Search Frequently Asked Questions |
Search the help desk archives and other help pages |
Contents
- 1 April 15
- 1.1 Article moved against consensus.
- 1.2 Images
- 1.3 how to watch all pages in a category?
- 1.4 Michael Mount Waldorf School
- 1.5 Missing edit summary on desktop view from iPad
- 1.6 How to define a date for an ancient source?
- 1.7 an article that appears to have been written as a resume/brochure
- 1.8 Help moving a page
- 1.9 Can CC-BY-SA/GFDL be revoked?
- 1.10 WP:BRD
- 1.11 How does a Saved article get in the process?
- 1.12 Joker venom
- 2 April 16
- 3 April 17
- 4 April 18
- 4.1 Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hyde
- 4.2 UFC 157
- 4.3 restriction by editing to many external links
- 4.4 Problem in Editing the page of our own institution
- 4.5 Clarification on attribution vs plagiarism, please
- 4.6 Posting an Article
- 4.7 Authority control (Normativnyi kontrol')
- 4.8 How many editors watching a page?
- 4.9 Search redirecting
- 4.10 swans
- 4.11 Ram Gopal Varma
April 15
Article moved against consensus.
See discussion here: [1]. The result of the proposed move was inconclusive, but someone moved the page anyway. Can someone move it back? It's under sanctions, so I can't.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- The result of the discussion was "Not moved. Move request withdrawn by nominator" - A move performed by someone wouldn't be against consensus; the discussion never had a chance to get to a point where consensus could be determined or not. If you want to request a move, visit Wikipedia's requested moves page and file a request there. This is the proper place to request page moves be performed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- See the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamization of the Gaza Strip, where consensus was established for the move. General Ization Talk 01:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Images
while am searching images in google it will not obtain in opened state why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.222.236.251 (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, IP user. I do not clearly understand what you mean, but I am pretty sure this is about how Google behaves, which Wikipedia has absolutely no control over. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
how to watch all pages in a category?
Is there a way to watch all pages in a category easily? for example all pages in the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology.Panintelize (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Closest I can find (using Help:Watchlist#Controlling which pages are watched) is the related changes view, but this a) can't be watched and b) doesn't recurse over subcats, so it doesn't really fit your needs. — crh 23 (Talk) 07:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Panintelize: Some WikiProjects solve the sub-cat problem by maintaining a separate list of the relevant articles, and that allows the software to show a "recent changes" page for them all. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology#Project watchlist and explore the links in the box at the right. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- thx! Panintelize (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Michael Mount Waldorf School
Section heading added — crh 23 (Talk) 10:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I posted the original content to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mount_Waldorf_School A Wikipedia editor commented: This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (March 2016) I have subsequently removed any content that is subjective and that sounds like advertising; I have removed all promotional content and unrelated external links; I have provided citations where requested; I have linked Wikipedia pages that are available elsewhere; I have re-written portions to ensure that the article is presented from a neutral point of view; I have double-checked all factual information with the School administration. Would it be possible for an editor to look at the article and see if it now meets Wikipedia standards and if the comment about it reading like an advertisement could be removed. Please? Many thanks. (talk) Theresa S Muller (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've deleted two anniversaries. Otherwise, it seems neutral, and I've removed the advert notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Missing edit summary on desktop view from iPad
I don't know if this is the place to do it but there is a bug with the Desktop view from an iPad. When viewing the history of a page the edit summaries are all missing. On PC: http://imgur.com/egg9tyC On iPad: http://imgur.com/MmSyVkh --IngenieroLoco (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
How to define a date for an ancient source?
Area of a circle#Bibliography cites "Measurement of a circle" by Archimedes with "date = c. 260 BCE" — and {{citation}} complains about incorrect date. How can this be solved?
Help:CS1 errors section Check date values in: |param1=, |param2=, ... didn't help. --CiaPan (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since the editor didn't read a work handwritten or carved around 260 BCE, the citation should look like this:
* {{citation | author = Archimedes | author-link = Archimedes | editor = [[T. L. Heath]] (trans.) | title = The Works of Archimedes | date = 2002 | orig-year =c. 260 BCE<!-- very rough guess based on Wilbur Knorr's claim that 'Measurement' is early work --> | publisher = [[Dover Publications|Dover]] | isbn = 978-0-486-42084-4 | pages = 91–93 | chapter = Measurement of a circle | url = http://www.archive.org/details/worksofarchimede029517mbp }}(Originally published by [[Cambridge University Press]], 1897, based on J. L. Heiberg's Greek version.)
Which renders as:
-
- Archimedes (2002) [c. 260 BCE], "Measurement of a circle", in T. L. Heath (trans.), The Works of Archimedes, Dover, pp. 91–93, ISBN 978-0-486-42084-4(Originally published by Cambridge University Press, 1897, based on J. L. Heiberg's Greek version.
- Jc3s5h (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which 'edition' is actually being cited? The original citation claims:
- a possible date for the original writing: c. 260 BCE
|publisher=
and|isbn=
refer to a 2002 reprint of|url=
which links|title=
to a facsimile of the 1897 version
- What a mess. Pick one source and cite that. For me, I would choose the 1897 version because it is possible to link to a complete copy of the book:
{{citation |author=Archimedes |author-link=Archimedes |editor-last=Heath |editor-first=T. L. |editor-link=T. L. Heath |title=The Works of Archimedes |date=1897 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |chapter=Measurement of a circle |chapter-url=https://archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede029517mbp#page/n279/mode/2up |url=https://www.archive.org/details/worksofarchimede029517mbp}}
- Archimedes (1897), "Measurement of a circle", in Heath, T. L., The Works of Archimedes, Cambridge University Press
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which 'edition' is actually being cited? The original citation claims:
an article that appears to have been written as a resume/brochure
The article Peter Johnston (negotiator) appears to have been written as an advertisement. I came across it today. It appears to have been written just to promote this person. I don't know if this should be passed to an admin or what wikipedia does. One user edited this article, and this article only. I have started removing what I felt was inappropriate, but this is the first article I have come across that seems blatant. I have heard that you can hire people to write articles on Wikipedia and I wonder if this is one example. Any place to report this or tag it? Alaney2k (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think the subject might just pass the Wikipedia notability test, but the article needs lots of work to make it acceptable. Continue removing anything you think is inappropriate, and perhaps someone will add some references to keep what remains from being deleted. Dbfirs 14:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, you've made a good start on a fairly common problem. You might want to add Template:Advert to attract more attention from editors who do this work regularly. Template:Peacock could also be applied, but I dislike piling a large load of warnings on a single article. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Alaney2k (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Help moving a page
I'm new here and so I can't move pages. I was wondering if someone could move the page New View (Friedberger album) go New View (Eleanor Friedberger album) because somebody moved it to an incorrect title style. Thanks New view from the very few (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've put a CSD G6 tag on the page to move to, so an admin should be along to do that soon — crh 23 (Talk) 14:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- The redirect that was in the way has been deleted. RJFJR (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- ... and I've moved the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Can CC-BY-SA/GFDL be revoked?
Purely hypothetical, not looking for legal advice. Say an artist (misguidedly) wrote an autobiography and to illustrate this biography uploaded some of his own work with a CC-BY-SA or GFDL template (as of course those are required). Would those works permanently be under those licenses, or could he claim that he did not understand the licenses (or thought they only applied to Wikipedia) and have that release revoked? astro (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- From the legal text of the license:
Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
- The termination mentioned is only if you (the user, not the author) breaches the terms of the license. So as far as I can tell, no, the author can't unlicense previously licensed work. If they claim they didn't understand, they'd have to go through a court of law to try to retract the license: I don't know how that would work, I'd expect the court to rule against the author. This is not legal advise, etc. etc, get a lawyer if you want some of that. — crh 23 (Talk) 18:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Legally no, and to get to that point the artist would have needed to have read Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone at the top of the edit box, and to have checked a you irrevocably agree to release your contribution box on at least two separate occasions so would have great difficulty pleading ignorance. In practice it would depend on the circumstances; most en-wiki admins will look favourably on a request like this if nothing of encyclopedic value is being lost, particularly if the image isn't actually in use anywhere. (If the upload was to Commons, things will be different, as they tend to be much stricter when it comes to "you should have read the small print".) If the image isn't deleted, the artist could escalate via WP:OTRS with some potential of success (particularly if the artist is under the age of maturity) or to the WMF themselves, but the latter will only intervene if there's a highly compelling reason to do so. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! In that case, what could admins/OTRS/the WMF do? They don't have control over the licenses, and even if it did deleted theoretically anybody could use the works from the mirrors anywhere after that? astro (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- They couldn't retract the license, but they could potentially get their work removed from Wikipedia, which in many cases would have the effect of unpublishing it, especially if they're fast after adding it. — crh 23 (Talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's true, but on the other hand I guess it would also mean that the artist could never sell it since if the artist ever did decide to "officially" publish it after that, anyone could take it and use it however they wanted. Thanks, that answers my question! astro (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @astro: The license would apply only to copies of the uploaded file and to works which could be derived from it, which would necessarily be of equal or lower resolution. The artist could sell the work in full resolution. —teb728 t c 04:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @astro: And FWIW, some photographers do exactly that, releasing a relatively low-res version here while retaining their rights to a full res image. 05:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @astro: The license would apply only to copies of the uploaded file and to works which could be derived from it, which would necessarily be of equal or lower resolution. The artist could sell the work in full resolution. —teb728 t c 04:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's true, but on the other hand I guess it would also mean that the artist could never sell it since if the artist ever did decide to "officially" publish it after that, anyone could take it and use it however they wanted. Thanks, that answers my question! astro (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- They couldn't retract the license, but they could potentially get their work removed from Wikipedia, which in many cases would have the effect of unpublishing it, especially if they're fast after adding it. — crh 23 (Talk) 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! In that case, what could admins/OTRS/the WMF do? They don't have control over the licenses, and even if it did deleted theoretically anybody could use the works from the mirrors anywhere after that? astro (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:BRD
Hello, I am having a particular problem with a particular editor over this issue. Recently, Baking Soda made a WP:BOLD edit to the List of state leaders in 2012 and List of state leaders in 2013 articles and I reverted him and told him to discuss this issue on the talkpages. But he then reverted me again, flying in the face of WP:BRD. I am unsure what to do now. Please help, thanks.--Neve–selbert 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, you can request a third opinion, dispute resolution notice board, or start an RfC. For this particular case, an RfC on issue has already been closed, you seem to have a hard time grasping RfC consensus results (not the first time). Baking Soda (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Look, firstly, stop stalking my edits. Secondly, the Rfc did not specifically apply to the other List of state leaders articles. Stop these bullying tactics and obligate yourself to Wikipedia policy for once.--Neve–selbert 19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- No to both editors. On the one hand, it does not appear User:Baking Soda is stalking the edits of User:Neve-selbert. On the other hand, the advice of User:Baking Soda to request a third opinion, use the dispute resolution noticeboard, or file an RFC is also wrong. The proper procedure is to discuss at the article talk page, and I see no recent talk page discussion (and so a third opinion or dispute resolution request will be declined). Please go to the article talk page and discuss. If there has been an applicable RFC on another talk page that is within scope, cite it. Please take this content dispute to the talk pages and discuss, before going to any further dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: But surely, as WP:BRD clearly states, he should not have reverted my revert and should have discussed his proposed changes on the talkpage beforehand?--Neve–selbert 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- As I said above, "No to both editors". Both of you are wrong. You are both engaged in slow-motion edit-warring. Just because you are not at WP:3RR doesn't mean you aren't edit-warring. You are. User:Neve-selbert is wrong in making an allegation of edit-stalking. User:Baking Soda has completely missed the first part of the dispute resolution policy, which is to discuss on the talk page. Any editor who tries to use that RFC as the basis for refusing to discuss is wrong, since that RFC was a badly worded RFC and was closed with no consensus except that the concept of Palestine as a sub-state of Israel is wrong. Both of you: Stop Wikilawyering and discuss at a talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: But surely, as WP:BRD clearly states, he should not have reverted my revert and should have discussed his proposed changes on the talkpage beforehand?--Neve–selbert 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- No to both editors. On the one hand, it does not appear User:Baking Soda is stalking the edits of User:Neve-selbert. On the other hand, the advice of User:Baking Soda to request a third opinion, use the dispute resolution noticeboard, or file an RFC is also wrong. The proper procedure is to discuss at the article talk page, and I see no recent talk page discussion (and so a third opinion or dispute resolution request will be declined). Please go to the article talk page and discuss. If there has been an applicable RFC on another talk page that is within scope, cite it. Please take this content dispute to the talk pages and discuss, before going to any further dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Neve-selbert and Baking Soda: Assuming you are referring to the RFC here, the RFC appears to have been closed ambiguously with regards to previous year's pages, and there's a fair bit of discussion of editors rather than discussion of content to sort through. The situation appears to me to be basically awaiting a wider RfC as mentioned on the talk page of the original RfC, but this too is controversial. It really does look like that the RfC had a very narrow range and didn't come to a particularly clear conclusion: the only clear consensus is that Palestine is not a sub-state of Israel in 2016. Since I think this dispute is slightly different to the original RfC, I would recommend talk page discussion on the specific articles under question, to decide if the RfC applies to past articles and if not what does. There is no rush to make the articles perfect, but I'd advise you both to stop editing the affected articles until this dispute is resolved, as you're in danger of warring. — crh 23 (Talk) 19:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Edit warring and forum shopping is Neve-selberts mode of working. He is not in danger of it, it is what he does. In this care he reverted an implementation of an RfC. That RfC is not ambiguous. Palestine must be listed either as a separate state, or not at all. This is exactly correct, and valid for all years. The discussion on the RfC makes this completely clear, just FYI. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Look, firstly, stop stalking my edits. Secondly, the Rfc did not specifically apply to the other List of state leaders articles. Stop these bullying tactics and obligate yourself to Wikipedia policy for once.--Neve–selbert 19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- BRD is an essay and strictly in conflict with CIVIL. –Be..anyone 💩 07:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is true that BRD has never been raised to the status of a guideline, but is irrelevant. How is BRD in conflict with CIVIL? Being bold is not in conflict with CIVIL. Reverting is only in conflict with CIVIL if it is done with hostile edit summaries. Discussing is only in conflict with CIVIL if it is done uncivilly, and then it hardly qualifies as discussion. Please explain, if you can. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because one click reverts of (intended to be) constructive contributions are not civil. Anything goes with IAR if there's a good reason to ignore all rules. –Be..anyone 💩 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not every revert is uncivil. It depends on the edit summary. I don't see "revert unsourced addition - please supply source or discuss on talk page" as uncivil. In any case, this comment is really about BRD in general and not the specific issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good revert. But BRD is too often abused to force constructive editors to start the discussion with one click, instead of just starting the discussion with more than one click. –Be..anyone 💩 11:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not every revert is uncivil. It depends on the edit summary. I don't see "revert unsourced addition - please supply source or discuss on talk page" as uncivil. In any case, this comment is really about BRD in general and not the specific issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because one click reverts of (intended to be) constructive contributions are not civil. Anything goes with IAR if there's a good reason to ignore all rules. –Be..anyone 💩 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is true that BRD has never been raised to the status of a guideline, but is irrelevant. How is BRD in conflict with CIVIL? Being bold is not in conflict with CIVIL. Reverting is only in conflict with CIVIL if it is done with hostile edit summaries. Discussing is only in conflict with CIVIL if it is done uncivilly, and then it hardly qualifies as discussion. Please explain, if you can. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Considering that the topic of Israel/Palestine is volatile in the real world? it shouldn't be a total surprise that it would be volatile on Wikipedia. IMHO, no editor should be making any bold edits on those articles. Instead, they should bring up their proposals at the article-in-question's talk page, first. Also, I'm in agreement with those, who say that the Rfc-in-question was worded badly & that it has a foggy result. Another Rfc, with a clearer question & clarification on which articles & how many articles are being covered, would be best. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
How does a Saved article get in the process?
Dear Wikipedia, I wrote an article entitled "Character Towns", and hit the save button. Did it go anywhere? Is it in the review process? How do I proceed? Kcharacter (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Kcharacter: You article is currently located in the draft namespace at Draft:Character Towns, but has not been submitted for review. To submit it for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. — crh 23 (Talk) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- But don't submit it yet. Read WP:Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners. I'll add a few more useful links to your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just click "save page". Thank you.--Gu-hyun Jung (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Joker venom
I see that the article Joker venom has been speedily deleted. Now, I'm not the one who created it, but I would still like to see it preserved, given that it describes the fictional toxin in great detail. There are quite many incoming links to the article. Should I undelete it, or simply redirect it to Joker (comics)? I kind of think the latter is what I should do, even though I would wish on the former. JIP | Talk 20:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Never mind, I see that it has already been redirected to Joker (comics). Sorry for the trouble. JIP | Talk 20:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
April 16
Need help!! Is Geacron.com a reliable source for articles?
Hello, recently I have come back from Wikipedia after nearly two years and it seems that I have been thrusted into a reiteration of a topic by association. One that I fought hard to end bring an end to and it worked for about two years.
It is as of recent I have come to a dispute on what sources are reliable or not when it comes to a fellow Wikipedia editor.
The person that I had a conversation with presented me with this map of the Sasanian Empire, created by people from the University of Michigan:
Then I showed my map that was from Geacron.com, a website created and worked on by people from the Universities of Madrid and the University of California Berkeley.
For proof: Here is the link:
http://geacron.com/the-geacron-project/
Here is the map that shows the Sasanian Empire's greatest extent according to them:
The basis of this question pretty much boils down to this. Is Geacron a reliable source or not? Kirby (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Autopatrolled
Hi there modirators and Wikiveterans,
1. I understant there are two major patroling projects in wiki. One is newpages patrol and the other is Recent change patrol. Also there is Pending Changes Reviwer and Rollbackers. Im curious about the wiki policy on that aspect. Do we wish every edit would be patroled by trustworthy community members? If so, i wonder for your thoughts on the next question:
2. I wonder weather autopatrolled users are not being checked for any of their edits, or just for new articles they create? If it's just for new ones, what would be the implications of creating a new status for complete autopatrolled users? These users would be automarked for each edit they make, meaning every edit is autopatrolled. This way they would also get some kind of patroling effect when they revert or change any page they edit. Do you think it can help monitor pages?
3. In general, are there any technical abilitis given to Wikipedians by personal nomination? Meaning without voting and without any notice from the foundation? I think rollbackers fit in this list. Any else?
Thank you!
Mateo (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Mateo: Unlike some other Wikis we do not require every edit to be patrolled. That is not what autopatrolled is for. It is simply to limit the workload of new page patrollers by "auto patrolling" any new pages they make removing them from the backlog. There are plenty of people that patrol recent changes both manually and with semiautomated scripts like Huggle. I believe there has been past discussions on turning on full edit patrolling but I will have to search for it (obviously since we don't have it the community consensus was to not turn it on). There are a few different rights that people can apply for. These can be found at WP:PERM along with the descriptions and requirements for each. Generally, rights are not granted unless you prove why you need them and that you will not abuse them. --Majora (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- 1. Do you know which wikis do require every edit to be patrolled? Are there statistics on the matter?
-
- 2. I know many people are practicing patrols unofficially thorough the projects mentioned above. They are not appointed to do so, and don't have any privileges. But there are exceptions. Pending Changes Reviewer is one, but Rollbackers are best example. They basically have a right by nomination to revert any edit upon their judgment, and effectively they are more official "recent changes patrol".
-
- 3. Correct me if im wrong, but in simple terms what autopatrolling means is that "this user will always create useful and well written new pages, therefore checking him/her is pointless". This a strong right, that show great deal of respect to the wikiped. It is also a given by nomination, rather than by consensus or voting. My question essentially is what will happened if we extend this right to autopatrolling each and every edit? Do you think there were discussion on this topic? I searched and couldn't find it.
-
- Thanks again
- ¬¬¬¬Mateo (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Mateo: I like to start a little out of order with your questions. Rollbacker. It is not a right to revert any edit upon their judgment. Rollback is only to be used in 100% clear cut examples of vandalism. Period. It is not to be used in any other cases and if it is used in any other way that is grounds for removal. Rollback is for people that fight so much vandalism that the normal undo button is slowing them down. Pending Changes Reviewer is for the very very small subset of articles that are under pending changes protection. Neither of these are appointed, per say. They are requested and an administrator evaluates the request and approves or denies it. A lot of people get denied pretty much on a daily basis because they either don't show why they need it or they do not meet the requirements for the permission.
Off the top of my head, the Ukrainian Wikipedia has full edit patrol on. The only reason I know this is because I was reverting a few cross-wiki mistakes and I happened to notice it. If you go to my contribs there you will see that the one line is red. Which means it has not been reviewed yet. Also on the article in question you will see just below the title a little notice that says that there are unreviewed edits on that page. That is what full patrol looks like. For very very large wikis, like the English Wikipedia, it is pretty unfeasible as we would have thousands upon thousands of edits to patrol on a daily basis.
Your explanation of autopatrolled seems pretty spot on to me. It is for people that create enough good articles that their work is just clogging up the new pages feed and they don't have to be checked. It is not really a strong right it is just a technical solution to limit the workload of new page patrols. As for past discussions on full edit patrol, I was able to find Wikipedia:Checked edits brainstorming which is from 2005. I can't seem to find an actual disable discussion but I am sure it is just buried somewhere in the village pump archives. --Majora (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- First of all great stuff man, much appreciated.
- Taking the parameters you put for rollbacking at heart, allow me to continue by asking:
- A. One can say that also full-on Administrators are just given a technical took upon request. They are still appointed, only but by the community. My interest here is for functionaries that are appointed out of construction from above. My question is, do you know if EngWiki has official "roles" like this?
- B. Please take notice that not only high-in-the-sky Ombudsman commission suites here, Rollbackers do too, as they can be nominated by administrator without any community approval. Though you are absolutely right it's not a big role and has well written terms of use. Same goes to Autopatrolled users that also get a (passive) tool by appointment. BTW what did you think about my "suggestion" of extending the tool so that any edit made by AP users will be marked? Do you know about discussion on related issues?
- C. Let me se if i understand the Uk WIKI. it shows that an edit has not been reviewed, but it remains unclear how are they are going to mark it, correct? Do you have any guess?
- D. Basically you are saying that EngWiki wont go full-patrol due to practical reasons alone. I will read the discussion you shared but for now, would you support A full-on edit-patrol if it was possible?
- Z. As a side note, maybe you would be interested in Forensic social science.
- Happy days,
- 01:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
- @Mateo: Admins are not made admins by request. Quite the opposite actually. It requires community consensus and if you take a look at WP:Requests for adminiship you will see that the process is not a walk in the park by any means. Enwiki has a lot of various permissions that can be assigned to an account. You can see them all here: Special:ListGroupRights. The word "functionaries" has a different meaning here. Functionaries are those with oversight and checkuser access. Those are highly restrictive rights that are only granted by the arbitration committee after community input. The ombudsman commission is maintained by the WMF Board of Trustees to investigate alleged abuses of the functionary tools.
Any community member is allowed to give input for any permission request. From pending changes all the way up to oversight and checkuser. No permission is granted in a vacuum and while administrators can, and do, often grant permissions without any input that is just because nobody cares to give input most of the time.
As for full patrol, if you look at their version of the group rights page, uk:Спеціальна:Права груп користувачів, and give it a rough translation you will see something called Reviews (Рецензенти). These people have a right called
review
whose translated description is refer versions of the pages as "proven». So people with that right can mark edits as reviewed. Personally, I think that is a bad idea for Enwiki for two reasons. One, we would just have such an enormous backlog that it would be impossible to keep up. And two, we have plenty of people already patrolling recent changes without the need for a user right that grants that ability.Z: Thanks for the link! I'll have to read that --Majora (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see what your saying there. Wonder what can be the inner-politics implications on a given status of "reviewer". I asked similler questions on the pump and very interested to see what answers. So far it didn't recive much attention. Any idea how can i Hollaout some people to see and respond?
- @Mateo: Admins are not made admins by request. Quite the opposite actually. It requires community consensus and if you take a look at WP:Requests for adminiship you will see that the process is not a walk in the park by any means. Enwiki has a lot of various permissions that can be assigned to an account. You can see them all here: Special:ListGroupRights. The word "functionaries" has a different meaning here. Functionaries are those with oversight and checkuser access. Those are highly restrictive rights that are only granted by the arbitration committee after community input. The ombudsman commission is maintained by the WMF Board of Trustees to investigate alleged abuses of the functionary tools.
- @Mateo: I like to start a little out of order with your questions. Rollbacker. It is not a right to revert any edit upon their judgment. Rollback is only to be used in 100% clear cut examples of vandalism. Period. It is not to be used in any other cases and if it is used in any other way that is grounds for removal. Rollback is for people that fight so much vandalism that the normal undo button is slowing them down. Pending Changes Reviewer is for the very very small subset of articles that are under pending changes protection. Neither of these are appointed, per say. They are requested and an administrator evaluates the request and approves or denies it. A lot of people get denied pretty much on a daily basis because they either don't show why they need it or they do not meet the requirements for the permission.
Once again, Thank you for discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Mateo: You can't really get people to join in if they dont' want to and I doubt I am the only one that thinks full patrol would be a bad idea here. The fact that other wikis have it is not a secret and it has probably been brought up before. I just haven't dug very deep into the archives to find past discussions. In my opinion, it would be pretty close to impossible to get a full consensus of editors to agree to turn on full patrol and to create another backlog when we already have so many that have been sitting around for a long time. --Majora (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Persondata
When you delete it, are you supposed to save the info somewhere else first? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's not essential to do so as the info. should already (at least partially) have been transferred to Wikidata. I pretty much always check as I've been deleting P'data since it was first deprecated about June last year. To see what has been transferred click on the Wikidata link in the tools on the left of the page. You should find that you are automatically logged in there and you can add or alter fields as required. Eagleash (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) It's supposed to go to Wikidata but the procedure for doing it is obscure. IMHO the decision to simply delete persondata out of hand, is wrong, it should be systematically transferred to Wikidata and only then deleted. The process of importing the information to WD doesn't actually leave any indication on the article that it has been done. This means persondata is actually getting deleted before it gets to WD. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The fact that there is a link in the tools indicates that at least some information already exists on wikidata. Last Summer, some wikidata items were inaccurate or or lacking information. However, there has been a definite improvement of late with many more fields completed. As noted though, the process for transferring is not clear and to start with, at least, seemingly relied upon the efforts of individual editors. Eagleash (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Persondata tools?
The question about persondata above brought to mind a question I've had in the back of my mind... Is there a way to find articles using the template? As far as I know, you find an article by editing random articles, see if there is a persondata template, (if there is) you check WikiData for that info, and delete the template if everything is in WD. But how do you not waste a lot of time hitting "edit" on articles that are already fixed? Dismas|(talk) 12:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Dismas: How about Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Persondata? Or Persondata transclusions in article space? -- John of Reading (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
infobox book does not work
why does the infobox I added here: The Other Side of Deception not work? --AvatarBenesch (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Help:Cite errors/Cite error group refs without references
The Wonder A Woman Keeps A Secret
References — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagreaves (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have fixed the cite errors on The wonder a woman keeps a secret. This page is no sufficiently cited as is though, as it only cites Wikipedia, which is inadvisable per WP:CIRCULAR. Additionally, it might not meet WP:N. — crh 23 (Talk) 20:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not certain what your actual question is/was. The reference did not display as you might have been expecting as the page was missing the ==References== heading and the {{reflist}} template which goes on the next line. However other Wikipedia pages are not regarded as acceptable references, which should be independent reliable sources (see WP:RS) so I'm afraid the ref. has been removed. Eagleash (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
delete / rename request
Three part request:
- Please delete Talk:6th Division (Norway)/Archive 1 - the content of this archive is at Talk:6th Division (Norway)
- Then rename Talk:6th Division (Norway)/Archives/2012/April/Archives/2012/April to Talk:6th Division (Norway)/Archive 1
- Then delete Talk:6th Division (Norway)/Archives/2012/April - this is just a redirect
Thank you--76.14.40.2 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is a dedicated page/procedure for requested moves (WP:RM). It's okay if you post simple cases here, but JFTR routine stuff is not exactly the purpose of the help desk. –Be..anyone 💩 08:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and done the work needed here. No move needed, only transferring content and the deletion of the pages. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 18:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
April 17
Deletion of an article
I wrote a very brief entry about the St. David's Society of Washington DC which is one of the oldest heritage organizations in the USA and has close connections to the British Embassy and the ex pat community in the USA. They hold meetings at venues such as the Cosmos club downtown Washington on Embassy row. It was founded 130 years ago and is still very active in cultural affairs in the Washington DC area, and promotes opera, music, history, genealogy and literature. It was deleted for not having any significance. However, there are many, many articles in Wikipedia about many things of far less import than the St. David's society. I am a journalist for heritage publications in the usa, but I have been barred from writing a paragraph -- a few lines -- about this organization for reasons not clear. Can someone else write it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffcats (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, it was not deleted "for not having any significance", but because the article as you wrote it did not "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". There are many societies in Washington DC and your article gave no reason why we should believe that this particular one is notable. To avoid any future attempt being deleted you need to read Wikipedia's definition of notability and support the statements in the article by references to published reliable sources independent of the subject which give significant coverage of the topic. By the way, OTHERTHINGSEXIST isn't a valid argument in this context. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Do you have an association with the St. David's Society of Washington, DC? You were asked this question and have not answered it. If you have an association, you must provide the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the Paid Editing Disclosure. However, that is not the reason that your contribution was deleted, apparently twice. Coverage in Wikipedia is based on existing coverage by independent reliable sources. It appears that you didn't include references to reliable sources about the society. Also, we advise that, as a new editor, you use the Articles for Creation process to have your draft reviewed by other experienced editors prior to acceptance. That way, if you don't include the references, or overlook something else, your draft will be declined (sent back to you for rework) rather than deleted. Also, you have not "been barred from writing a paragraph"; your paragraph was deleted because it didn't contain the needed references. AFC is the way to work with experienced reviewer-editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia article traffic statistics
Does anyone know why Wikipedia article traffic statistics is now giving "internal server error".Lbertolotti (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Lbertolotti: Stats.grok.se has been down for quite some time and the creator seems to have left Wikipedia. The WMF has taken over page view statistics and has created a new site that does that (and it works quite nicely actually). The Help Desk page can be found here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/#project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Wikipedia:Help_desk. The new link can be reached on any page by clicking on "View history" and then "Page view statistics" near the top of the page. --Majora (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Image copyright problem
Last September, Estelle1960 was working on the Martin Gilbert article. She was I think employed by his publisher, and so had a conflict of interest – but never mind that, she did a reasonable job. She provided a better (in her opinion, and mine) image of him, and uploaded it as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sir_Martin_Gilbert.jpg , but did not know how to get it into the article, and asked on this Help Desk. I then put it in the article for her, on September 11th. But I soon decided that the image she had uploaded was of doubtful copyright status, and removed it again with the edit summary "Restored old image until copyright problem can be sorted out".
The image was uploaded with the date given as "It was taken by am employee". If it was taken by an employee, that employee would be the copyright holder, unless their contract with the publisher said otherwise; and we have no reason to believe either that the contract did say otherwise, or that the employee has surrendered their rights in the image. Either the image is acceptable on en:Wikipedia, and should be used in the article, or it is not acceptable and should be deleted. Can someone with a good understanding of copyright law please give an opinion? Maproom (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Maproom: Copyright always lies with the person that took the photo. In this case, the employee. The employee would have to verify that they are releasing it under a creative commons license. Right now, the {{self}} licensing template is clearly wrong per the summary statement. The employee would have to fill out a WP:CONSENT document and sent it in to OTRS for verification. If I saw that when it was uploaded I would have marked it F11 for lack of permission proof. --Majora (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- And I have just seen that "The Martin Gilbert web site" has the same image, and a legal notice reading "The material contained on the Sir Martin Gilbert web site, including all portions of the Web Site, content, site design, text, graphics and the selection and arrangement thereof are Copyright © Sir Martin Gilbert. All Rights Reserved.". I would "mark it F11", but can't figure out how, even after reading F11 three times. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maproom I've tagged it as an F9- blatant copyright violation of the site you mentioned. I'm not sure how F11 works, but F9 seems appropriate here, and is one of the options on Twinkle (thus is easy for me to add). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Maproom: I marked it. If you use Twinkle it is under the DI tab since it is a delayed deletion. If you don't you would just put
{{subst:Npd}}
at the top. --Majora (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- And I have just seen that "The Martin Gilbert web site" has the same image, and a legal notice reading "The material contained on the Sir Martin Gilbert web site, including all portions of the Web Site, content, site design, text, graphics and the selection and arrangement thereof are Copyright © Sir Martin Gilbert. All Rights Reserved.". I would "mark it F11", but can't figure out how, even after reading F11 three times. Maproom (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Obvious difficulty is my age (92) and I was too busy to publish scholarly article
As is common for older people current memories are easily lost whereas more exciting times are remembered in great detail. Another problem is that most other people involved are now dead. For example, I remember the Boeing chief of safety, Niel Clausen, took me along with him to Atlanta immediately after the three "Men-On-The-Moon" died on a pad pretest time. It was at that time Niel rushed out to propose NASA adopt "Fault Trees" and apparently why. To lend credence to my position I solved an extremely frightening accident in a military system and could repeat my reasoning process. I could repeat many other things of that era. For example, I reviewed a bid to an embassy for a very large amount for NATO equipment. I found their company consisted of 5 people and a silly "example". The embassy demanded to know if they "could" do it. I said that with that much money they could hire anybody to buy the ability. I finally found that the president of those 5 men had been a Communist saboteur of Nazi conquerors. What more would you like for me to provide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.14.97 (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that you are referring to an issue about adding content to an article, possibly about space exploration or about military systems. Since this is your only edit from this IP address, we have no idea what article you are referring to. Please tell us what article is involved. However, Wikipedia cannot accept content in an article based solely on individual unpublished memory, only on information that has been previously published in reliable sources. Please clarify what the subject is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Can't remember--97.126.14.97 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)See subject
-
-
- When your memory returns, I suggest that you create your own website for your memoirs, or dictate them to be written up as a book to celebrate your hundredth birthday. Dbfirs 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
April 18
Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hyde
The photo here is of this man's father. the previous photo on this page was definately of the 1st Baron himself. Please put back the original one - or remove - if you can. ThanksSrbernadette (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. It seems we have two conflicting sources:
- this source from 1895, which makes no mention of being a Baron of Hyde
- Several other photos of what appears to be a younger man, and each photo is labeled "1st Baron Ashton-of-Hyde"
- The photo was changed in this edit without any explanation. I see enough to convince me that the previous photo is the accurate one. I have restored the original image. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Both photos were uploaded by the same editor, who writes a convincing argument on Talk:Thomas Ashton, 1st Baron Ashton of Hyde that both photos are the same person. The sources given at the bottom of the article would support this. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
UFC 157
Hi. "UFC 157" should have its own article and not be a sub-article of "2013 in UFC." How do I make "UFC 157" a separate article? CaptRik responded to my question last time and I tried to contact him but he never responded. I do not know where he went. Please someone respond to this question and have a solution. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- The answers to your two previous questions on this subject are at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 21#UFC 157 - 2013 in UFC and at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 30#UFC 157. You will see that they both refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157, which gives the reason that the previous version of UFC 157 was deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- What does it mean that the redirect is under page protection? Theepicwarrior (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Theepicwarrior: Since the page was inappropriately recreated after the AFDs established that it should be only a redirect, an administrator has fully protected the page such that only administrators can edit it. — crh 23 (Talk) 09:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- What does it mean that the redirect is under page protection? Theepicwarrior (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- How do I contact an administrator to edit the page? Theepicwarrior (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Put your edit request in a new section on the talk page and add {{edit fully-protected|page name}} in that section (just after the new section header). See template:edit fully-protected for additional information. What page are we talking about? UFC 157 does not appear to be protected. Rwessel (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- UFC 157 is protected. The protection is the most recent entry in the page history. Are you sure that you're not looking at the target of the redirect? If Theepicwarrior is to make an edit request, he needs to explain what has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 and the subsequent deletion review linked from it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Why wasn't "UFC 157" originally created as a separate article? If it was, it would not be a problem. But since someone deleted it and put in under "2013 in UFC", it has become a problem and I have to fix it. Why would someone delete the original article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- The (quite lengthy) deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_157. Rwessel (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why wasn't "UFC 157" originally created as a separate article? If it was, it would not be a problem. But since someone deleted it and put in under "2013 in UFC", it has become a problem and I have to fix it. Why would someone delete the original article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (edit conflict) You obviously haven't read the answers which you were given to your two previous questions, and about which I reminded you in the first answer to your question in this section. You need to read now. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (ec) So it is, my mistake, I must have bounced back to the target page without realizing it at some point, probably after looking at the talk page (where someone else has made the same error). And I notice that it was Theepicwarrior (talk · contribs) who *had* placed a proper protected edit request on that page a couple of weeks ago, which was then rejected because of that error. I have re-activated the edit request. Rwessel (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Does that mean "UFC 157" can now have its own separate article instead of being a sub-article of "2013 in UFC"? Theepicwarrior (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- There is no point asking questions if you don't read the replies. Read everything in this section, and the links in those replies. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi David. So I guess I cannot create a separate UFC 157 article. I read your comments and the deletion discussion. Why was the article deleted in the first place? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 11:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- FWIW, one of the major issues raised in the old deletion discussion was that the criteria for notability for MMA was yet unclear. That seems better established now, but WP:MMAEVENT still seems to state that generally individual events are not normally notable, but it seems that very many (100+) of the other "UFC nnn" event have their own articles despite that. Rwessel (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi Rwessel. Thank you for responding. So is there any way to reverse the deletion of UFC 157 and get it back as its own article? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Like David has already said, put an edit request on the talk page, and explain what changed since the deletion discussion (an d the subsequent deletion review). If you can get consensus that the old decision should be reversed, the protection will be removed. Personally given the was things are happening in that genre of articles, I'd expect that wouldn't be too hard to achieve. Rwessel (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Are you saying it is highly probable that they will accept my request? Theepicwarrior (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Is this good? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC#UFC_157
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No, Theepicwarrior, I'm afraid it isn't good. The article was deleted after a discussion and review at which people put forward arguments about the application of Wikipedia policies, and the closing administrator made a decision on the basis of those arguments. The only way to get that decision changed is to show that for some reason, those arguments no longer apply: you would have to show that some change means that those particular Wikipedia policies (principally WP:N) no longer exclude the article. Your argument needs to be entirely about Wikipedia policies, and how the event now satisfies them. You do not help your case in the slightest by exclaiming that something is "unacceptable", or by talking about the notability of a person involved (whether she is notable or not has zero effect on whether the event is notable). Sorry --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Apologies for not replying, I had to be away suddenly for work. I think the answers above cover everything well. If you feel you can find suitable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines then you might consider writing a new article yourself and submitting it for review. I can't advise strongly enough however that the sourcing will have to be good to overturn the previous deletion discussion. You might also consider taking a look at the links on WP:MMA. CaptRik (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
restriction by editing to many external links
I have just tried to add an external link, after I already added one to an other article before.
I get the messeage "It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession..."
Since it also says "If you're sure you still want to make this edit, go to the bottom of this page and click 'Save page' again, and it will be submitted as is." I tried to save the changes, but I only get back to the editing page.
So my questions are:
- How many external links, are "too many"? Since I only inserted 2, probably within 30 minutes.
- Why does it not save the changes, although the text gives me the option to do so?
Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.184.2 (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like you triggered what's called an "edit filter". #80, to be exact. The description says more than three edits that contain the string "HTTP" within 20 minutes, as long as they're not within citations. For the second question, I don't know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Problem in Editing the page of our own institution
Hello, we would like to make corrections and additions to the page "Kyrgyz State Medical Academy" because we are the administration of Kyrgyz State Medical Academy. After edition we got following notifications. How to cancel the undone of automated computer program called ClueBot NG?
April 2016[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kyrgyz State Medical Academy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again. For help, take a look at the introduction. The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kyrgyz State Medical Academy was changed by Akhunbaevksma (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.976151 on 2016-04-13T18:02:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhunbaevksma (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- You have a conflict of interest here if you are editing an article about your institution, but referenced factual corrections shouldn't be a problem. You should declare the conflict of interest on your user page. Also, you say "we", but Wikipedia allows only individual accounts. You should also be aware that a page about an organisation does not belong to that organisation. The Wikipedia page should not be a publicity page. Use your own website for that. Having said all that, I think you need to request a move to a new title, as explained on your talk page. Dbfirs 15:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Clarification on attribution vs plagiarism, please
I have run across a page (Thomas Garnet) that has copied, word-for-word, a book on Google Books. At the bottom of the page there is an attribution that the article 'incorporates text' from a public-domain source, and lists the source. Is this sufficient? Or should the article be re-written? Leschnei (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I forgot to add that the author included the book in question in the references. My question is not about the fact that there aren't any inline citations to the book (an obvious, solvable problem), but the fact that it is copied verbatim. What is the policy? Leschnei (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article also includes a claim that the book is now in the public domain. This is true, it was published in 1913. I don't know if it's relevant. Maproom (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maqroom According to Wikisource, it's public domain in US since it was published in US before 1923. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I forgot to add that the author included the book in question in the references. My question is not about the fact that there aren't any inline citations to the book (an obvious, solvable problem), but the fact that it is copied verbatim. What is the policy? Leschnei (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pretty sure that's OK, as long as the article stylistically fits and the text from the copy-paste doesn't violate any other policies. — crh 23 (Talk) 19:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Father Baldwin was sent to Bridewell prison, where one of those incidents occurred that were so representative of the treacherousness of the Elizabethan age" does not sound like 21st century English. And more seriously, it fails WP:NEUTRAL. The article needs work, but copyvio is not, it seems, an issue.Maproom (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Posting an Article
Hello-
I have tried several times to post a article regarding TaskUs and have been denied everytime. Can you please guide me in the right direction?/tell me what I am doing wrong?
Thanks, Gina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.127.120 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is always better if you give us a wikilink to the page in question. In this case I guess that you might be referring to Draft:TaskUs? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because you work for the company, you should disclose your WP:Conflict of interest on your user page, as should User:TaskUsBED (is that you?). The article still needs some WP:Reliable sources, not just mentions of the company and interviews with the founders. See WP:Neutral point of view. Dbfirs 18:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Gina. Please be aware that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in anything at all that a company says about itself, whether on its own website, or through interviews or press releases. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company have published about it in reliable places. If there is such indepedent material published, then an article may be written, based close to 100% on what those independent sources say about the company. If such sources don't exist, then it is not possible to write an acceptable article about the company. See WP:CORP.
Authority control (Normativnyi kontrol')
@CiaPan The article on Sue Owen (Сью Оуэн), the American poet, went onto the Russian Wikipedia on April 14. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%8C%D1%8E_%D0%9E%D1%83%D1%8D%D0%BD Soon thereafter, I made small corrections, so that footnotes 4 and 5 would be visible on the page. The Authority control (Normativyni kontrol’) line remains in the incorrect format, however. Can you put that line in the correct format so that the information appears in the box? Thank you. Dolzhnikov (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- This help desk is for the English Wikipedia. Try the Russian help desk at ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
How many editors watching a page?
Is there any way to find out how many Wikipedians are watching a particular page? I was impressed to see some vandalism on the Battle_of_Stalingrad removed in a matter of minutes. It might help counter some of the negative perceptions about Wikipedia if people knew that there were n editors watching a particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @AugusteBlanqui: Click "Page information" in the left pane of the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- At one time I thought that might be useful for deciding whether a page needs me watching. Alas, almost every one that I checked was "fewer than 30". This uniformity didn't help me decide, so now I ignore that question in deciding to drop. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jim.henderson Under that logic, you don't need to watch this page, it has 7092 watchers.
- And the Battle_of_Stalingrad has 365 watchers, which is quite a lot for an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- At one time I thought that might be useful for deciding whether a page needs me watching. Alas, almost every one that I checked was "fewer than 30". This uniformity didn't help me decide, so now I ignore that question in deciding to drop. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @AugusteBlanqui: The "Page information" page shows the actual number of watchers to admins, if the number is less than 30. I believe you can go to Special:UnwatchedPages to see if a page has zero watchers, although I am not sure if "unwatched" is equivalent to "zero" or some small positive number. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Search redirecting
Hello, a search for NYPR brings up WNYC when the page New_York_Public_Radio should come up. What to do? Formulairis990 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you click on the link "Redirected from..." under the page title, you can edit the redirect page. I just did so, and NYPR now points to New York Public Radio. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just noticed the autosuggest when you type nypr shows "WNYC Radio" as the first suggestion, and does not list NYPR. I don't see a "Redirected from link..." I gather it's because there is no longer a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formulairis990 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
swans
I want to know more about swans------r they territorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.116.241 (talk) 23:24, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
- Hello IP editor. This page is for help editing Wikipedia. We can't really help you with swan based questions. But did you know that we have an article on swans? You can find it by clicking here: Swan. You can also ask at one of our reference desks and someone over there would be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Ram Gopal Varma
I can't figure out how to un-italicize the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)