Jump to content

Wikipedia:Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chinmaygupta28 (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 12 February 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    ↑ To top of page
    Shortcuts
    Welcome—ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia! (Am I in the right place?)
    • For other types of questions, use the search box, see the reference desk or Help:Contents. If you have comments about a specific article, use that article's talk page.
    • Do not provide your email address or any other contact information. Answers will be provided on this page only.
    • If your question is about a Wikipedia article, draft article, or other page on Wikipedia, tell us what it is!
    • Check back on this page to see if your question has been answered.
    • For real-time help, use our IRC help channel, #wikipedia-en-help.
    • New editors may prefer the Teahouse, a help area for beginners (but please don't ask in both places).
    Ask a question


    Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    February 9

    Include a self-updating category in another page

    I hope this is the right place for general wikimarkup questions, sorry if it isn't- I used to edit other wikis a lot and I swear there was a way to take the self-updating list of all the pages in a category that you'd actually find on the relevant Category: page, and include (transclude?) it in another main-namespace page as a template or similar. I can't figure out at all how to do it, though. Am I remembering wrong? -Skaramuche (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Skaramuche, I think you're looking for {{Category tree}}. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Watch List Question

    In the course of reviewing articles for AFC, I have added a very large number of pages to my watchlist, most of which I have no continuing need for, such as users who submitted drafts and the drafts themselves. I spent considerable time marking pages on the watchlist for unwatching, and then unwatched them. However, what I would really like is a way to mark all of the pages of a given type (e.g., user pages), and then unmark only those that I want to unmark and so keep. Is there a way that I can mark all user pages or all draft pages, and then unmark them selectively, rather than marking them selectively? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The simplest way is to click the link at the top of the watchlist that says "View and Edit Watchlist". This will display all the pages arranged in groups by space: Mainspace, User space, etc. You can then examine and uncheck the ones you want to remove. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: "View and Edit Watchlist" supports shift-click to tick a range of boxes in one go. So you can click the first of the drafts, scroll to the end of the drafts, shift-click the last one to tick them all, and then go back to untick the ones you want to keep. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Shift-click was the answer. I knew about clicking. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Fate of Drafts and Draft Redirects

    Related to the above question is a question about drafts in general and draft redirects in particular. Some of the large number of drafts were redlinks, and some were in italics. I know that the drafts listed in italics are redirects, typically to the article after it was promoted to article space, or possibly to a different name. Am I correct that these redirects will stay in Wikipedia indefinitely unless the article creator tags the draft redirect for speedy deletion, although that a bot fixes double redirects? Also, some of the drafts were redlinked. Presumably the draft existed when I (without a conscious action) watchlisted it, possibly by moving it or adding a decline template to it. Am I correct that draft redlinks have had either of two fates? Either the draft has since been deleted (whether speedily or by MFD), or the draft has been promoted to article space and its creator requested speedy deletion of the redirect from draft space to mainspace? It does appear that many drafts last a very long time and are commonly abandoned, and may be tagged as abandoned drafts, but I also see that a few editors have rescued abandoned drafts from speedy deletion by a third-party removal of the speedy template. (I guess some editors think that drafts should be preserved just in case.) Robert McClenon (talk)

    Rola (model)

    Please see this link to the article: Rola (model) The details of the problems that I list below can be found in the link above.

    According to Wikipedia’s policy of biographies of living persons, the paragraph addressing Rola’s Father’s Arrest violates the policy above and “must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page” for the following reasons:

    1. It includes “contentious material about living persons” 2. The information is “potentially libelous” 3. The sources and citations for numbers 13, 14 and 17 are invalid. The link to the webpages do not work. 4. It does not adhere to the policy of “Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.” 5. I would also like to raise the point that this information has the “possibility of being harm(ful) to (living subjects) (and this) must (always) be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” 6. Because Rola is a public figure, there is a lot of information out there to include about her, but this incident about her father’s arrest is not relevant to her career and/or to her celebrity persona. In fact, her father’s arrest has nothing to do with her talent or what she is famous for.

    This material about Rola’s Father’s Arrest has been repeatedly inserted back in, after numerous efforts of trying to delete the information, resulting in the page becoming semi-protected and unable to edit. Therefore, I have no choice but to report the issue. Please help to permanently remove this information from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libera2016 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Libera2016: This request has already been posted at the appropriate forum ==> Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, which is watchlisted by experienced editors. Please do not post threads in several forums at once. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Two additional points are in order. Posting the same issue at multiple noticeboards is considered forum shopping and annoys the regulars. Second, it has been pointed out at WP:BLPN that the Original Poster appears to be the modeling agency for Rola (model), and so has a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Structure and Template not working

    Hi, good day, I am trying to create a Biography from scratch and the formatting I am having difficulty in. Here is an example of what I am trying to achieve, for the bio I want to create, Bruce Lee The old code I was using is {{subst:Member Bio Template}} and it was not working. Please guide me as soonest and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezel3 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 9 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

    @Kezel3: - Firstly, please "sign" your posts by putting a series of four tildes "~~~~" at the end, so we can keep track of who said what. Which article are you trying to edit? Your only other edit (apart from asking this question) was to the article Jack Warner (football executive). I can't find a template named like the one you tried, and there is no mention of anything like it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography - where did you come across it, and what is it supposed to do? The article you quoted on Bruce Lee does not use anything similar, so I am not sure what you're trying to do with that code... please expand.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    googling "Member Bio Template" site:wikipedia.org gives me two (deleted) results: Quedow qrowns and Sunil Mahour. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...both non-existing. --CiaPan (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    German template for "citation needed"

    Does anyone know the template on German Wikipedia for {{CN}}? Please ping me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jax 0677: I think, they don't have such. This page explains, that they have deleted it several times for various reasons, as far as I can tell from Google translate. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, German Wikipedia has decided by a vote that they won't use such a template for unsourced page content. Hence no such template exists there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jax 0677: The German guideline page linked above recommends using this page-level template [1], which appears to be functionally equivalent to Template:Refimprove_section and can be used at the head of a page or a section.-- Elmidae (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrative feedback requested

    Hello. Although I am familiar to editing Wikipedia, I am not an administrator. However, recently I have come across a few biographies of living persons in a certain category (while editing another biography) that seriously raised a red flag as to their inclusion on Wikipedia. I have stated my reasons on the subject's talk page and placed a deletion tag for discussion at the head of the article itself. Wondering if another editor in an administrative capacity could take a look at the notability of the subjects: [2] and [3]. Neither meet the requirements for Notable people under the entertainment (music) guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc. The occupation on one does not even coincide with the subject. Thank you. maineartists(talk to me) 10:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi maineartists - You did the correct thing by taking the articles to AfD! An administrator then is likely not needed, unless the page is a serious attack page, or very serious violation of the BLP policy. In this case, both pages seem okay, just maybe not noteworthy enough. In which case, AfD was the right place to take it! --allthefoxes (Talk) 15:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as if you didn't complete all the stages of the AFD submission, see WP:AFDHOW. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The first article has been properly nominated. The second has not been nominated. Do you have Twinkle? It greatly simplifies some functions including AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: You say that the first article has been properly nominated. Shouldn't it be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 8, and shouldn't Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Brier include the header information that is produced by the {{afd2}} template as shown at step II. of WP:AFDHOW?
    I added the header for the first nomination, and a bot logged it. —teb728 t c 21:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you teb728 and allthefoxes. Dear Robert McClenon, I did not nominate the second because 1) I did not know if my initial steps for the first were correct (which I see now they were not) and 2) I did not want to appear to be hastily tagging articles for deletion. In regards to Twinkle, I worry as to how that action is perceived on Wikipedia; especially since there is no warrant in these cases of vandalism or unconstructive edits. Thanks all for your help! --Maineartists (talk) 7:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    One of the features of Twinkle is that it automates the completion of AFD and CSD nominations. This is not the same as using Twinkle to warn vandals or report vandals. Also, nominating two articles for deletion is not perceived as mass-tagging of articles for deletion. There are a few editors who mass-tag articles for deletion. You are not anywhere close to being one of them. If you see any more articles that you think don't pass notability, go ahead and use Twinkle to automate their AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Special thanks, Robert McClenon! I am clearly still learning new things every day thanks to editors like yourself. I appreciate your help and attention. --Maineartists (talk) 8:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

    Help:Cite errors/Cite error ref no input

    How do I clear this error message and add two products?

    Assuming you are referring to List of backup software you have misplaced the ref tags as shown here. Remove them, and if you have content to add place it correctly and add appropriate references. Eagleash (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also sign your posts on talk-pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Getting approval to use images in reports

    Hello-

    I am currently working on a Virtual Reality report and would like to use this image: Six degrees of freedom for the note.

    Could I please have written permission for this?

    Thank you,

    Reagan

    The image is hosted at commons and appears to be in the public domain according to the licence. Eagleash (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be completely clear, as it is a public domain image you do not need permission to use it, it's completely free. It is available in a variety of sizes at File:6DOF_en.jpg. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Reagan. There is no need for permission to use an image that you know is in the public domain. However, you are apparently writing a report, so you should do two things:

    • State that the image is in the public domain. This is not strictly required but it is good practice, because there are other usable images are copyrighted with a licence that permits them to be copied, and for those you do need to say what the license is.
    • Attribute the image. That is, state exactly where you got it and acknowledge the original creator. You need to do this for anything you copy into a report, to avoid the very serious academic infraction of plagiarism. If your report is not for school, you should do this anyway because it's the right thing to do.

    You can do both at once with a brief footnote like this: 

     *Image six degrees of freedom. This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Horia Ionescu at English Wikipedia.  retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:6DOF_en.jpg .

    Problems with editing Wikidata

    I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask, but I couldn't find any help desk on Wikidata so far.

    I have found that when I click on "Edit links" in the "Languages" section on the left menu of a Wikipedia article and am taken into Wikidata, clicking the "Edit" button on the "Wikipedia" section doesn't provide me with a helpful interface that automatically completes entries for me as I type. Rather, I am expected to know the arcane Wikidata syntax from memory. Usually, when I go back to the Wikidata page and refresh the page in my browser, I get the helpful automatic interface.

    Is this a problem with Wikidata or my browser? How am I supposed to edit Wikidata without the helpful automatic interface anyway? Is anyone else having this problem?

    And is there any help desk on Wikidata itself I could ask this question in? JIP | Talk 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    JIP, I can't help with the underlying problem, but I can assure you that d:Wikidata:Project chat is a good place to request help. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with e-mail

    Hello. I have an issue when I try to sent e-mails through my wikipedia e-mail. The message that I get is: «Your registered email address ***@***.com has been unsubscribed due to multiple message delivery failures. You can verify your email address again.» Unfortunately the technicians in el.wikipedia.org don' t help me. I can receive e-mails but I can't sent e-mails. Even when I confirm my e-mail address, the problem isn't solved even temperately. I've changed my e-mail address but nothing happened. Could you please help me? Thank you --Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής 20:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

    Is your problem related to sending emails from the Greek Wkipedia, or from here at the English Wikipedia? If the former, it is unlikely that anyone here will be able to solve your problem. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you David Biddulph for your answer. I have problem with both, Greek and English Wikipedia. --Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Image problem

    I have prepared an article in my sandbox for review and hopefully posting, but I have not been able to upload the photos and graphics to accompany the article. I am logged in and have had my account for a number of months. However I get an error message when I've filled out the necessary fields in the Media upload dialog box. Please advise.

    William O'Daly (Wodaly) Wodaly (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You may not be able to upload images until your account is autoconfirmed. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To confirm, you need 10 edits and your account to be at least 4 days old to become autoconfirmed. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wodaly: Are you at en.wikipedia.org or commons.wikimedia.org when you get the error message? What does it say? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    White Pride article page

    I have just been shown this article on Facebook and was just a little upset, I am an ex soldier, served my country and crown and would have given life doing so if it had needed be. What I do find very 'Racist' and very upsetting and disturbing is that your article 'White Pride' implies that being white and proud to be white is to be racist, now even though I was brought up in a semi strict religious background does NOT make me religious, being baptised as a baby and not having a choice does NOT make me religious so being born white to white parents does 100% NOT make me a racist or a white supremacist, I would like this article to either be removed or reworded so that it does not imply that being white makes you racist or a supremacist in any way or form. Thank you, Stephen [details removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.95.241 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2016

    The article White pride says the term is sometimes used in a racist way and sometimes not, and also makes the same point you do that is not racist. We have no control over what Facebook shows you. RudolfRed (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The Wikipedia article White pride does not imply that to be white is to be racist. It does state that some white people are racist. I agree it could do more to make it clear that those people are a bunch of prats, rather than just hinting at this by using a picture in which two of them have had their faces pixellated out. However, Wikipedia's duty is to describe things as they are, rather than as we would like them to be. It also has articles on Mexican drug gangs, but it does not support their activities. Maproom (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    February 10

    Browser Requirements

    I would like to know why Wikipedia cannot be accessed (no response from server) using Lynx or other old browsers, and what are the supported browsers. Note: Lynx can use https.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.232.250 (talk • contribs)

    Hello, anonymous person. WP:Browser notes might have some useful information, but it seems to say that it does work on Lynx etc. I suggest you ask at WP:VPT: people who know about how Wikipedia works technically are more likely to hang out there than here. --ColinFine (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Flag templates producing inconsistent spacing

    List of U.S. states has identical formatting for all states' names on the left side of the list, except for North Dakota. For some reason, there's an extra space between the flag and the name. Why? It's not merely a mistake on the list; identical code produces identical results at WP:SAND. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:ExpandTemplates shows it makes two &nbps; instead of one for North Dakota. The extra one comes from {{Flag/core}} saying {{#ifeq:{{{size}}}|23x16px|&nbps;}}. It tries to line up the text in a list of flags by compensating for the flag being more narrow. It may overcompensate a little, at least in some circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    North Carolina

    North Dakota

    Rhode Island

    But it doesn't do the same for Rhode Island; do you know what the difference is? Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Country data North Dakota}} has default size 23x16px. {{Country data Rhode Island}} has 23x17px. {{Flag/core}} has hard coded an extra space for exactly 23x16px. It doesn't seem optimal but I don't want to examine how a myriad of flags might display in different browsers and circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    North Dakota/sandbox

    I created a sandbox page with a 23x17 flag, which seems to work better, and I'd like to change the country data page to expand ND's flag to 17px. Where would you suggest discussing this? VP/Pr seems overkill, and North Dakota not being a particularly populous state, the Wikipedia:WikiProject North Dakota is nowhere near active. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Erchless Castle

    Please fix up ref number 6 - something is wrong with it. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Srbernadette, basically, someone tagged it as a questionable source. Perhaps you've not encountered it, but one of our core policies is "no original research" — something sourced to personal communications is good when you're compiling your own research (whether for your own interest, for academic work at any level, or for ordinary publication), but because encyclopedia articles are meant to summarise what's already been published in major sources, personal communications shouldn't be used. The type of information you inserted is quite reasonable for inclusion, so if you can find the same thing published in a reliable source, you should feel free to put it back, along with a proper citation to the source you used. Final note — explaining your sources is critical: because anyone can modify Wikipedia articles, readers (including other editors) need to be able to see where you got your information, and if they don't know where you got your information, they can't check up on it: they have to take your word for it, and that's never a good thing in any kind of writing. I see that you're already doing your best with that, so please keep it up! Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help.

    I think that the 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs on this page need to either be removed (or have citation "warning" included). I think removal. Please fix Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite possibly correct, but it's always possible that everything in those paragraphs came from source #8, the Telegraph article from 6 September 2009. This is where you or I become the reader who needs to see where someone else got information: if we read the article and discover that it all came from there, we should just rearrange the text to make its source obvious, and if it's not there, we insert a warning or remove the text. There's a third possibility: perhaps it was once cited properly to a good source, but the source got removed. This is rarer, but it can happen by mistake (you meant to copy a source for somewhere else, but you accidentally cut it, and then later you saved) or by intentional vandalism. This is where the page history comes in — we can look for the text's first appearance, thereby learning what the author meant to have it look like, and we'll be able to notice if someone removed a citation that was originally there. I can't do any of this myself (it's approaching 1AM my time), but I'll do my best to remember to check back here. If I forget, leave a reminder at my talk page and I'll respond. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to find reliable sources for 2 paragraphs towards the end of the article - but failed - therefore I have deleted these small sections. Please chec. Thanks 101.182.136.195 (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet again you've started a new thread on an existing subject, so I've merged the sections. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]
    On checking the sources (those that are available to me), I can't find that information in any of them either, thus I agree it's reasonable to remove that passage for the time being. However, looking through the page history, I notice that this (and much other material on this page) was added by User:Paul_de_Bedyk, who was actively editing just day before yesterday. So chances are he's around and able to clarify. I've left him a note on his talk page and invited him to drop by and comment.-- Elmidae (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    InternetCorruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia

    Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia - Well you're tarnished damaged goods lost me as a donor . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.198.152 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The above appears to be referring to this news article: http://www.cnet.com/news/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/ Rwessel (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "News" from September 2012. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And does anyone else find it weird when people knowingly abuse Wikipedia by offering paid commercial editing services, and then people blame Wikipedia for it, not those who abuse it? JIP | Talk 20:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    External video in the body of an article

    Dear editors: This article: Hoot Hester has a link to an external video near the top of the page. I know that external links in general, and also external photographs (as opposed to uploaded ones), are not considered appropriate in the body of an article. What about external videos or sound clips? Should the link to this clip be moved to the "External links" section? This is the first time I've come across this. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes external video is central to the story and warrants prominent placement in the body. Death of Sandra Bland and Shooting of Samuel DuBose, for example, use {{external media}} for this purpose. My opinion is that the video in your example does not qualify and should be in External links. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Mandruss; I have moved the link to the section you suggested.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    How to replace graphic file linked to article by File:Xxxxxxx ?

    Location: That (music)#System

    Existing files, as referenced in Edit area:

    System

    As retrieved by right-clicking the images: /media/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Indiskt_That-1.jpg/300px-Indiskt_That-1.jpg /media/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Indiskt_That-2.jpg/300px-Indiskt_That-2.jpg

    I have created replacements for these 2 files, correcting an error in notation and reordering the contents to match the order in the article.

    1. I don't know how to find the location of the original files based on the links. 2. I don't see attribution or copyright information for those files. I obviously copied their information and forma to make my corrected images. 3. Should I replace those images, add mine to the "gallery" with them, or post them to Wikimedia Commons?

    Please tell me how to find directions for locating those files. Will there be copyright information for them there?

    Then I'll try to find the instructions for doing the upload.

    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebeckwith (talk • contribs)

    Those files are: c:File:Indiskt That-1.jpg and c:File:Indiskt That-2.jpg. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it the case that as the file seems to be hosted at Commons here, that a new commons file would need to be created? I.e. a new 'image' containing the different information rather than replacing the existing image. As I understand it, replacing images at commons is for newer versions of the same image, e.g. cropped versions or some other change. Eagleash (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Autofill not working on Cite template toolbar

    I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask; if not, please redirect me. I generally use the drop-down citations templates on the edit toolbar, to save time. Until recently, I could just paste the URL of the target and click the little magnifying glass, and Autofill would (often) fill in many of the other details. But for the past two weeks or so, it doesn't do anything. The URL is still there, and all the other fields remain stubbornly blank. Is this a general thing, or has my computer somehow got itself confused? (Before you ask, yes I have done a cold reboot.) In case it matters, I am using Chrome under Windows 8.1. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also failing for me with Firefox. A better place is WT:RefToolbar. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nizami Ganjevi is not Persian, he is Azerbaijanian poet.

    Dear Wikipedia Team.

    On the following web-page: Nizami Ganjavi there is a mistake: Nizami Ganjavi lived and created his art in Azerbaijan,namely Ganja. Thus he is not a Persian but Azerbaijani poet. I kindly ask you to correct this. As during the history of humanity Russia, Iran, Armenia always tried to show Azerbaijanian culturwe as their own. Please as being the WIKIPEDIA, which always provides the best, reliable and correct information, follow your way.

    Regards, Sevinj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.146.26 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think Azerbaijan existed as an independent country during the lifetime of Nizami Ganjavi. Maproom (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have an improvement to make to a page, please post your suggestion with a citation to a reliable published source on the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Nizami Ganjavi. But, as Maproom says, there was no such place as Azerbaijan in the twelfth century. The article does mention that he came from a place that is now in Azerbaijan, and that several peoples including Azeris appreciate his heritage. So you would need some reliable published sources that specifically describe him as Azerbaijani (and, probably, that explain why this apparently anachronistic designation is appropriate). --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I raise a question about an article?

    To be specific, I have an issue with Frobenius solution to the hypergeometric equation

    I would like to know how to raise it with the author without actually touching the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys sea (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Post your comments to the talk page, Talk: Frobenius solution to the hypergeometric equation. I see that the article has issues with its tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I raise a question about an article?

    To be specific, I have an issue with Frobenius solution to the hypergeometric equation

    I would like to know how to raise it with the author without actually touching the article.

    The question I would like to ask is this.

    In the expansions about z=0 the solutions to the case \gamma is an integer not equal to one (\gamma=1-m where m=1,2,...) and (\gamma=1+m where m=1,2,3...) does not include the finite sums seen in Abramowitz and Stegun (Editors) Chapter 15 (Fritz Oberhettinger) 15.5.19 and 15.5.21.

    (Abramowitz and Stegun "Handbook of Mathematical Functions" Dover Books on Advanced Mathematics ISBN 0-486-61272-4.)

    For instance, for c=1-m 15.5.21 has a term \sum_{n=1}^m \frac{ (n-1)! (-m)_n}{(1-a-m)_n(1-b-m)_n} which I have derived myself for and m=3 for instance. Can the author point out where I have misunderstood, or tell me whether this problem is real?Tethys sea (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys sea (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    See reply immediately above.--ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the replies from ukexpat and Robert, I hadn't figured out to add to the talk pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tethys sea (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of organizations opposing mainstream science

    Please continue discussion on talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 01:17, 11 February 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.

    We have posted the complaint below on the Talk page for the "List of organizations opposing mainstream science" article. Also, seeing that a number of similar complaints from others have yielded no results or even attention, we are following Wikipedia's direction and posting the complaint on the Help page which Wikipedia specifically recommends and writes is often more frequently checked than Talk pages. Since the material posted is extremely insulting and damaging, we would appreciate quick remedial action for the specific item discussed as well as for the general tenor of the section(s) in question. Thanks. Please see below

    In the section on Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), there appears, “However, journalist John Horgan, a friend of Wertheim's, reported that "When [Wertheim] attended an NPA meeting... it reminded her of an experiment in which three schizophrenic patients, each of whom believed he was Christ, were introduced to each other... Each concluded that the others were crazy. Watching presenters at the NPA meeting, Wertheim comments, was like 'watching thirty Jesus Christs.'”[19]”

    This struck me as just gratuitous and snide insults. I thought such fare was explicitly prohibited in Wikipedia. When this section of Wikipedia was presented to an audience of those who challenge various aspects of currently accepted science, it elicited an extremely strong negative reaction – although it proved to be a unifying topic. Some assessments during the presentation and afterward in discussion groups, included (in addition to my “gratuitous and snide insults” assessment), “amateurish”, “frivolous”, “slanderous”, “libelous”, “defamatory”, “tabloid”, “arbitrary”, “unfounded opinion”, “baseless fantasy”, “It’s Wertheim who’s having the schizophrenic fantasies”, etc. The Wertheim quote seemed to be insulting not only to members of the NPA, but also to members of the CNPS which was characterized in the article as a spinoff of the NPA and by extension the whole community of those who challenge various aspects of currently accepted science. Note that many members of the NPA and CNPS are full professors, PhDs (or equivalent, e.g., Ing’s in Europe) or independent researchers with significant credentials (e.g., patents, publications in the top tier journals, nominated for the Nobel Prize).

    I’d suggest that a knowledgeable person might see the same presentations as Wertheim and see well educated, very intelligent speakers passionately advocating deeply researched views – the fact that they speak with great passion and conviction should not per se consign them to being assessed as mentally ill or delusional.

    The above segues into Wertheim’s qualifications for making assessments that are published in an encyclopedia. Since the Talk section has an extremely limited readership and a discussion of her credentials is relevant, we’ll briefly discuss those. First, she’s not a scientist, she’s a science writer. Wertheim has her niche. Her foundation is “The Institute For Figuring” which, in her words, “is an organization dedicated to the poetic and aesthetic dimensions of science, mathematics and engineering. The Institute’s interests are twofold: the manifestation of figures in the world around us and the figurative technologies that humans have developed through the ages. From the physics of snowflakes and the hyperbolic geometry of sea slugs, to the mathematics of paper folding, the tiling patterns of Islamic mosaics and graphical models of the human mind, the Institute takes as its purview a complex ecology of figuring.” The IFF’s Crochet Coral Reef project shows her to have an eye for art, a talent for writing and an admirably kind heart when not discussing scientists outside the mainstream and many other good qualities and likely is a nice person most of the time. However, her niche is not General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc.. Nor does being nice part of the time give her a free pass to do serious damage to thousands of serious scholars by putting forth gratuitous and snide insults about their work which often required decades, if not a life time, of hard work. Wertheim has written about physics, but her academic background in physics seems to be very light and may be limited to a single course in high school physics.

    To be fair to Wertheim, when she wrote about the NPA, she was likely not aiming for a Pulitzer Prize and was not delusional about having one of the great minds in physics. She likely did not see herself as a god of science able to look down on the work of thousands across a very broad spectrum and see who was right and who was wrong. Likely she understood that the depth of her perception was limited to the assumption that all of currently accepted theory is correct and that all who question it are wrong and even mentally ill. This assumption of Wertheim’s seems to be shared by the Wikipedia writers/editors of the NPA/CNPS sections and shows a lack of knowledge about the history of science among other things.

    As a writer, Wertheim wanted readers. Again, to be fair to Wertheim, when she spoke or wrote about the NPA in the style quoted above, she was likely not delusional and was speaking/writing more in the style of “witty” cocktail conversation to be entertaining because many readers enjoy reading put downs of others so she found a schtick that worked and kept with it until it faded and was recognized as lacking substantive content and she lost her audience for that comic routine except, apparently, for Wikipedia. Again, Wertheim cannot be excused for doing serious damage to thousands of serious scholars by putting forth gratuitous and snide insults about their work just because her appealing to the lowest common denominator for her readership proved to be an easy way to make a few extra bucks at somebody else’s expense.

    Wertheim has a great aptitude and penchant for self-promotion and she seems to be working this skill to the fullest in the pages of Wikipedia. So this brings up, “What is Wertheim’s involvement in this section?” If she has been directly involved, she needs to be replaced. If she was in contact with a front man, the front man needs to be removed. If she allegedly is not involved directly or indirectly, there appears to be a Wertheim surrogate who backs posting gratuitous and snide insults. Not only should the gratuitous and snide insults be removed, but the whole section needs a re-write to at least start with some semblance of validity and those editors who are responsible for this tabloid entry need, at the very least, some help for redoing this section. If an editor employs gratuitous and snide insults, it indicates a particular mindset about a topic so even when he feels he’s being objective or neutral, his bias and derogatory feelings can still come through. The whole section needs to be overhauled. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for posting gratuitous and snide insults about those for whom its editors happen to have a strong personal dislike and negative bias.

    Other examples include, “Margaret Wertheim … speculated in a 2012 essay that much of the interest in this area is a response to the heavy mathematical content and abstract ideas underlying conventional scientific theories, which, she says, makes them inaccessible to the general public.[16][17][18] She compares NPA with the revolt of Martin Luther against the Catholic church.[16][17][18]” Why is Wikipedia including the speculations of Wertheim!?! It’s possible that somewhere someone said something that is a shadow of what she speculates, but this empty speculation is rightly labeled speculation and off target. Also, it would seem that the reader’s interpretation of her comment on Martin Luther depends on the reader’s religious affiliation.

    Even if the gratuitous and snide insults quoted above were said by someone with physics credentials, that would not justify including them. Gratuitous and snide insults are just not appropriate fare for an encyclopedia.

    By way of contrast, the “Flat Earth Society” section is written quite reasonably and factually. I don’t think that’s because “Flat Earth Society” has the highest of scientific credentials. The contrast between that section and many other similar sections with the NPA/CNPS sections highlights the mean spirited bias of the Wikipedia editors/writers of the NPA/CNPS sections. We do not ask that the section be filled with glowing compliments, just that it not be written in the style of a tabloid smear.

    Further, the introduction to the whole list says, “This is a list of organizations opposing mainstream science by frequently contradicting the facts and conclusions recognized by the mainstream scientific community. By falsely claiming to employ the scientific method in order to advance certain fringe ideas and theories, they are engaged in the promotion of various forms of pseudoscience.” [red added] This may apply to some organizations in the list, but it is a misrepresentation of the NPA and CNPS and probably several others in the list and needs to be stricken or modified to indicate that it does not apply to the NPA and CNPS (and applicable others). Ironically, much of the work in those organizations points out where the mainstream has abandoned the scientific method and where it contradicts the facts (i.e., the empirical data). We would suggest limiting the introductory remarks to “This is a list of organizations opposing mainstream science by frequently contradicting the conclusions recognized by the mainstream scientific community.”

    The rather extensive inclusion of gratuitous and snide insults in these sections of Wikipedia does not seem to be in the best interest of the organizations who are being attacked or Wikipedia itself or the readers of Wikipedia. The only one whom it promotes would seem to be Margaret Wertheim and her chosen style of scientific analysis. Let’s work together to put this section of Wikipedia on a higher level and avoid setting a dangerous precedence regarding including gratuitous and snide insults in Wikipedia at large. Having now looked at the Talk section, I see that a number of people have broached this topic before while reviewing different but related issues. For example there appears:

    “It appears that this list is there to be a 'shame' list for ideas that editors don't like. If there is robust evidence against a school of thought then this should be on the school's page rather than noted in an uncited way on this blacklist of science. Nsxsvn (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)” HarvPhys (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read WP:TLDR and sum up your issue(s) in a few clear sentences.--ukexpat (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest closing this as not ripe. The same material is on the talk page and not yet responded to.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:07, 10 February 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.

    Please can you edit ISLAM page

    This needs to be removed from the family life section please. 'Even after marriage, there are limitations regarding sex. For example, Islam prohibits a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating and during postpartum period. It is considered a great sin for a man to have anal sex with his wife.[104]'

    I am a teacher and direct children to using wiki for information about different faiths. How is this necessary to family life. Do not understand why this is on here. PLEASE REMOVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffycakes (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    One of our basic principles is that Wikipedia is not censored. --ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Erchless Castle

    Please check that my recent deletions on the above page are all ok - it is, I think, a "dubious" page. I had to resort to adding a genealogical web site as a ref - is this OK? Thanks for your help. Srbernadette (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Most genealogical web sites are not considered reliable sources because anyone can post their own family tree to them and there is no review. Published genealogies that have been reviewed prior to publication may be reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Has the appearance of Wikipedia changed

    Today, every article of I have viewed seems stretched out.

    Eurocus47 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eurocus47: I don't see any drastic change, so this must be something at your end. Please try bypassing your browser cache to force your browser to reload everything - that's Ctrl+F5 in many browsers. If that doesn't fix it, please post again here with your browser name and version. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    February 11

    Kevin Durant (NBA Player)

    Hello, I am from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and would like to notify the Wikipedia team of an error. I love Wikipedia and use it everyday for all sorts of things. However I have recently noticed that the Wikipedia page for the NBA player Kevin Durant is wrong, in the (Quick Facts Portion) of the page. The error says that he is #35 for the Charlotte Hornets, and that is not accurate. Kevin Durant is #35 for the Oklahoma City Thunder NBA team. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you for everything that is Wikipedia. It's the best!!! 👍🏻🏀🏀🏀👍🏻 Sincerely, Sean M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:B600:800:B1CE:BCE5:8DF8:9054 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the report. The article had been vandalized. It has been fixed with this edit by Bagumba. In the future you can fis the vandalism yourself or if you find several edits like this by the same person you can report them to WP:AIV MarnetteD|Talk 01:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Are RfCs binding?

    This is implied at WP:RfC, but not explicitly stated. If they are, is there some point at which they become outdated or invalid? For example, if the information used in the discussion is later found to be incorrect or incomplete, or if the text in the article that is at issue fundamentally changes?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some answers to your question here Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change. From my own observations I can say that - unless dramatic evidence is discovered - it is bad form to open a new RFC within hours or days of a previous one being closed. Others may have more info that I have left out to share with you. MarnetteD|Talk 01:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with User:MarnetteD. RFCs generally are considered binding. It is a matter of common sense how long the RFC is binding, that is, when it can reasonably be asked whether consensus has changed. RFCs are binding in the sense that editing contrary to an issue that was resolved by an RFC is considered to be editing against consensus, which is a form of disruptive editing and may result in a block. Is there a specific RFC about which you have a question? Of all of the processes for content dispute resolution, RFC is the only one that is considered binding and non-voluntary. Third opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard, and formal mediation are voluntary. Sometimes one of those processes may be followed by an RFC in order to establish binding consensus for a period of time. Is there a specific RFC about which you have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I was prompted by a rather bizarre argument that we have been having about the article on Harold Holt, an Australian prime minister who disappeared in the surf in 1967, but I wanted to clarify the situation in general because the policy pages don't give a clear-cut answer. In that case, the RfC was somewhat marred by the fact that the text at issue contained a long-running hoax and one of the key sources was accidentally misquoted. Not to mention that all but one of the participants disagreed with the consensus. I was mulling over what to do to resolve the issue (if anything) and therefore I wanted to know where we stand in relation to Wikipedia policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, the real issue appears to be that you question the closure, not that you think that information has changed. You can ask to have the closure overturned at WP:AN (not WP:ANI). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a number of issues. I was accused of violating the RfC when I edited the text to remove the hoax. (If I did, it was unintentional.) But I think the presence of the hoax material fundamentally affected the context of the text. It is now clear that Marjorie Gillespie (his lover) was the main witness to Holt's disappearance, rather than just someone who happened to be on the beach (along with a list of "friends" who have turned out to be bogus). The closer suggested "omitting it altogether". This would mean either we didn't mention the main witness, or that we pretended she was a bystander. That seems unworkable. Fundamentally, however, no one seems to disagree with the main thrust of the closure, which is that we stick to what the sources say. I guess, with regard to the hypothetical issue, if all editors agreed that the issue had fundamentally changed, then we could move on from the RfC by mutual agreement. In the Holt case, that is far from the case. As I said, I wanted to clarify what the policy is. Perhaps it should be made clearer at WP:RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't researched the disappearance of Harold Holt enough to know whether there was a hoax. I know that his disappearance is still considered a mystery. If any of the information that has been published was a hoax, then I can still see that a request for Closure Review is better than a new RFC, in view of how recent the RFC was. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The hoax was vandalism of the Wikipedia page, since corrected. However, this is a moot point, as a discussion has already been started at WP:ANI without my knowledge. Thanks for your time.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Village of Kaslo - photo

    The photo attached to the article on the Village of Kaslo is dated 1946. In it, the SS Moyie is clearly seen in dry dock, much as it is today. However, further down in the article it is noted that the SS Moyie plied the waters of Kootenay Lake until 1958. A similar article devoted to the SS Moyie confirms this. Therefore, the date on the photo must be in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:76B4:C900:7083:779B:45F7:662E (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Who are the specific editors watching a particular Wikipedia article page?

    On the statistics page for an article, it states the number of individual "watchers" for that article. Is it possible to see who the actual watchers are? Or are we just privy to see the number without the identities? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joseph A. Spadaro: No, watchlists are private; see Help:Watchlist#Privacy. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Why does it state a specific number on some articles? And, on others, it generically states "less than 30 watchers" (or whatever the cutoff number is)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here it says that the "less than 30" feature is to stop vandals targeting pages that have no watchers; the software only shows the true figure to admins. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I never thought of that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any statistics to identify the rank or popularity of a Wikipedia article?

    On the statistics page for an article (or, anywhere, for that matter), is it possible to see the "rank" (or some other metric of relative popularity/usefulness) for an article? When I look at the statistics page for an article, I can see how many views it had had in the past X number of days. But can I see something like "this article is ranked number 763 of all Wikipedia articles"? Or something similar? Something that indicates its relative popularity/usefulness/attraction, relative to other articles. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joseph A. Spadaro: It may not be quite what you're looking for, but if you take a look at the various options at Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views then it may help.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I will check it out. For what it's worth, I think that every article should have some statistic associated with it. To indicate its relative usefulness or popularity, relative to the other articles. I think that would be helpful. How would I propose something like this? And where? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Popularity does not equate to usefulness. The software tracks views, # of edits etc but usefulness is subjective. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you proposed this, I would strongly oppose it, Joseph A. Spadaro. In my view anything that in the least suggests there might be some sort of competition (especially a popularity contest) between articles would encourage thinking and possibly behaviour that is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, brother. Everyone calm down. I guess one has to "guard" his exact words when speaking here. Some metric that measures how much people use each article. There. Is that more "pc"? Also, I am quite sure there are already "Top Ten" types of lists out there. I just saw one. And I am reminded of them, every so often. Do you oppose those, also? There are many at this link, provided above: Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was this for a while, Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool. -- GB fan 18:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Page views is a quantitative measure and is fine. Already the Good Article quest causes nonsense building out articles with excessive minitia detail. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but ... page views by itself is a meaningless number without any context. Some article gets, let's say, 38,000 page views per month. Is that a lot? A little? Average? Who knows? There is no context whatsoever. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph A. Spadaro: You might be interested in Wikipedia:Top_25_Report, which is available for every week.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Yes, I know that there are lists for the "top top top" articles (the Top 10 or Top 25, etc.). I'd like to see some metric that gauges readership and usage of the other 5 million articles. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I know it's not what you asked for: the top 5,000 most viewed over the past week are listed at User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages. One thing I would like to clarify in your request: would you be more interested in the total views the article has received ever, the views in the most recent week/month, or the average per week/month since it was written?--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Need to create gorgons head story in Hindi

    Hi Wikipedia Team,

    Please help to create the story of Gorgons Head in Hinidi or Marathi Language.

    Regards, Hanumant Pawar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.16.177.52 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Translate us explains the basic methods, but you might want to ask for help at the Hindi and Marathi help desks, rather than the English help-desk, to see if anyone there is willing to help. - Arjayay (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cherno Barra Touray

    Hi, I only found a few lines about Cherno Barra Touray from Gambia. I know he has a new job. Nothing about his personal life. What role in played in Gambia War. The information had to be changed to english. How do I ask for help to get more info. about this person that was a football star in his country, saw war, and has had many job in the Government. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E7D2:6D00:4CD6:C9F:C027:D91C (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi! It looks like German Wikipedia has an article about Touray, so you could try translating that article. Alternatively, if you can find reliable, independent sources about him, you could start an article yourself. Check out Wikipedia:Your first article for advice on how to go about doing that. —me_and 12:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Help Desk!

    The Tireless Contributors' Barnstar
    Hola Help Desk Team. Thanks so much for helping me each time in the past when I have posted queries here. This forum is perhaps the most amazing place on Wikipedia given the effort you all are taking. One reason I have continued on Wikipedia is because of the wonderful support given by you all. I am sure that must be the same case with other new editors who have been patiently guided by you all. You all are my tireless contributors. Xender Lourdes (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have copied this barnstar to this page's talk page, WT:HD. Since I didn't give it a section heading, I assume it will never be archived and will remain on that page indefinitely. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very considerate of you Mandruss :) Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Laird

    Ref 14 is not right here - please get the name of the publisher. Thanks 58.108.249.112 (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Eagleash (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Protest

    How do I protest racist and incorrect information on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atonn01 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Without reference to a specific article and therefore in general terms; if you find something that you are certain is incorrect then you can edit the article concerned, yourself. You will have to cite appropriate sources to verify any information you add or change. If you have concerns about a specific biographical page relating to a living person you can raise them here. In other circumstances, issues should be raised on the talk-page of an article. Please sign your posts on any talk-page by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks Eagleash (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As Eagleash said, without knowing specifically which article you're talking about or what concerns you have, it's a bit hard to answer your question. That said, often people who come here saying "Why does article X say Y?" have seen an example of WP:VANDALISM in an article. Vandalism does happen but we make efforts to fix it as quickly as possible. But again, if we don't know what article you're referring to, it's hard to say if what you saw actually was vandalism. Dismas|(talk) 19:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that this is about White pride - we have seen a rash of emails about it at OTRS.--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Ukexpat may well be right; I have seen some posts elsewhere about that page. Eagleash (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What is OTRS? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team Eagleash (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Posting photos for people who can't post photos

    Hello,

    I am at my wits end, sort of, since I have been on here since 2002 an used to edit things more than I do now, and part of this is because it has become a bureaucratic nightmare. For instance I have, over the years, worked on articles and uploaded pictures for people / on behalf of people who were busy or who did not know how to use a computer or the facebook. They would send me pictures or I would scan pictures for them and then upload with their permission and they would have me list it as the sort of picture that anyone could use as long as they didn't use it for commercial reasons. There were fewer choices back in the day for these copyright sorts of things, but I think it was just gnu creative commons open source free use sort of permissions but since I am not a intellectual property attorney or a pedant I don't know. Anyway, fast forward a few years and I now constantly get these notes about pictures saying that I do not have the right to upload them and they will need to take them off the article. This has happened with pictures I added to the Seth Shostak page and the Sonya Rapoport page, among others. It is very frustrating to try to help someone and to add to the wiki only to have someone say that because the person didn't actually upload it themselves it doesn't count. Yet I see endless pictures on here that I doubt were uploaded by the actual person holding the camera or making the artwork. So what am I doing wrong? Saudade7 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Greetings, @Saudade7:. I'll admit that I am probably partly at fault for this sort of thing. Anyhow, the issue with uploading someone else's work is that it means that uploader cannot easily explain the copyright status, so we need either OTRS or some other permission proof for it to be acceptable under our stringent copyright policies.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Jo-Jo Eumerus: What is OTRS? Does the person need to sign something? What if one of the people [Sonya Rapoport] has since died? Does that mean that all her pictures need to be taken down? (Honestly the problem is also that the rules change so much that what was okay at some point not requires more and more work, and I actually have a life and cannot manage things endlessly. It sort of makes editing the wikipedia sort of pointless. Saudade7 22:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I sympathise with Saudade7. I have even had problems when I take an image from Commons, make changes to it as requested at the Graphics Lab, and upload it to Commons as a new image, stating exactly where I found it; and it gets deleted because I have not supplied the right copyright information. I have now stopped taking requests from the Graphics Lab unless the image to be changed is already public domain. But I don't think this is the right place to complain, the problem is at Commons. Maproom (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to complain, I just generally don't know what to do anymore. People asked me to upload the pictures for them and chose the kind of permissions to go with their files. Sonya was like 89 at the time and would have never been able to figure out the difficult uploading process herself. I feel badly because she was so happy to have people see her pictures and now she is dead so cannot give new permission. How are there even pictures on the wikipedia at all given that people are not allowed to write pages about themselves and only the people themselves are allowed to add pictures !?! Saudade7 22:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saudade7: Normally I'd advise for you to advise them to upload these images themselves, but from your description that is not an option. Otherwise, the main two mechanisms to prove a license is to send an email to WP:OTRS (see also WP:IOWN) or to publish it somewhere else with a suitable license. Also, regarding File:Sonyaforwiki.jpg (I think this is one of the problem images you are concerned about, yes?) it can probably stand as fair use anyway if there is a licensing issue, until the copyright expires.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    One of Saudade7's questions was "What if one of the people [Sonya Rapoport] has since died?" Copyright licenses must be written. Email and web pages are written. But if a person only gives oral permission to copy a work, and then dies, that oral permission doesn't count. That's not a Wikipedia rule, that's the law in the US, where Wikipedia servers are located. The only recourse then would be to find out who inherited the copyright and get a written copyright license from the heir. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A follow up Saudade7: If you were in contact with Sonya you may be able to find out/contact whoever is/are the copyright holders (or their heirs) and ask/convince them to donate the images under free licences. I've had luck myself with such requests, with a contact it's even more likely.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating Article

    I'm trying to create an article and when I click on Save Page it comes up saying "automated filter has identified this edit as a possible autobiography" and to submit to click Save Page again. When I click Save Page it then takes me to another page where I have to enter a CAPTCHA word. I do that and hit enter or Save Page and it just takes me back to the first automated filter page. It just keeps going in circles. How do I submit my article?

    Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimson delight (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a running-in-circles bug that's been here for years. When you get a Captcha wrong, it gives you another one - fair enough. But when you eventually get one right, it still gives you another one, and it's easy not to notice that you have in fact been accepted. Maproom (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem to be what is happening here, for if the save had been accepted, it would appear in the user's contributions. —teb728 t c 00:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article now seems to be at Crimson Delight (apple). Dismas|(talk) 00:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just moved it to Crimson Delight as disambiguation is not required.--ukexpat (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Harv applet

    @Help desk: I use Sfn/"harv" style referencing for WP:V. How can I install the editing tool that helps automate "harv error" detection? See this conversation, if you need more information. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Instructions at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    February 12

    Error in reference

    Resolved

    ref 4 at World Marathon Challenge has the following error: "zero width space character in |title= at position 99".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Done The zero width space was just ahead of the 'm' in mother. —teb728 t c 00:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Fixed in Special:Diff/704513301 (I removed something just ahead of the 's' in single) —PC-XT+ 01:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Referencing errors on Bijaya Kumar Gachchhadar

    Reference help requested. Is there a way to retrieve the archive date for wikiwix? Or, is there a better archive, somewhere? I tried Internet Archive and WebCite, already. Thanks, —PC-XT+ 00:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    template for references to section which may or may not be on the same page

    Is there a template that references a section, and makes the resulting link so that, if the section is on the same page, it is just a simple (piped) section link (e.g. to #Another Section) whereas if not it is the full page link?

    For example, at WP:RFD, each day has its own page, which is transcluded. If I want to cross-reference another discussion, I just use the Wikipedia link, a bit long-winded, as "see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009/January 32#Invented". What I would like to do is "see also {{internal-link|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009/January 32|Invented}}" and have that translate either to the full (internal) link, or just [[#Invented]], depending on whether the FULLPAGENAME(?) is the same as the target page for the link.

    There's hardly any convenience in typing, but it means when people click through the link it won't reload the page (for the given day) but just jump to where it is transcluded in the current page.

    I don't mind attempting to create this template, but have a feeling one might already exist.

    Thanks in advance

    Si Trew (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, there's a flaw in this — how would it know that the linked page was transcluded on the current page? Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have submitted my article over a month ago but it has neither been reviewed nor published. Please help d elaborate the reason for the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Flexing_It#Background

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=704588995"