November 29

I've noticed many infoboxes being populated with template:Infobox military person for non-military notables, especially actors, who spent some time in the army. See for instance Telly Savalas and Karl Malden. The template description is vague about when to use it. Most are being macro-added by an IP, with some ruining the TOC formatting, as for James Earl Jones (now fixed). Is this a proper use of the template? --Light show (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to ask this question at WP:MILHIST or template's talk page. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently uploaded a new version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP#/media/File:GIMP_2.9_Usage.png to Wikimedia Commons for the article on GIMP. However, the image on the article and the media information page differ from the actual current file, which is also what shows up on the Wikipedia mobile app. I'm not really sure what to do... help would be appreciated! Transfat0g (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Transfat0g: There is sometimes a delay in generating scaled versions at different sizes when a new version of an image is uploaded. At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#Image purge it took a couple of days and none of the suggested purge methods could speed it up. The only immediate fix I know is to request a size that isn't already cached, for example by setting |screenshot size = 299px in the infobox parameter instead of getting the default 300px. But in this case it doesn't seem important which version is displayed so I suggest to just wait. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new version of the image is now displayed everywhere. I didn't do anything to make it happen. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the AFC help desks appear to be where to ask this question, so I am asking at the main Help Desk. At AFC, the author of one draft article that is being declined as reading like an advertisement is deleting the previous reviewer decline notes and resubmitting the draft. I haven't looked for a specific rule against this, but I am sure that it is contrary to policy, among other things as an attempt to game the system, by trying to deny subsequent reviewers information of the opinions of previous reviewers. I see that there are special templates to warn an editor for removing various sorts of deletion notices, but I don't see a template for removing AFC history. I templated the editor for disruptive editing because that is the general issue. Am I correct that removing the AFC history is inappropriate? How would other AFC reviewers deal with this? If I see that article submitted again, should I go ahead and nominate it for deletion as a waste of reviewer time? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice is to simply restore the deleted AFC history and explain to the submitter that the history helps us to better assist them. AFC Reviewers do want to see the history of the draft so that recurrent problems or difficulties can be identified and the submitter given appropriate assistance. However in this case where the issue is a "vexatious" submitter MFD is appropriate - after restoring the AFC history. BTW you can direct questions about AFC reviewing to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help - it's one of two "sub-links" on the "Talk" tab. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping! Robert McClenon -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one deal with an edit like this? I've already reverted twice. Another time isn't going to make a dent in this editor's point of view. 32.218.33.209 (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you do is discuss it on the article's talk page. If you cannot reach consensus there, you move to further steps in the Dispute resolution policy. --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check ref. number 22 on the above page. I don't know what is wrong with it. Thanks 101.182.171.41 (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Hello, I just exchanged "date" and "accessdate". The former is the source's actual date (when it was written or published), the latter is the date when the URL was last accessed to read the source content. Template:cite web has more information about the various parameters. GermanJoe (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I have seen a guideline, that we should not be using symbols such as ® or © or ™ in articles
I wanted to cite the guideline when removing some ® symbols - but couldn't find it. Is there such a guideline? - or is my memory playing tricks (again) ? - Arjayay (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRADEMARK, currently the fifth bullet point under General rules. —Cryptic 19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cryptic - I was sure I'd seen it but couldn't find it - probably because I started looking for ® not ™ - Arjayay (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can search projects pages by placing WP: before the search term. WP:® and WP:™ both redirect there (WP:© has another target). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make my user page "footer" get treated as such? My user page is organized into sections and subsections. At the end, I have a footer, consisting of a signature and a couple of tack-ons. I currently express that as a separate fake section using "== ==". I'm happy with no table of contents for now, but if I chose to use a TOC, the "footer" would be treated as a section. How do I identify the footer as such, so that WP renders it properly, and doesn't treat it as a section? Thanks. Willondon (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you want it to render? You can make a horizontal line with four or more ----. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out the "no table of contents" directive on this version, to show you what I mean. The "footer", saying "Cheers, Willondon", etc. is seen as a third section (since I faked it with "== =="). If I don't do that, the "footer" is considered as part of the last section (Miscellaneous things). I guess what I'm looking for is some code to indicate "the sections are done; treat the rest as the end part of the article, a footer, and don't include it in the table of contents". Willondon (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what you want. If you don't want it to have its own entry in the table of contents then just don't make a section heading for it. If you want source text at the end which is not included when the last section is edited then it is not possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that last thing is what I wanted. Thanks for your help, and informing me that it's not possible. Willondon (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image on Paul Telfer's Wiki site and now it's been removed.

Why was it removed after I sited sources and creative commons citations?

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

The deletion log is at commons:File:Paul Telfer-actor.jpg. You were notified at commons:User talk:Dnormand#File tagging File:Paul Telfer-actor.jpg. The deleted page can only be seen by Commons administrators so I don't know what it said. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi Dnormand. Your edit to Wikipedia's article on Paul Telfer (not Paul Telfer's Wiki site) was reverted probably because the image was deleted from the Commons. ...Text removed as redundant to the above... In short, did you take this picture yourself? If not, what made you think it was under a suitable free license or in the public domain? I note that there is an image by this name at Wikia but it appears to be a copyright violation. As for the nature of the revert by Materialscientist – done using rollback which is only for edits clearly made in bad faith – I don't know why that occurred or whether there's some background here I'm not aware of that would support that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

Hi,

Hope you are doing well.

I have created a page i.e. Salequick in "https://en.wikipedia.org" on date 19-Nov-2015. I have also optimize it (according to your wiki guidelines) by adding required information and add unique (informative) content on this page. At that time my wiki page was live and opening properly but today i am not found and my login details are also not working.

I want to see my page in wikipedia. So, Kindly assist me on this, So that i can optimize the page as per your guidelines.

I am looking for your prompt action on this.

Have a graet day ahead.

Regard's

Keshaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshaw1992 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for advertising ones own production, and the article at that location has been deleted as advertising twice within the last two weeks. Please see WP:NOTADVERTISING. If you feel your company meets the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), you can request that someone write the article from secondary sources at Wikipedia:Requested articles.Naraht (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can the Daily Mail be used as a source?, I'm convinced I read somewhere it shouldn't be used as such and rather annoyingly I've followed that for the last 2-3 years... and it now turns out I could be completely wrong?!, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is listed at Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shantavira. –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should add a production code on the Teen Titans Go! page 99.120.110.199 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Rickey Claiborne[reply]

The reason that the error was flagged was that you had put the "Production Code" parameter in the middle of a reference, hence breaking the reference. Your edit has therefore been reverted by a bot. Note also that in {{Episode list}} the name of the parameter is "ProdCode". --David Biddulph (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Vare-Washington School I have two NRHP infoboxes since this school occupied two different buildings. I get a "{{#coordinates:}}: cannot have more than one primary tag per page" error as a result. What should I do to fix it? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit (removed title from second infobox). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change page title. Right now the page title is User:Anshuranisingh/sandbox, i want to replace it with Tulsi Tanti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshuranisingh (talk • contribs) 06:58, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Anshuranisingh: I would advise against doing so. As the reviewer stated , the content is not ready for main space and if you move it there without addressing the concerns it will be headed for deletion. BUT if you are determined, there is a tab at the top of the page that says "move" and instructions here WP:MOVE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have a difficulties with editing via VE. When I click on Edit, nothing happens. Somoene told me it might be an interaction with a Gadget, but I havent found out which Gadget may cause it. Any idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juandev (talk • contribs) 09:07, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Juandev: Special:Contributions/Juandev shows two VE edits three minutes before posting here. How did you make them? If your problem is at another wiki or a specific page then please name it. Also name your browser. Does it work when you are logged out? If there is no VE edit link for logged out users then click the source edit link and manually change action=edit to veaction=edit in the url. When you say nothing happens, do you mean the url in the browser address bar doesn't change and there are no signs the browser is trying to load something? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi We will like to request the page title change for zh:Radio 1003 to UFM100.3 and if you are able to include the information box on the right hand side to the page as well and request the page title change for UFM 1003 to UFM100.3.

Thanks:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaowei87~enwiki (talk • contribs) 10:20, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hellom, Xiaowei87~enwiki. Chinese Wikipedia is a quite separate project from English Wikipedia, and very few people here have any familiarity with it. If it works the same way as English Wikipedia, you should be able to MOVE the page to a new title. See zh:Help:页面重命名. --ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted you recently. But nothing has changed. I am concerned that the wikipedia entry on me- my biography - still says at then top that the article has multiple issues. It does not - because the people who write this for me have addressed Wikipedia's concerns. Retaining the statement at them top - this article has multiple issues - makes me look bad and causes reputation damage. Can you please get one of your editors to modify this. Please note I am a big fan of wikipedia and have previously donated money - so I do expect a good service!

Barry Dufour

The wikipedia page is: Barry Dufour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.52.11 (talk • contribs)

I don't see that the issues flagged had been in any way addressed - and I see many other issues that had not been previously flagged, so I have added those banners.

And "people who write this for you" need to declare their conflict of interest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your financial contribution. But please note, that was a charitable donation to support Wikipedia in its goal to be a free encyclopedia. Not a payment for a listing in a directory. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick view leads me to believe this might be a case of WP:TNT where the current advertorial is essentially unsalvageable but we can possibly replace it with a short stub that does meet the appropriate standards WP:GNG / WP:NPOV particularly under WP:AUTHOR if it is the same Barry Dufour who wrote both The World of Pop and Rock and edited New Movements in the Social Sciences and Humanities. I will try to have a look at this later. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Most probably this is the same person — the two books you mention above are listed in Barry Dufour#Principal books as the second and third position. --CiaPan (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone!

I'm an editing newbie working on the draft at Draft:This Week Newspaper

Try as I might and despite web research, I've failed to nail the Wiki markup needed for reference number mouseovers. There appear to be different methods but I'm not familiar enough with code to determine a good practice standard. I've turned to the Open Data Institute who are all about coding standards and provided the example below:

The mouseover code they use for '[4]" in the sentence 'There are currently 13 nodes acting as catalysts for open data business development and training." can be seen at Open Data Institute

Any advice would be welcome. I just need pointing in the right direction. :)

Best wishes, Terry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caerhys (talk • contribs) 13:45, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

It looks like reference popups do not work in the draft namespace. Unknown technical bug. In Wikipedia:Sandbox the popups in your draft work well. This means it will work when the draft gets published. Read also WP:SIGNATURE. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! That's great news. Thanks. I shall press on regardless.

@Caerhys: Just for your information, how discussions work: You type a text in a discussion, then after you've typed, you sign with four tildes, thus: Your text.--~~~~ (there is a button on the edit toolbar above).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no key ==

I have no idea what I've broken [1]. Everything looks correct. Please, help.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you have references within the notelist template. I don't know how you want to deal with that but you will probably have to remove them to fix the error. Sarah-Jane (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that, the reference 14 in the text does not work, while the reference 14 in the reference list returns to the reference 15. But the reference 13 works well anyway inside of the template. There is some paradox.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've corrected it with another template. Nevertheless, I'd like to hear a technical explanation of the problem, because it was very strange.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I have added a reference from a national newspaper, but I am getting a no ref message? Richard Murray Irish Politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechaunxwwwx (talk • contribs)

@Leprechaunxwwwx: Fixed the error [2] but nominated the article for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will Dear Wikipedia, I would very much like help with malicious content being repeatedly added to the page Claire Harman (writer), which violates my privacy and is maliciously intended. If it is possible to remove the whole page, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I'd be very grateful for any help in arresting this distressing, aggressive behaviour. Yours, Claire Harman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Col2950 (talk • contribs)

I have semi-protected the article for a week. That will stop the IPs from readding the info. -- GB fan 17:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If those BLP-violations are re-added later, longer protection can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (was just filing the request, but GB fan beat me to it - thanks). GermanJoe (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said: "If it is possible to remove the whole page, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I'd be very grateful for any help in arresting this distressing, aggressive behaviour." I will call the OP's attention to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion requested by subject, which has to do with article deletion requested by the subject. What the OP can do is to nominate the article for deletion via Articles for Deletion. This appears to be a special case, request for deletion of article by not-very-well-known subject, where No Consensus results in Delete rather than in Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where to Report Malicious BLP Violations

This raises a question that isn't obvious to me as an experienced editor. What is the best forum for reporting repeated BLP violations? In particular, can repeated BLP violations be reported at the anti-vandalism noticeboard, or are they a case of misconduct that is not vandalism? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the violation, really. If it's questionable or contentious, BLPN. Petty vandalism like blanking, obscene slurs, or intentionally adding obviously false information should be reported to AIV. For disruption that is not outright vandalism, including harassment or defamation, I'd suggest ANI or a passing admin's talk page. For "holy crap!"-level events, such as someone who has been doxed, post a {{Uw-biog4im}} and contact an oversighter. You might also contact a passing admin to revdel it while waiting for oversight. Don't report something that needs to be oversighted at ANI, as it's too public. For certain kinds of violations, you can also go to AE after you've posted the appropriate discretionary sanctions alert. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing an article about a notable person who has given me his biography and he wishes to have this as the main content of his article. However, he has also given this biography to several other event pages and websites, but he still is the original owner. I have obtained letters saying that he has the right to use it, but my article continues to be flagged as copyright infringement. What is the procedure of submitting these letters so his article can be published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by German Gonzalez G (talk • contribs)

In general, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure. But it might be a waste of effort, for autobiographies are almost never suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you linked to the article we might be able to give you better advice. —teb728 t c 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, German Gonzalez G, Wikipedia has approximately zero interest in what a subject says (or wants said) about themselves: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the the subject have said about them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article: http://www.fireflourandfork.com/german-gonzalez/

I changed it however, and took out the promotional language. I just used the basic facts as a building block, so it was less autobiographical. There are a few other distillers and brewers who have made advancements in their fields that have articles written about them as well, so I'm not sure how this differs/if it it does in terms of it being promotional.

Wikiblame is returning some wildly incorrect results - 3 searches for "Dandelion Wine" in Fahrenheit 451 have given the same result "Insertion found between 00:55, 7 June 2012 and 03:17, 7 June 2012" - whereas, having searched manually, it was actually made on 19 November 2015 - 3.5 years later. Is this a known problem? - Arjayay (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: Try it again with "Force searching of wikitext" ticked. With that unticked, the software is looking at the page as the reader sees it, after template expansion. It correctly found the 2012 edit that added the {{Ray Bradbury}} navbox, which contains the text "Dandelion Wine". With the box ticked it finds the 19 November edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John of Reading - I didn't understand that the tick box did that - (note to self RTFM} - Arjayay (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good day

I added an article about Terrance Plowright last year, which was accepted. I am now trying to add his name here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_artists

but have completely forgotten what to do! I have included his name under the P's but I can't remember how to add a reference (or if this is necessary). I tried adding this: ^[1]: but it shows up on the list of artists page so I assume I'm doing something wrong.

Please help regards - helen Helen7274 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List articles don't normally need references, just valid links (IOW, the most common criteria for list articles is just that the entry have a Wikipedia article). But you signed the addition, which you should not do in the article itself. I removed that. Rwessel (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwessel, Helen7274: While adding an entry to a stand alone list may not always invoke one of the four types of material that absolutely require an inline citation, that statement is painting with a very broad brush. List articles are subject to the same content policies and guidelines applicable to other articles, such as citing sources and verifiability (including WP:BURDEN) and list topics must be notable (though notability for lists is a special case, calling to the list set rather than each individual entry).

Yes, Helen, it is always good to add an inline citation, even where one is not absolutely mandated to appear—though we never cite other Wikipedia articles as references. Some of the mechanics of citing a reliable source are explained at Help:Referencing for beginners. We make links by placing doubled brackets around an entry. For example if you save: "[[Wikipedia]]" that will format as Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am interested in doing research for articles that need citations and was wondering two things:

1. Is it possible to go into an article and quickly find out if there are any citations that are needed?

2. Is there any way to find articles that have a high amount of citations needed requests?

Many thanks

Does this help? Category:All articles with unsourced statements Rwessel (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, possibly Wikipedia:Maintenance might help? CaptRik (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section to this album page that listed the recording dates and personnel at each session. The source for the players was the original album jacket, but the dates came from the CD reissue. I thought the best way to cite the two sources was in the section title as "Recording dates[1] and personnel[2]", but someone changed it so that they were together on the next line with no indication of which citation goes with what information. Is there something wrong with having citations next to section titles? Danaphile (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:HEAD includes the following: "Citations should not be placed within or on the same line as section and subsection headings." --David Biddulph (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

Reference help requested.

I don't understand what the error is here. I cited authorities for my edit and tried to insert a new footnote

27 with these cites. "There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them"??? What the heck does this mean? There is no absence of content here. Please help or explain. Using Wikipedia has become very frustrating!

Thanks, Wrc2500 (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrc2500: See the diff in your section head above: You added <ref></ref> with no content between the <ref> and the </ref>. Also you added it at the beginning of a section head (before the ==) where it wrecks the recognition of the section head. —teb728 t c 01:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, five different references should be shown separately, which I've fixed. That's also a bit excessive. Two or at most three is more than sufficient for a relatively uncontroversial statement. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a move tab on the grammatically incorrect List of displayed Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Whazzup? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the page was move-protected on 18 December 2011. The protecting admin appears to have been User:The Bushranger. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to post an inquiry to the protecting admin's talk page User talk:The Bushranger. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's move protected so that only admins can move it. You think Stratofortress should be plural (cf. List of surviving Boeing B-47 Stratojets)? Since (among other moves) the article has already been moved, for obscure reasons, from List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses to List of surviving Boeing B-52 Stratofortress by the administrator MilborneOne back in 2010, I'd advise doing a requested move on it. If the RM succeeds (I'd support it, for one), an admin will carry out the move on request. Deor (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I can give you some of the relevant background. First see Category talk:Lists of surviving aircraft#Rename pages. There was a user very dissatisfied with these moves, and edit warring ensued resulting in the protection – the protection you see is mine; MilborneOne later moved that page and so the protection was moved to, and took his name. But why it ended up at a singular name I don't know since User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 13#List of surviving B-17 Flying Fortresses indicates plural was being used, at least for other moves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's off to RM then, for all the Stratofortri out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors: This draft: Draft:Quinn Magnuson appears to be about a Canadian football player. I found this information about him which leads me to believe he may be a notable player. I tried leaving a message at WT:WikiProject Canadian football, but no one has replied there for over a year. Can anyone suggest another way of getting this draft improved? What I know about football would fit on a Or should it be let go when it comes up for db-g13 deletion?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a pretty thorough bio, [3] except that it is by his future employer announcing he has joined the company. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong: maybe go up the foodchain of projects to a more general "wikiproject:sports" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's good idea, TheRedPenOfDoom. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. In Jazz_Jennings article would it be ok to say in her person life that her birth name is Jared? I found it at this article: http://starcasm.net/archives/322082 Would it also be ok to say she is on hormone blockers and estrogen? 2. In the article about the webshow Sense8 that the show is British and Canadian as wll as American because IMDB shows it company credits is Motion Picture Capital a British company and Javelin Productions which is a Canadian company shown right here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2431438/companycredits?ref_=tt_ql_dt_5 208.181.190.136 (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Neither IMBD nor Starcasm is a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is with respect to the table I've used at Forest cover by state in India. Is it possible/what is the best way to:

1. make only the final row (Total) unsortable (just as the header is not)?
2. make only the first column of the table centre-aligned?
3. make the header sticky? Some sites allow the header row to remain fixed to the top of the screen as the user scrolls down the page.

Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpt.a.haddock:

1.  Done, maybe it's not the only way.
2.  Done
3. don't think it's posibble in some simple way. Don't think that is also needed in this case, the table isn't so big. I think I have seen, that other users have included the headers also at the bottom of table --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgars2007: Thank you! The fix for (1) is neat! I was hoping for a cleaner solution for (2); I'm surprised that the Visual Editor does not support cell alignment. I can live without (3). Thanks again :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First: my english is really bad, this is, why i have almost only been worked with Hungarian-themed articles here, on en.wikipedia (by complete texts ask for help by an English-knowing friend). In the Hungarian Wikipedia have i more then ten thousand editing, so i think, i understand the rules of the general fund wikipedia. :o)

I have seen the File:Thomas_Kuhn.jpg made by Bill Pierce (photographer) and i was looking after him. I think, he is notable but i can't formulate a complete article. So i writ a really short stub with many source and potential source (this latter in the section "External links"; eg an in-depth Internet radio interview, two paper interviews + one in section References, a notable mention in a reliable, published book and some more less serious sources) → User:Fauvirt/Bill_Pierce_(photographer). I ask for help [4] User:Mz7, then i clicked on "submit your draft for review!". So now: i get yesterday:

"This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Could me help Someone? I am for, if someone think so, that in the article to edit (I hope, it is clear what i mean..). (I ping @SwisterTwister: too). Thanks! Fauvirt (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means that you should add more third party sources that contain non-trivial content about the subject. Ruslik_Zero 12:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: it is better now? Fauvirt (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... or someone else? Or is it superfluity?... Fauvirt (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference help requested. I'm unsure of how to fix my errors on the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case in the references section, if you could help me please. Thanks, Blue2433 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Blue2433Blue2433 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The error messages say "Check date values in: |access-date= (help)", and the word "help" is in blue to indicate that it is a wikilink, in this case to Help:CS1 errors#bad date. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can I use the photos that are in the free images in "How to improve your article" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloansabbith (talk • contribs)

@Sloansabbith: The "free images" link made by {{AFC submission}} is just a Google search of Internet images which appear to have a license that allows upload and use here. Assuming the license is acceptable, the images still have to be uploaded like all other images before they can be used. See Help:Introduction to images (WM). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the interwiki image links don't work anymore. I'm trying to add the images [5], [6], and [7] to the relevant sections in Tele 5. There was a time when I could do this by simply changing Datei: to File:, but this doesn't work anymore. --2003:71:4E07:3E42:1D36:BDC7:DD5C:24BF (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It probably worked for you in the past because the files happened to be hosted at Wikimedia Commons. But those files don't appear to be. It looks like they are only hosted at the German Wikipedia. You can't use files from other languages on the English Wikipedia. If they're hosted by a specific language, they can only be used at that language.

Those images could possibly be moved to Commons but my German isn't good enough to say that for certain. Dismas|^(talk) 16:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your second image File:Tele 5 Logo 1992.svg is at Commons (using commons:Template:PD-textlogo) so it can be displayed here. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's just sad that the only logo I can implement is the ugliest one from when the channel's original incarnation was already scheduled for closure. --2003:71:4E07:3E42:1D36:BDC7:DD5C:24BF (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This username (2 edits-vandalism) - User:showmeyourgenitals seems like it violates the offensive username policy, but I am not sure. Does anyone with more experience think this is the case? (They will prob. get blocked anyway for vandalism.) Thanks BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name is clearly intended to be offensive. Maproom (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - Moot question now, admin has hardblocked (bacause of name). Thanks to User:Maproom for commenting. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to donate money to Wikipedia, but am unable to find the money donation page. Thank you, Joyce Kirk50.46.114.240 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the upper left corner of this page, just under the Wikipedia globe, the sixth item down is "Donate to Wikipedia". Thank you. Rwessel (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I start my own entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinapearlman (talk • contribs)

1) You don't. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which states that a person is discouraged from creating any article about themselves at Wikipedia.

2) It's possible that no article may be written about you. Since I don't know who you are, I have no way to read about you outside of Wikipedia. In order for an article to be created at Wikipedia there needs to exist the proper amount of reliable, independent source material. For example, George Washington has an article at Wikipedia because people who are not George Washington, not paid by George Washington, and who have no direct connection to George Washington have researched his life and written about him. If that is true about you, eventually, someone who you don't know will eventually create a Wikipedia article about you. If no one has written about your life and your work extensively, then it is likely no article will ever be created about you.

Hope that helps. --Jayron32 19:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers for a relevant guideline here. The post was unsigned but I have added it was posted by User:Dinapearlman, so I guess her name is Dina Pearlman. There is an actress by that name: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0669109/. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 made two important points above – but I'd like to add one more:

0) (Yes, ZERO!) There is no such thing like your own entry in Wikipedia. At best it could be a Wikipedia entry about you. See, please, WP:OWN.

Additionally, writing an article about yourself is highly discouraged in Wikipedia. If you you think you are notable enough to be described in Wikipedia (see WP:Notability), you may propose such article in WP:AFC. For more explanations and guidelines see Wikipedia:Autobiography. --CiaPan (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered Markus Hess, an almost completely unsourced BLP. I started to try to find sources for the material in the article, but have encountered a major issue. The article has existed since May 2005, and in that time it has evidently been used as a source by journalists. Some digging has revealed that the details that these journalists used from the article were incorrect, as I outline here. What is it best to do in this situation? I'm struggling to think of ways to easily differentiate between sources that are reliable and sources that may have drawn on the Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use only sources that are older than the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I've been doing since posting this message. Most of them are from the time of the hacking incident in the late 1980s and early 1990s, so access isn't that easy. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current article contains many falsehoods & inaccuracies. Please replace it with this well-researched, accurate article:

<@Dodger67: copyvio removed> 72.168.145.95 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. If the article has falsehoods or inaccuracies, you may discuss them at Talk: Jin Shin Do or may fix them, being careful to use your own words and not copyrighted words. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to change "Autry National Center" title (Autry National Center) to its new name "Autry Museum of the American West".^[1]

71.31.129.234 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Article moved Deor (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

I've been a bit confused about the policies regarding article worthiness. As a relatively new user I've tried to create new articles that are properly cited and "worthy" of inclusion, but on both occasions the articles have been deleted. I've compared them with similar topics, and some dissimilar topics, and found that there is a wide variety of articles that don't seem to meet the "worthiness" stature that is mentioned in the Wikipedia guidelines.

In particular, I find it interesting that there are many "stub" articles that often have very little citations (I've seen some with just one or two references) and which cover very narrow or niche subjects. Why are some stub articles allowed to be on Wikipedia when they don't meet the worthiness requirements but articles that are much more substantial and well cited grounds for deletion?

Also, I found it more than a little troubling that some of the examples of "unworthy" stub articles were created by Wikipedia administrators -- is this a coincidence or are they being given preferential treatment for their articles over other users?

Thank you for taking the time to address this issue. Comment by User:RinoLanda Fences&Windows 00:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and I found you'd submitted drafts at Wikipedia:Articles for creation that were declined. The issue was using websites of the organisations as sources with little use of independent reliable sources like newspapers or books. Admins do get a right called "Autopatrolled" that means their article creations don't appear in the new pages patrol, but the articles are still subject to scrutiny and others can apply for that right too. Don't worry so much about others' articles, make sure your own are built up and supported by good sources. I can restore the deleted drafts to your userspace for you to work on, if you like. Fences&Windows 00:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There are clearly many articles, particularly in the very large group of very short or stub articles, that really shouldn't exist. Many of these date from earlier days when the notability rules (see WP:Notability) were less strongly followed. Add the fact that many of those have few watchers, and little activity, so they stay off the radar and they just continue to exist. In fact a not uncommon complaint here at the Help Desk is "I mentioned a long existing article, and it promptly got nominated for deletion!" - and it's true - an article gets mentioned here, and it will promptly get attention. In short, much of the stuff that shouldn't exist is really just awaiting someone to notice it. OTOH, precedent *is* important in determining notability. In general, though the notion that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (please read!), or doesn't exist, does not directly impact a particular article's notability. As to Admin created articles, I don't think I've seen any bias towards *keeping* admin created articles at AfD, but I suspect that new creations by admins, and other long established editors probably get somewhat briefer scrutiny at initial creation, although I think it's not a huge difference, at least in the main (article) space (we discovered a clear problem with an admin crating redirects, recently, where that was definitely an issue). Again, years ago, things were much looser. OTOH, if you see articles that you don't think should exist, feel free to nominate them for deletion (WP:AfD). Rwessel (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to succinctly explain Wikipedia's crushing bureaucracy. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia doesn't really have clear-cut criteria for what qualifies except for this. Topics that may seem unworthy will still be included despite their obscurity or triviality, and sometimes we need to skip over topics that we subjectively find important. Sources don't need to be explicitly listed in the article itself, but they do need to exist. The biggest hurdle is finding sources that are independent and reliable. Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Highbeam Research help a lot. See The Wikipedia Library for help on accessing them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Cain's page has a weird thing (personal life), quoted below:

"It was later revealed to be a demonic possession by the fallen spirit, Azazel."

I guess some joker did that. Please remove that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Cain

Thx

 Done

A bit of vandalism done about 40 minutes ago. I reverted it. Rwessel (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In July of this year, we crated a page in your webpage about us with information as to what we did since your page rerouted information or searches of us to other things that were not related and now we have been informated that page was removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reamed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.37.87.1 (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Spam and WP:COMPANY, the latter of which you fail. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm surprised it took almost three days for the page to be reverted. Had I noticed it at the time, I would have reverted it within seconds. This was pretty much a textbook example of what should not be written on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 09:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been noticed that my wiki profile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deborah_Ferrari is not indexing in Google. Few days ago, it was showing in Google while search my Name "Deborah Ferrari", but now it disappears from the search results. Please let me know what is the error and how to fix it.

Look forward for your kind response.

Deborah Ferrari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah Ferrari (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but the page is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You are using the Wikipedia servers as a webhost for your blog. I have tagged the page for deletion. -- GB fan 11:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted now but it was a user page. All userspace pages were recently noindexed after Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 126#Userpage drafts shown in search engines and phab:T104797. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is going on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KASOTC&action=history

Which version is correct? There is also a user with the same name. --The Avengers 14:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some background: I used to be an active editor ten years ago, I came back today on a whim and did some vandalism clean up. I came across a user who was repeatedly blanking an article. This user, Lailamcb's intent is to delete the article. Here's where it gets a bit more complex. The page, about an artist named Zehra Laila Javeri, has a number of issues with it: It is orphaned, may not be notable, etc. Apparently, Lailamcb is the daughter of the artist the page is about, and says the artist wants it taken down, and Lailamcb is willing and able to give proof of this. I believe that Lailamcb is acting in good faith and is having a tough time understanding the deletion system for Wikipedia (hence blanking and trying to get it speedy deleted). My understanding is that just because a public figure wants their page taken down doesn't mean it will be taken down, but the other problems with the article cloud the issue a bit.

I'm bringing this up here because I'm far behind on my knowledge of Wikipedia policies and processes (as my knowledge of them dates from when they were in their infancy). Rather than give Lailamcb misinformation, I'm hoping some kind editor reading this will be able to help them either through walking them through the request for deletion process, or explain to them the relevant policies that preclude us from deleting the article.

Thanks very much! --Quadraxis (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone deal with the above page? Revert the page-maove vandalsim and vandal edits. 103.6.159.89 (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After days of reading and trying to find out how to edit pages I am still not comfortable with starting editing. I worry I will end up destroying the code within any article. I want to edit the Russian_Red article but one of my crew told me I should not edit articles about me or any to which I am related on WIkipedia. Please advice on how to correct Russian_Red. There are two statements in the article that are false and not correct. These are the last two statements in my article. ---The single launched by Russian Red was ‘Casper’ (with subsequent video on January 24, 2014), which also had a vinyl edition as maxi single, still face the issue of ‘Philippe B’, not included on the disc. In addition, as the launching of the LP approached, different previews could be heard in iTunes concluding with a free download for a limited time that Amazon offered , the song ‘Michael P.’, the first track, days after to put himself up for sale in many countries.--- Can anyone help? Also how do I learn to edit? Any easy tips & tricks guide?