bristles of the caterpillar, the rate of human fatality is only 1.7%.^[4]

I immediately noticed that 0.19 doesn't have any units listed. How would I go about utilizing some type of inline cleanup template tag in order to request this? I briefly considered using the "data missing" or "clarify" tags, but I sort of feel like it might be useful to have a tag specifically requesting that someone add units to a value.

At first, I wasn't going to try to add the units myself, as the provided ~~reference~~ note

4. ^ - Chudzinski-Tavassi & Carrijo-Carvalho (2005) - Biochemical and Biological properties of Lonomia Obliqua Bristle Extract, Table 1 - Laboratory of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Butantan Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.

didn't have a link, so I figured it'd be behind a paywall or else not even published online. Well, I actually found a link to the article (I don't know the correct format for it, but I would like for the link to be added to the ~~reference~~ note; however, I don't know if the link is independent of my computer {I don't really know any other way to put it, but if you don't know what I mean, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to explain it}) which for some reason doesn't include the table which is specifically being referenced, but thankfully the table is contained within the pdf version which is linked as "English (pdf)" on the destination page of my first link.

Within the data table, it says:

LD₅₀ = 0.19mg IV / 18-20g mouse; no death was observed with up to 1mg IP / 18-20g mouse.

This works out to be an LD₅₀ of 10mg/kg in mice. I'd think I could just write:

The LD50 of the Lonomia venom is 0.19mg/kg in mice; however, due to the small amount of venom in the bristles of the caterpillar, the rate of human fatality is only 1.7%.^[4]

I feel like that should be fine, but I'm not quite sure if that's the correct formatting; I also feel that the IP data should be mentioned in some way, but no deaths occurred with that route of administration at all.

While in the process of making the list below, I realized that I had written reference, when I actually should have put note. I'm not entirely sure of the difference between the two of these — something to do with directly copying information, I'd imagine. But shouldn't source used in the note wouldn't be referenced anyway? I would think it ought to be; please correct me if I'm wrong.

So, in summary, I am requesting information on, assistance with, or someone to perform, these objectives:

Finding the proper tag to use when data is missing units, as with the case of 0.19 shown above, whether it be an old tag or a new one specifically used to request units
Adding the correct form of the link to ~~reference~~ note 4 on the Lonomia page
Citing the note, as well as the associated link, as a reference?
Finding the proper way to add the mg/kg units to 0.19, as well as whether or not the IP data should be included

A lot of this is pretty specific, making me think it may possibly belong on the Lonomia talk page, but because of the large amount of extremely beginner help that I need, I've decided to post it here instead.

Thanks for the help (I don't know if I'm supposed to sign this. I'll go for it, though, why not?), and sorry for my ineptitude! --2talltman (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2talltman and thanks for asking. To take your points in order:

(1) An "inline template" {{clarify}} is available for just this purpose and allows you to specify what needs clarifying.

(2) and (3) You could format the reference like this:

<ref>A. M. Chudzinski-Tavassi and L. C. Carrijo-Carvalho, [http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jvatitd/v12n2/v12n2a02.pdf BIOCHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF ''Lonomia obliqua'' BRISTLE EXTRACT]. J. Venom. Anim. Toxins incl. Trop. Dis., 2006, 12, 2, p. 164</ref>

which displays in the Notes section with hyperlink as

A. M. Chudzinski-Tavassi and L. C. Carrijo-Carvalho, BIOCHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF Lonomia obliqua BRISTLE EXTRACT. J. Venom. Anim. Toxins incl. Trop. Dis., 2006, 12, 2, p. 164

or use the {{Cite journal}} template. A lot more help on referencing can be found starting from Referencing for Beginners.

(4) I think you meant to change the figure from 0.19 to 10 as well as adding the unit. You can add the extra data as well, inserting the reference after that. This is easily achieved by editing that portion of the text. (Help:Editing)

Practices on formatting the references vary between articles. This one shows its "inline references" under Notes, and its general sources under References. We stick with the format used in the particular article unless there is a good reason to change.

Finally, the Talk page attached to every article is there for discussing the content and suggesting any changes if you prefer not to edit the article yourself. Only trouble is, with articles less frequently read and edited, it may be slow to get a response there. Hope some of this helps!: Noyster (talk), 10:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

create profile[edit]

NAC: Original poster blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

i want to create a profile and it's deleting agai8n and again. how can i create a profile?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Kamia Mulhotra (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We prefer to use the term "biography" rather than "profile", partly because a profile is something that is often created by the subject, and per our Guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography, it is strongly discouraged to write an article about yourself.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the above account's sole interest is in finding a place on Wikipedia to post her resume. I've requested speedy deletion of the latest attempt as promotional, and given the number of unheeded warnings, suspect a block will be necessary if this continues. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done--block evasion [1]. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reverting vandalism[edit]

I reverted some vandalism on the Catholic University School article. Since I haven't done this before, could someone please check that I did this correctly. Also, the editor who introduced the vandalism (user: 86.40.143.241) has done this before on the same page. What further steps should I take to prevent this editor from doing this again? Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only other page that has been edited by this user is Mosul offensive (2016). His edit there has also been reverted. Leschnei (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has received a further warning at their talk-page. (See WP:WARN for warning notices). If he continues, he should be reported at WP:AIV. Eagleash (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outside source giving Wikipedia as a contact address[edit]

An external link has been added to our Pratik Bavi article giving his "Official website" as https://incpratikbavi.wordpress.com/about/ [2]
That webpage includes "Contact Pratik Bavi via. Wikipedia Pratik Bavi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratik_Bavi [3]"
i.e. they are stating that the method of contacting him is via our article page, which could lead to disruption of the article by people trying to make contact.
Although we can delete the "Official website" from our article, anyone finding this via another source, will still see our article as a contact address. Although this has yet to create problems, and I know Wikipedia does not like pre-emptive action, I wonder how this can be "nipped in the bud" early on?
The Wordpress page has a "Please leave a reply" section. Is there a specific policy we can cite, or a possible sanction we could refer to, when requesting removal of the "Contact Pratik Bavi via. Wikipedia" statement? - Arjayay (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a frenzee of activity on this article of only two months and it has resulted in what. An article that ought to be deleted speedy.--Aspro (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article now deleted so website links to nothing - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo to upload[edit]

I would like to upload a photograph of a group of physicists taken at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies 1942. I have no idea what the copyright status is. However, the photo (or parts of it) is found in quite a few places on the internet including all the URLs below. Is this an indication that the photo may be usable in WP, say in the article about the Dublin IAS?

stp.dias.ie/history/1942.jpeg at Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies in the blog Site de vulgarisation scientifique d'Etienne Klein in ztfnews.wordpress.com

in google.com
Probably worth a bit more investigation on WP:CP, but copyvios are common on the internet, and Wikipedia tries to make an effort not to commit any.

My $0.02: that photograph is probably not public domain, since it was taken in 1942 in Dublin; if (guess) whoever took it died at least five years later, 1942 + 5 + 70 > 2016. It may however pass on Wikipedia (not Commons) under WP:NFCC. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Exact Copies[edit]

As a reviewer for Articles for Creation, I occasionally encounter the situation where a draft is submitted that is an exact copy of another draft that has been submitted. Mostly this happens because one editor has created multiple copies of the draft, either out of confusion in good faith, or in order to game the system. However, once in a while, the two drafts are submitted by two different editors, but are the same. In other words, the second editor has copied exactly what was submitted by the first editor. I have been advised that this violates the copyright attribution rules of CC-BY-SA, as well as being plagiarism in the old academic sense. Am I correct that in such a case it is appropriate to request speedy deletion of the second copy, the copy-and-paste, as a copyright violation (within Wikipedia)? (I know that there is another explanation of identical or nearly identical drafts by different authors that is a different type of bad faith, and that is that the two accounts are one person, not two people, which is sockpuppetry.) Am I correct that a draft that is an exact or almost exact copy of another draft, without attribution, is considered a copyright violation? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, if the copy is unattributed it is eligible as G12. I think that an A10 deletion of the later copy - or a redirect - makes more sense, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, A10 applies only to articles, not drafts. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case in point, it was a draft that was an exact copy of a draft. I did also see an interesting A10 deletion today, where the article that was deleted was evidently an exact copy in Bulgarian of an existing article in English. (I say 'evidently' because that was what was said. I don't know because I don't know Bulgarian, and can't even tell it from Russian.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Omar[edit]

I have no problems editing the page, but how do I edit what's presented in search? Exp: Typed in Don Omar, before selecting page it says Dominican musician, which is incorrect. Whoever did the edit should be held accountable. Clearly he is a Puertorican musician. Thank You Simple views (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're referring to is the info that is taken from WikiData. I've updated the data there. I don't know if it will show immediately or if there is a cache to purge. †Dismas†|^(talk) 18:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]