Help desk
< March 20	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 22 >

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.

March 21[edit]

Changing things all around an article - make one big edit or multiple small edits?[edit]

When editing a large article with many problems (i.e, typos, mistranslations, formatting errors, etc.), should I make these one big edit, with no edit summary, or several smaller edits, each with their own summaries?

Also, since this is my first time at the help desk, can these policies be applied to other-language Wikipedias, or only the English Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymewalk (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tymewalk: You should always use edit summaries regardless of the size of the edit. That is just good practice and helps other editors know what you are doing. As for small vs large, it depends. If it is a high trafficked page you might run into an edit conflict and lose all your work. Personally, I like the small edit approach as it allows me to work on it over time and not be rushed into completing it. You can also put an {{in use}} tag on the top before you start if you plan on taking a long time to edit the page. That way potential edit conflicts would be reduced. As for other projects, I wouldn't be able to tell you. Each project is different with their own styles and procedures. We wouldn't be much help on that front. --Majora (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tymewalk: I'll add that small changes allow more specific edit summaries, make it easier for other editors to review your work, and make it easier to undo any portion where there is a disagreement. Translations can be tricky, tend to be disputed far more often than the other cleanup work you identify, and can be difficult to review if the reason for the changes and the sources aren't clear. Typos, formatting changes, basic style changes, etc can be done in large edits while still being clear to reviewers. I find it helpful to look over my own diffs and those of other editors to get a feel for what is and is not easy to review. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user gilliam help help[edit]

I tried and tried but could not get my info out of the above talk comment and need help fixing this problem. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noonezero (talk • contribs) 09:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asking Gilliam for help on the talk page User_talk:Gilliam. I'm sure that administrator will consider your request, but it sounds rather confused. You are welcome to come back here, but please explain your problem again. Dbfirs 10:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using wiki common images for a small commercial project[edit]

I am totally new to using images with copyright concerns. My lecture for a psychotherapy training in London is going to be filmed so that it can be shown in Bristol as an on line resource. Trainees will pay a fee to do the course although I am not paid a fee for preparing the lecture, only to give it. Can I use Wiki commons images without fear of infringing copyright?

Thanks Carol 11:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolleader (talk • contribs)

Yes, as long as you properly attribute the work to Wikimedia Commons and its author. Ppp ery 11:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carolleader. Please see commons:commons:REUSE for advice on how to do this. --ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello Carolleader. I think Pppery's answer can be misleading. Any material on Wikipedia except some images is under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. So, there are two things.

The most important thing is that you need to check the copyright status of the image you are using. For instance, this album cover is on Wikipedia but basically under a "fair use" rationale which you could probably not use it for your purpose. On the other hand, this map is in the public domain, and hence can be used in even less restrictive conditions than the CC-BY-SA. See the license description under the file on a case-by-case basis.

Also, the CC-BY-SA imposes not only a "BY" clause to acknowledge the original author (as Pppery describes it) but also an "SA" (share-alike) clause that any redistribution of the material should be under a license that is at least as permissive. You should check with your employer or their legal department what this means; we will not give you legal advice, but I think this means that trainees could (for instance) put the film of the lecture on Youtube, distribute it among their friends, etc. without having to pay royalties - which your employer may object to. Again, check that with a professional. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolleader said "wiki common images" and "Wiki commons images". If this means Wikimedia Commons images hosted at https://commons.wikimedia.org and often displayed in Wikipedia articles then the fair-use license of some images hosted here at https://en.wikipedia.org should not be a concern. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair-use images and other images without a sufficiently free license, but some users upload them anyway. If you link the images then we may be able to check whether the license looks valid. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit references once they have been created[edit]

Please advise - I have created a number of references - I need to correct them - how do I edit a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgaidash (talk • contribs) 13:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vgaidash: Code like {{cite web|...}} uses a template documented at Template:cite web. You can edit the code directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you use "Edit source", you will find the refs between <ref>...</ref> tags. As PrimeHunter notes, the template documentation describes what each field does. For instance, change "|title=Mr." to "|title=Business Structure" to change the title that appears with the reference. (If you are using "Edit" (the visual editor), just click on the reference and the reference editor should pop up.) Herostratus (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our copyright status[edit]

Can't really find the right place for this question--what, if anything, do we do about sites that copy is without attribution? I keep seeing The Vintage News go by on Facebook, and much of their content is simply yanked from Wikipedia, sometimes with minor rephrasing (and errors introduced), and never credited--the other day it was this story, which the careful reader will find to be stolen from Onfim; I recognized it cause I wrote it. I'm about to email contact@thevintagenews.com , but I was wondering if this has come up before or if anyone (Moonriddengirl?) has experience with it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a site administrator said they took it down. Moonriddengirl, I copied you on my email and so did he. This is interesting--please let me know what you, or any other community member, thinks about all this. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally disagree with people wholesale pilfering information from Wikipedia without attribution, seeing all the fine lines and balance beams we editors must walk re: close paraphrasing, CCBYSA, copyvios etc. Nothing wrong with getting facts from wikipedia (looking at you childish Daily Mail), but larceny entire sections is. L3X1 (distant write) 17:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1, there's a lot wrong with getting facts from wikipedia, and nobody should ever be using Wikipedia as a primary source for anything, let alone other media sources. That disclaimer on every page, and the dire-warning pages of Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, exist for a reason. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is (in excruciatingly dull detail) at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks; the TLDR version is that copying Wikipedia without attribution is A Bad Thing and technically illegal, but there's not a great deal we can do. ("Much of their content is simply yanked from Wikipedia, sometimes with minor rephrasing (and errors introduced), and never credited" describes a significant chunk of the world's media. Not that I'd recommend doing such a thing, you understand, but you can test it for yourself by introducing a piece of intentionally weird phrasing into a little-watched article that you know is going to be the topic of increased interest shortly—obscure East European football teams drawn against big English teams are usually a safe bet—and googling a couple of weeks later to see how much it's propagated around the world's press.) ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iridescent. They said they took it down, but it was still there via Facebook. I didn't even want them to take it down, necessarily--I just wanted them to give us proper credit for it. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<siiigh...> I agree. Sad,isn't it? It is nice to ask for attribution, and I recommend that we continue that policy, but the more badly they need WP material, the less likely they are to be mentally and morally equipped for proper citation. So personally I am inclined to sigh and look away. What bothers me more is our responsibility in committing anything to a WP article. It is terrifying. Write or edit anything and if you commit it and a minute later go back to say, google to continue the process, you are likely to find your own words staring you in the face, errors and all if you had been careless in hitting the save button instead of "show preview". We might as well have been Fox News as far as certain persons are concerned. :( JonRichfield (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subrahmanya Saastri,[edit]

Please help post this article in Wikipedia as any other article appears. I finished writing it. Remove my name and sandbox on the page of contribution. The link is below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CSHN_Murthy/sandbox CSHN Murthy (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, CSHN Murthy, thank you for your contribution, but in its current state I cannot do that. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article. Your draft does not cite reliable sources and is poorly organized (lacking even paragraphing). Cullen328, I don't know how to move a sandbox into draft/review space; perhaps you do? Drmies (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can move it using Twinkle L3X1 (distant write) 17:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Draft:Subrahmanya_Saastri L3X1 (distant write) 17:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MY CSD Log is not automatically updating[edit]

I CSD several articles yesterday, but in my contributions noticed my CSD log wasn't being updated. Is this because I am using page curation instead of Twinkle? I thought I had to put something in my common.js, but it it not there, and I cannot find any instruction for creating a CSD log. Thanks L3X1 (distant write) 16:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is twinkle only. Is there anyway to make Page curation nomination add to this? L3X1 (distant write) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive bot configuration[edit]

The WP:SPEAK project talk page is using the outdated miszabotII archive not that is no longer functional, there are a lot of things that haven't been archived in a few years, I just joined this project two days ago and it isn't very active, I figure the best way for a new start is to have all of the old stuff archived. I can't figure out how to set up the lowercase sigmabot III bot or what to do with the old archives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia Please help!! ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

entry created about me - incorrect[edit]

The wiki profile created of me is out-dated and inaccurate. I have tried twice to edit it but am unable. I'd like to delete it and create a new one myself (I have no idea where the existing one came from).

many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbissell (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbissell: Can you tell us the exact name of the article you are referring to? Also, you may want to have a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines which has some information for individuals who have biographies about them on Wikipeda that you might find helpful. Deli nk (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can point out inaccuracies on the talk page of the article, and suggest improvements. Let us know which article, then we can make the corrections. Dbfirs 21:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk on Wikipedia Page for Simon Lee (Academic)[edit]

I would like to draw attention to some content on the page of Simon Lee (Academic). The talk page contains a substantial amount of material that might be considered libellous, and certainly does not appear to be balanced. I have attempted to remove some of this, as it is public domain, but have been advised by what appears to be an editor that this can not be done. If I cannot do it then perhaps you might as it is certainly offensive to me, would probably be to the subject if aware of it, and is in the public domain. whilst historical, and covering a contentious period, it remains damaging and at the very least defamatory.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian.newdigate1 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sebastian.newdigate1 Generally comments on talk pages are left in an as-is state, unless they contain foul langauge or are trolling/vandalism/other wise malicious. In this case the material is Key23's (appears to be a SPA) opinion from 2009 and Stuartmoss's from 2010, so I don't think it can be considered libellious. L3X1 (distant write) 19:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that old should probably be archived but that fact that they have been there for seven or eight years. WP:TPO notes the very narrow parameters for deleting other people's comments and states that an edit summary explaining the actions is necessary. That didn't happen here. The reasoning that the content was offensive to you doesn't work. Wikipedia is not censored. Another policy, WP:MULTIPLE, states that if you are using multiple accounts you should identify them as such. I assume there is a connection between Sebastian.newdigate1 and Sebastian Newdigate. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very simple reason for different accounts is that I simply forgot passwords and therefore created an identity as near to the original as I could - If I was seeking to disguise I think I might have used something entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian.newdigate1 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of philosophers[edit]

[Post removed] 173.191.31.102 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You also posted this to Wikipedia:Teahouse#May I be added to the List(s) of Philosophers? You can look for answers there. Please only post in one place. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]