May 3

I have an expansive collection of historical maps. Whenever I edit information maintained by Mn/DOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation), the information is always reverted to the data that this agency wants to appear on the page, not what may actually be factual. Is there a way to have the pages marked/flagged that public edit is not allowed? Personally I feel that this group is violating the open source content objective of Wikipedia. It is very frustrating that they continue this warring on contributers and false information is being presented to the public, because "this is not recognized be Mn/DOT".

Pages can be semiprotected, but this is not normally done unless there is substantial vandalism on the page, which does not sound like the case here. It sounds from your description as though either you or some other party (or both) are trying to own the page: I can't tell which, and you have not told us which page or pages you are concerned about. Either way, nobody owns a page, and you would appear to be having a content dispute: please see that link for how to proceed, but it begins with attempted to discuss the matter with the other party on an appropriate talk page. If your maps are in principle available to the public (eg at certain libraries) then you may use them as references, but if they are unpublished you should not do so. --ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated an article for deletion. The deletion debate appears to be getting a little unpleasant. Could someone who has not been involved in the deletion debate take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin A. Neil? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen much more unpleasant debates than that. The creator of the article has made his case for keep, everyone else there (including me, now) has !voted for delete. Don't worry about it. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both {{GZM RDT}} and {{GZM RDT/doc}} have remain unchanged for quite some time. I am pretty sure that the last time I looked at them they were normal (the template pages themselves, not transclusions). What is breaking them and how to fix it? Repeated purging does not help. Kxx (talk | contribs) 02:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the hidden Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. See Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. This can be complicated to fix without removing content. You could remove transclusion of some of the subtemplates from the documentation page. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Trimming the documentation makes both pages display normally. Thanks for help. Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, our company has changed name from Sentia Media to iSentia but I cannot get access to change the page name. Can you please amend this, in line with the copy which is already adjusted?

Thanks

John Chalmers

Group Communications Manager <redacted contact details> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.146.116 (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article from Sentia Media to iSentia, (& I've also removed the contact details from your question, see the bold text in the second bullet at the top of this page). - David Biddulph (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we encounter non-vandal editors who refuse to embrace grammar, MOS standards, etc, is there a non-invasive, non-combative way to request an unbiased set of eyes regularly review their edits to a specific article? (I don't mean ALL of their edits, because that's beyond the scope of my interest). The Dispute Resolution board seems to deal with SPECIFIC disputes, not "This dude just doesn't get it" disputes. I don't find it an equitable solution that I bow-out of editing the articles I'm interested in, but I find myself biased against hard-headed editors who seem impervious to correction or edification, and I've Assumed Good Faith when reasonable, occasionally going to great lengths to explain reversions. Is there a polite way to solicit other editors' participation in specific article updates without creating an official complaint against the contributor(s) and their content? I'm not interested in banhammers, only quality articles. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:RFC help at all? It also suggests alternative pages at the top. CaptRik (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reasoning with the user, either on his talk page or on article talk pages? My assumption is that the answer is yes, and you are asking her because the user "just doesn't get it". As CaptRik says, the RFC page describes the difference between content dispute resolution and user conduct issues. The user may be inexperienced and may not understand how Wikipedia works, but competence is required and the user should try to learn. Unwillingness to learn causes a competence issue to become a conduct issue. A user conduct RFC is generally considered a last resort, because it is a step toward requesting that the user be banned, but if the user won't listen, then the reminder that he is at risk of being banned may be an incentive to listen. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed tried to reason. I think an article RFC might be warranted. Thanks for your input! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean an article content RFC, or a user conduct RFC? If the editor won't listen to reason, then a user conduct RFC may be warranted. (An article content RFC may also be warranted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with my original intention, I don't have a vested interest to have the editor disciplined, only to help develop articles that meet encyclopedic standards. I figure if I submit article content RFCs, it will help to get other eyes on the article(s), steer the article toward better quality, establish consensus, keep my bias in check, and potentially help the editor to learn. If the editor refuses to learn, it would become a matter for the community. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna use the template on danish wikipedia but is it possible to make so it so the link say Santiago del Estero but at same time links to Provincia de Santiago del Estero like Santiago del Estero this? --89.249.2.53 (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - just like that in fact :D Mdann52 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have two accounts, this one which I used on the English wikipedia and one I used on the dutch wikipedia. I would like to rectify this situation and if I'm not mistaken, I should make a usurpation request. However, I really don't like either of the names I used, so I would like a username change as well. How would I best go about this?

What I think I would have to is to first request a name change for one of the accounts, then once that is done create a usurpation request to merge the two accounts and then verify that the other account is my own by responding to the request with it.

Is this correct? Is there a more direct way to approach this situation? Is it a problem that I don't have all that many edits in any of the accounts?

Sorry for all the questions and thanks for any help. My name is Jasper (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have much edits, instead of changing the username creating a new account with a username which haven't been used would be better. But if you prefer changing user name m:SR/SUL (or m:SRUC) would be the best place to request. --Ushau97 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam, i noticed in the subject information that Mohamed Rajabdeen is a sri lankan moor which is not the case. In fact his family are considered as Indian muslims living in sri lanka. Please do the correction to ensure that we as sri lankan moors maintain our identity.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombosrilanka (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Provincial government identifies him as a "Ceylon Moor" at http://www.wpc.gov.lk/wpc-plan/memberdetails.php?RID=151, so I'm afraid his name should stay in the list. Rojomoke (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good day to you, a 3 months pregnant PHL women been send out to work oversea by a PHL agency in PHL,any one there in PHL can help her parent in PHL to make a complaints against the agency at PHL, please give the parent at PHL a helping hand, hope to hear from you ASAP, thank you

Yap S C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.110.98 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.

Please also note that our reference desks cannot provide legal advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete article Cowell area school as there are grammar errors in the title leading to its orphan status. I could not change or fix the title so I copied and corrected the whole page to Cowell Area School which links correctly and is no longer orphaned. Alternatively if someone could fix the grammar error in the original page's title and then delete the new one I would be ok with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmjrogers (talk • contribs) 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way to change a title is to move the page to the new title. In this case I did a history merge using admin tools to put both versions at the same (capitalized) title and then made the version without the orphan tag the latest version. RJFJR (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Oh dear, that's a WP:COPYPASTA move and not how we do things. I will tag it for fixing by an admin.--ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops already done.--ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I cannot make John Yarde-Buller, 1st Baron Churston appear on my screen. Not a problem I've had with any other article. I just get a totally blank screen when I click on the blue link, i.e. from article Baron Churston. Any ideas? Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Problem solved now, my computer is just having a super-slow day.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If I want to quote markup language in a talk page without having the markup language take effect, what do I do? How do I turn off the magic?

For background, on an article talk page, there is a special form of SHOUTING. Rather than using BLOCK CAPITALS, which is so 1980's, having been considered shouting by the Internet community since the Internet was the ARPANET, the raw text includes (font size="+3"), except that the parentheses are angle brackets. In discussing this, how do I display the angle brackets rather than having them shout and disfigure the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe <nowiki>CODE</nowiki> is what you're looking for? Яehevkor ✉ 15:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is explained in-depth at Help:NOWIKI. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or the {{tag}} template for html; {{xtag}} for special wiki markup; use the {{tlx}} suite of templates for template markup.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try those in the Sandbox before posting, because I don't want to disfigure a talk page in the way that one of the disputants did. (It's every bit as ugly as it sounds.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have entered constructive Talk Comments requesting the page edit to supply a reference for the claims of the edit. This comment disappeared once but I have since reposted the comment. Can someone at Wikipedia check if I'm posting Talk Comments correctly and show me how to improve them if I am not. Thank you. VALID REALITY (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VALID REALITY (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What talk page were you posting them to? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The OP posted Talk:Rebecca Hall. Dru of Id (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your post looks fine. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am having problems navigating the image insert of a photo of myself. It is a photo of me that I own. It is up online at my IMDB home page gallery, and also on my personal website danielquinn.net. I was able to enter it on the Wikipedia Commons site, but I would like viewers to see it on my regular Wikipedia page.

Thank you, Daniel Quinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenmab819 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Help:Images This should answer you queries. Cheers, Mlpearc (powwow) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That the photo is of you, and that you own it, does not necessarily mean that you have the right to upload it to Wikipedia Commons. It may seem absurd, but Wikipedia aims to comply with the law, which says that the copyright in the photo belongs to whoever's finger pressed the button on the camera, and that person's permission is needed for the upload to Commons. Now, you say that you want the picture to appear on "your regular Wikipedia page". I guess that's not this one, that Daniel Quinn is older than you. Is it this one? If you tell us the name the image has on Commons, and the page where you want it to appear, then once the copyright issue is clarified, I or another editor here can do it for you. Maproom (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so quickly. Yes I am the younger Daniel Quinn. I am the actor not the writer. This is the jpeg I have uploaded to the Commons site. /Users/dqactor/Desktop/Daniel_Quinntwick.jpeg I appreciate all of your help! Best regards, Daniel Quinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenmab819 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Daniel. In Mediawikiland, that picture is referred to as [[File:Daniel Quinntwick.jpeg]] (and the case of letters and punctuation must be right). You put what I've just said in your user page, and the picture will appear.

Incidentally, I see you have posted a reply on your user page: that is not what user pages are intended for: you have both a user page User:Queenmab819 and a user talk page User talk:Queenmab819; the latter is for discussion and communication between you and other Wikipedia editors.

One more point: it is possible that what you are intending to do is to write an article about yourself. If that is your intention, please read WP:AUTOBIO for why this is strongly discouraged. You can write about yourself as a Wikipedia editor on your user page, and place a picture there if you wish; but an article about you outside Wikipedia (i.e. as an actor) should be in article space not user space, and should not be written by you. Apologies if you're already aware of this. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing about yourself is not impossible but, is highly discouraged. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, has anybody seen Cacycle? I need his help on the subjects of a couple of posts that I added near the bottom of the talk page that he uses for wikEd stuff, but he hasn't responded to either of those or to an e-mail that I sent him. Maybe he'll pop in later today with a new version of wikEd or something, but he needs to read the feedback that I've given him first!
RandomDSdevel (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cacycle hasn't edited since. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know; that's the problem, and he needs to look at his talk page. Like I said earlier, I've already tried e-mailing him without success. Is there any other way that you think that one of us here at Wikipedia – i.e.: me, you, or somebody else – could get his attention? He can't just disappear on us like this without letting us know and handing all of his projects off to somebody else for a little while…

— RandomDSdevel (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked at Cacycle's contributions, both to Wikipedia in general and to wikEd, and they both show that he occasionally goes incognito for up to over a month at a time. The problem is that I can't wait that long for him to come back and read his talk page to see what he needs to do fix wikEd based on the comments that he finds there. Do you think that anyone else might know enough JavaScript that they may be able to help me? If not, has any other user here on Wikipedia said that they live near him and can therefore contact him in person? It's really important to me that the bug that I reported gets fixed so that I can head back over to the mathematics reference desk and resume a discussion that I started near the beginning of last month so that I could ask somebody to explain something to me for a math assignment that I'm so late in turning in to my teacher that my attendance has been relegated to a form of independent study.

Please help me, 

RandomDSdevel (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Cacycle's just been busy, because he's back. Thank the stars! — RandomDSdevel (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise how I can go about updating a photo which shows the 152nd Airlift Wing's current unit patch. Also, I'm unable to update the page to say "152nd Airlift Wing" instead of "152d Airlift Wing." Thank You! 152AW/Public Affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.9.16 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That move had been made (we rename articles by moving them). However, something isn't quite right, let me check into it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was moved, but then moved back with the explanation " Air Force does not use "nd" suffix". How do we sort this out?

One other note, I thought I would check the official website, which appeared to be linked at the bottom of the article, but that is a dead link. Do you know the correct link? (we'll get to the image question shortly.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this page, claiming to be the official site, used "nd". Does 152AW/Public Affairs agree this is the official page?

I posed a query to the experienced editor who moved the article to its present name. It can be found here. While I await a response, let's discuss the image issue. Some people go to the image description page, see "Upload a new version of this file" and mistakenly think this is the way to change an image. I do not know if that was your issue. Can you explain whether you are looking to add a new image, or replace an existing image with a new one? The processes aren't the same. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, there are three points of view on suffixes of USAF units.

* If you visit the Air Force Historical Research Agency site which is where official lineages and histories are kept, numerical units are without any suffix (i.e. 1 Fighter Wing, 354 Operations Group). Although this seems to be a recent method.

* If you look at documents from the AFHRA (Maurer, Maurer. Air Force Combat Units of World War II. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Office of Air Force History, 1983. ISBN 0-89201-092-4.) you'll see unit designations are with the "d" for 2d (ex: 2d Bombardment Squadron). The other day, in fact, I asked the AFHRA for a current active-duty unit history unpublished on their website and they sent this in email File:22d Intelligence Squadron.pdf which uses the "d" suffix.

* Now if you look at unit websites, some are "d" some are "nd". (http://www.152aw.ang.af.mil/). However, even there the suffix is dropped in the URL, although they use "152nd" on their website, and the individual who first raised this question uses "152AW/Public Affairs" (w/o a suffix).

I tend to use the "d" suffix as that is what is historically been used, although I believe the No Suffix method (ex: 152 Airlift Wing) is the current "official" designation. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Sounds more complicated than I had hoped. I'm going to take a pass on moving the article, until such time as there is more clarity. I'll try to respond to OPs issues about image upload, if I see it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where to ask this, but I'm curious why the Upload File option uses {{Non-free use rationale 2}}? It's not so much that it's confusing to fill out, but that the end result looks like it was hacked out by some noob (me). See here. Whereas {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} has so much more information that's far better worded and explained. Why can't these two templates be combined so that the NFCC links appear, but the wording is still more professional, and the template doesn't look like some half-filled out thing with "n.a."s and sentences that start with lowercases and so forth? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the file pages "Summary and License" sections look fine. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone figure out why state=expanded is not working at Helen Keller in Template:Helen Keller.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed[1] {{Helen Keller}} didn't use to pass on the state parameter to {{Navbox}}. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

English is not my mother tongue and I am new at Wikipedia. Could you please tell me if I may do something not according to Wikipedia:NPA here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Primark&oldid=553381930#.27Sweatshops.27_.26_Primark?

Many thanks, New worl (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like a simple miscommunication; I believe he thought you were saying you were going to Google his name, whereas it's fairly clear to me you meant you were going to Google for information about the subject you were discussing and provide it to him. I've commented on the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Floquenbeam very much for your correct understanding.

I have a very bad feeling of being told I can also tell you that if I was an administrator on this wiki, I would likely consider that a threat and you would end up blocked although I am not the one who misunderstood. New worl (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floquenbeam. If you were me, would you expect 'some words' from the one who misunderstood? Thanks, New worl (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think their subsequent comments on that page were fair to you, no, but it is usually not worth trying to insist that someone who was rude apologize to you. If they interfere with your ability to discuss things reasonably, that would be a bigger problem. But right now all they have done is be needlessly aggressive in warning you not to be disruptive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Floquenbeam, you are a true hero. Have a good day / night wherever you are. Best wishes, New worl (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you please go to Talk:Primark#.27Sweatshops.27_.26_Primark

Thanks, New worl (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the QSI Corporation page, the page title needs to change from QSI Corporation, as that company has been bought out by Beijer Electronics in 2010, to Beijer Electronics Inc.

I know how to change the text within the page but the page title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSI_Corporation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.33.98 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You rename a page by moving it: I have moved QSI Corporation to Beijer Electronics. ('QSI Corporation' remains as a redirect to the new name). If you are interested in this company, it would be great if you would improve the article by adding some References, and linking to it from other relevant articles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.33.98 (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about whether Checkuser can be used "in reverse". Here is the situation. A biographical article page, Rebecca Hall, was being partially blanked by a non-registered user, who was claiming that reliably sourced biographical information is false, and was therefore deleting it. (It was characterized as vandalism, but I think that label is questionable. It appears to be a content dispute, in which the unregistered user may have an obsession.) The IP address has now been blocked. A new registered user, while not deleting the information, is ranting about it on the talk page. Is Checkuser in order, or should we just wait and see what the user does next? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:Block, it says that, "New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating," per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Meatpuppets. So, the instant that this new account edits the article proper, I believe that would count as grounds for suspicion of sock puppetry.

However, I don't think Checkuser would be of any use in this case, as, according to Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account, IPs that are blocked cannot create accounts, and so the user cannot have created their account from the original blocked IP address. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 01:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I asked:

I would like to search for changes tagged with col-spam or autobiography. I tried putting both tags in the tag filter box with no extra operators, both tags joined with an OR operator and both tags with an OR operator with the terms inside ()s. None of these worked. How do I find recent changes that have been tagged with one or more tags?

Someone suggested that I use WP:CATSCAN but that does not seem to sork for me. Am I using catscan incorrectly? DouglasCalvert (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catscan doesn't seem relevant, since you are trying to filter the recent changes, whereas Catscan is for finding articles. I think you are out of luck; if what you wanted was available, it would surely be described on the MediaWiki API page for the "Recent changes" feed. All it has to say is "rctag: Only list changes tagged with this tag". -- John of Reading (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the right forum, but I'd like to get the opinion of other editors on this image, which has been added to a couple of pages here and on es.wikipedia. It appears to me to be pure WP:SYNTH, an imagined reconstruction based on various sources, and I have removed it accordingly. It is an interesting and well-made image, but I don't believe it belongs here. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that WP:SYNTH does not apply to images. Ruslik_Zero 04:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know that. Why should I know it? Where could I have read it? WP:SYNTH does not mention images. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OI does seem to cover it though. CaptRik (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes, that seems to be the right bit; all I needed to do was read down the page. I'm not much wiser, though. What I think the image does is to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"; it seems that in doing that it also "illustrate[s] or introduce[s] unpublished ideas or arguments". But I'm not sure, which is why I asked for the opinion of others. If this is the wrong place to ask, please point me to the right one. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

On the page linked above, under the section "April 28, 2013 Wikinews articles" (scroll way down), there's stray HTML text. I can't edit the page, so can someone else correct that? On a related note, the infobox on the right side of that page used to be at the top. Links such as "Suggest a headline" were easy to find at the top of the page, so is the current placement an error or the new layout? Best, 75.93.145.185 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t see the stray tags you're talking about. Can you be more specific about what you're seeing? RudolfRed (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. Maybe I purged the page or something, but the layout looks normal again. Not sure what happened. Thanks for the reply though. Best, 75.93.145.185 (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My husband, Denny Fitch, is listed in Wikipedia. Wikipedia incorrectly lists only his 1st wife, GeneAnn. Denny and I were married from June 26, 2000 until his death on May 7, 2012. There are several articles that substantiate this. See Daily Herald Newspaper article written by Burt Constable dated 10/15/10 and Daly Herald Newspaper article written by Marni Pyke dated 5/8/12. Yurs Funeral Home obituary and Huffington Post articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosafitch (talk • contribs) 03:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rosafitch. My sympathies for your husbands passing.

Unfortunately, I am unable to find the articles you mentioned using Google. Do you have a link to an online version of them? Also, you can add sources to an article yourself, as explained at Wikipedia:Citing_sources, or with templates from Wikipedia:Citation_templates. However, since you are the person in question, this may constitute a conflict of interest. If you were to edit the article yourself you should follow these instructions found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard." Sophus Bie ^(talk) 06:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rosa, for coming here and asking rather than just editing it yourself; and I apologise for the lecture which Sophus Bie has given you telling you not to do what you are already not doing. AGgoogle search immediately turns up this, which confirms what you say, so I will go now and edit the article (unless somebody has already done so). --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered editor had changed his listed spouse from his second wife, the requester, to his first wife. That was an irresponsible edit, but it happened long enough ago that there is no point in following up other than the correction that has been made. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FBO others, ObitFinder is a good tool for finding many newspaper obits, and FindAGrave is a good tool to find gravesites, which often have headstone pics with dates (though some of their contributors copy from Wikipedia articles without attribution ). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, what I wrote was not intended as any sort of lecture, and I am rather hurt that you assume that I was acting in bad faith. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When placing double brackets around a word what would an appropriate or useful edit summary be? I searched Wikipedia for an answer but could not find one. All I could find was something about "red links" but what I'm asking about is creating "blue links" when placing brackets around a specific word/words. 24.90.154.201 (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If all you're doing is turning foo into [[foo]], then just say something like "added Wikilink" and mark it as a minor edit. RudolfRed (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same question here, different answer(s). Mlpearc (powwow) 04:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines and rules of thumb can be found at WP:MOSLINK Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone move the above article to Hamilton Crowne Plaza and create a redirect page for Hamilton Hotel (Washington, D.C.)? Best, 75.93.145.185 (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that we can reference for the page move? Also, if you create a registered account, you can do the page move, but please provide a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For "Hamilton Crowne Plaza", references include the hotel's website and the fact Wikipedia policy states we should avoid adding "the" in article titles unless it's part of the proper name (which in this case, it isn't, just as "Washington, D.C." isn't part of the proper name), and no other Crowne Plaza hotel articles include the word "the" in their titles. For "Hamilton Hotel (Washington, D.C.)", the historic name of the building and the name it was listed under when added to the National Register of Historic Places last month is Hamilton Hotel. Since Hamilton Hotel is a disambiguation page, the city needs to be added to the redirect title. Also, the NRHP project's style guide says to add the city in parentheses to address disambiguation issues. Best, 75.93.145.185 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Best, 75.93.145.185 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all concerns regarding the following page [2] and it still hasn't been published. I would appreciate it if someone can have a look at this matter. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshomali (talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Have you remembered to re-submit your article for consideration? Currently there are 798 pending submissions in Category:Pending AfC submissions, so it might take a while for them to get to yours. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 06:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the pink "declined" box from last time; it contains the link "When you are ready to resubmit, click here". Use this link to place the draft in the queue for review. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it says makah afs closed in 1979. I was on active duty there as a maintenance crew chief until apr 3, 1980. My name is Thomas H. Phipps, i was a senior airmen . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.108.42 (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern about the article Makah Air Force Station. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot generally use primary sources due to their lack of verifiability. Do you know of any third-party sources that corroborate this information? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 06:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article infobox was in error. The article states that Makah Air Force Station closed on 30 June 1988. (My typo when I created it's infobox). I corrected the typo. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a debate for final grade and the topic is Why Will The Draft Be Good. I need some good information on the subject please help want a good grade.68.113.197.132 (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What draft? NFL draft? Conscription? You can use the search box at the top of the page to look for relevent articles. Once you have identified the topic, you can ask a more specific question on the reference desk. RudolfRed (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 05:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for the Restaurant Infobox, there is a spot for 'Website'. If the company has no website, is it appropriate to put their Facebook page in that place, or should the tag be removed. UnknownTBeast ^Talk 05:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]