Help desk
< August 15	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

August 16

Man, I'm so lost!

I've been diligent in clicking and reading help pages. Here is my question: the GOCE notices are piling up on my personal talk page. Am I allowed to edit my talk page and clean some of those out? I want to become more active (on Wikipedia in general) and would appreciate any links that you think may be most helpful. (Now to re-read the welcome-to-Wikipedia links on my talk page...) CousinJohn (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Delete away. You can put Groucho glasses on them if you want. Your talk page is pretty much under your control. The only things you generally cannot remove are declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See WP:OWNTALK. Although archiving human messages is recommended, for automated notices such as those you wouldn't even normally do that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@CousinJohn: Per WP:Talk, you're free to delete any and all postings on your personal user talk page. You can also archive older talk page postings, if for some reason you think you might want to look at them again. For routine newsletters, I personally don't see much point in archiving, but that's just my personal opinion.

The welcome-to-Wikipedia links are really a good place to start, for newcomers like you. But often it's better just to jump in - you've signed up for GOCE newsletters, for example, so every time they have a joint project is an potential opportunity to learn new things. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't archive, anything that was on the talk page is in the history. You can click on any of the times, such as this one, to see what you deleted. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom section on a page

Where is section 15 coming from at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<h2 id="mp-tfp-h2" style="margin:3px; background:#f2cedd; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #bfa3af; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em">Today's articles for improvement</h2>

- the fact it is an <h2> means it is a L2 heading. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 03:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change it so there is not heading?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally figured it out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My page was deleted in error!

My article entitles Ansar El Muhammad the Allah Master J Man is an article about the leader and teacher of a religious group called the Ansar El Muhammad we are Muslim and we are a well established group and non profit organization, we have multiple websites and an established Temple. This article in intended for people who are interested in know more about the Allah Master J Man which would be very helpful for us. Please reconsider deleting our page and if it is approved please help us properly upload it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnsarElMuhammad (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to promote you or your group members. As you have a clear conflict of interest, it's best to wait until someone unconnected with your group decides the subject is notable and writes an article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Definition of a Word

Is it possible to submit a request to have the definition of a word or object to be added to Wikipedia? Is this the same as submitting a request for an article, even though a definition if of course much shorter than an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.54.242 (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia is not a dictionary. You won't find simple definitions of words here. Try our sister project, Wiktionary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have copies of the salesman Urban (Oban)

I have these from wiki, and now there's not even a mention of him. Can someone help me on this? thanksMensatop2 (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more clear as to what you're asking? I, for one, have no idea who you are talking about. Dismas|^(talk) 04:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have some idea. Mensatop2 created an article Basilica The cannon that the salesman Urban had built to destroy the walls of the Constantinople, which was speedy deleted. But I don't understand his question. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Mensatop2 is wondering why the article is no longer in the encyclopedia. It seems that it has been deleted twice because other editors were not able to understand it. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

language transfer

can I send someone a text in English and it gets to him or her in another language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.55.142 (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Google Translate? It's not perfect, and it sometimes trips up over syntax and similar issues, but it's one of the best computer-based interpreters I've found. drewmunn talk 08:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with 66.208.111.99?

My question about this account at the Teahouse lead one user to suspect a sock puppet bot since the removal of content on the "Types of bots" page coincided with the time the IP address began editing (within a day). The investigation was declined, however.

I'm not saying something nefarious is necessarily going on, but I'm at a loss to explain the motivation behind this IP's edits. Vzaak (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks like they enjoy breaking or removing templates. I'm not sure if a sock-puppet investigation is worth it, but you may be interested in requesting a block for vandalism; they certainly seem to be engaging in disruptive editing to me! drewmunn talk 08:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Floating table below infobox

Hi. Has anybody an idea how I can tell the release table on ePSXe to be below the Infobox without adding a {{-}}? Thanks in advance. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried {{clear}}? Not sure if it would work per se in this case, but worth a try! drewmunn talk 09:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't avoid blank space with {{-}} or {{clear}}. I used {{stack}} instead.[1] It reserves the same width for the two boxes so there is a little unused space to the left of the infobox but apart from that it looks OK in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stack works fine. Thank you. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a marriage certificate

Hi, I was wondering whether a marriage certificate is an acceptable source for an FAC candidate, and how I might go about citing it. It is a 1937 certificate registering the marriage of Jo Stafford to John Huddleston (see here and here for details). If I can cite it, what parameters do I need for the source detail? Thanks in advance. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul MacDermott: Since it's not a published source (most likely) it fails the "can I go and verify it" test. If it's published somewhere, then it may be acceptable, but it's still a primary source, and so those rules apply (especially WP:BLPPRIMARY). I'd try to find something else personally. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 13:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Stafford died in 2008, so unless John Huddleston is still alive (unlikely, since he was 25 years old in 1937), WP:BLPPRIMARY wouldn't apply. There is still the problem that it is a primary source though, and technically I'm not sure it can be used to source the fact that the Jo Stafford in our article married a John Huddleston in 1937, though given all the details, it certainly looks valid (ignoring the question as to whether it is actually'published' - opinions seem to differ regarding such documents). What exactly is the certificate being used to verify? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I wanted to use it as a source for the date of her marriage, but it's possible, I guess, that it could concern a different couple who happen to share the same names. This article from Radio Mirror mentions a marriage to a member of her backing group, though no name is given. (see also this which is the full piece). Most published sources date her marriage to Huddleston to 1941, so I guess we'll have to stick with that till a definitive secondary source comes along. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul MacDermott: Yeah, being available only by request to an agency is not published in a way that allows easy verification, but why don't you publish it? That is, upload it to the Commons. I've done this in a few contexts. For example, see Kelly pool#Origins where I uploaded a U.S. Census record to the Commons for use in the article. I believe this would take {{PD-ineligible}}. If I'm wrong about that it's PD, or course, back to square one. I disagree that there is any issue whatsoever with it being a primary source. There is no per se stigma attached to primary sources; they are not to be avoided or inferior to secondary source in all contexts. We want secondary source for notability purposes to show the world has taken note of the topic, which is irrelevant here, and view them with suspicion where they are self-published by the subject or are being used for novel interpretations or analyses, which is likewise inapplicable here. An official government issued document showing birth, death, marriage, etc. is often the best source for certain facts contained within it, such as the date of a marriage, date of death, etc. It is essentially impossible for this not to be these two individuals but another two with the same name, given the full matching name, correct ages, places of birth, location of issuance, names of fathers and listed occupations. It's inarguably them and I would use it as the definitive source for the date of their marriage, possible adding a footnote as the the contradiction in some secondary sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks, there are a couple of sources available that refer to a marriage—one of them contemporary from 1938, and another from 1951 that discussed her marriage in the context of her pre-Dorsey career—but they're not specific. Someone else has kindly uploaded the marriage licence to Commons (see here and here). If all is well with them I'll add the relevant stuff. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've cited it. Please could someone check I've done it proberly. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good except I didn't realize you already had proof they were married at least as of 1937, or at least that's what your recent edit implies. Specifically, you cite the Radio Mirror to April 1937 as providing they were married. If a source is from 1937 and states they were or are married, even if it provided no date at all for the marriage, that is determinative proof they were married at least by the date of that source. If the 1937 source actually provides that they were married, I would change the first part of the footnote to say something like "Although sources such as The Independent and The Boston Globe date the marriage as occurring in 1941,[13][14], a Radio Mirror article published in 1937 mentions their marriage, meaning they had to be married by that year."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for taking a look. I changed it over, but erred slightly as the source should be April 1938. The Mirror doesn't specifically mention Huddleston by name, which was why I was unsure if I could use it. Since yesterday I've re-read the Collier's article, which does mention him, and implies that they married around that time. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email

How do you email a page r a link to a page on Wikipedia (I am currently using an Apple Ipad) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.99.150 (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the URL of the article you are reading; then send that URL in an e-mail to the recipient. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "share" button at the top of the browser on the iPad to share a web page. Tap that and then choose Mail as the method of sharing. Dismas|^(talk) 13:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

eric robert goulden

someone has attempted to write an article about me on wikipedia. I do not wish to appear on wikipedia. Please delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.180.213 (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of an article does not have a right of veto on the presence of a Wikipedia article, but as you appear to have been the only significant contributor to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Robert Goulden, you can tag it for speedy deletion by adding {{db-author}} at the top of it. That will not stop someone else writing an article about you in future if you can be shown to meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edit history, the "someone" who created the article about you, is you - always assuming you are who you claim to be. Arjayay (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a redirect.

I wanted to look up something being referred to online as an "Ooth" and I couldn't find it on Wikipedia, so I searched more and found out it was an "Ootheca" but it is often referred to as an Ooth. How do I create a redirect, so that entering 'Ooth' takes the user to the "Ootheca" page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.24.17 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirect tells you how. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must have an account to create redirects. Unregistered users can make a request at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect. But OOTH is already a redirect so a hatnote may be a better solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiGroup

some user told me about making a Wikigroup and also told me to ask here. How can I make one of those. Any references? Thanks. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean a WikiProject, which is a collaboration of editors interested in a particular subject. There are two ways you can do that; either by submitting an idea to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals for consideration, or by just starting one yourself. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this appeared in my infobox?

On my userpage "— Wikipedian ♂ —" has appeared at the top of my infobox on my userpage. Does anyone know why? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 18:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jenova. Mine has one too User:Miss Bono/Profile. I think there must be some add they did to the original template. :o Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange...why does mine have a male icon next to it though? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 18:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You use {{User infobox}}. It was added yesterday in [2]. You can avoid it by either saying |gender=o or select "Undisclosed" as Gender at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, friend. Maybe because you are male, possibly it has to do with the preferences box that says if you are femmale or male. I have mine in femmale but I don't know why I don't have a femmale icon at the top of my user infobox. I'll make a research. :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:O too late :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I misunderstanding something, or has someone decided that the default for the 'User infobox' is 'gender male' rather than 'gender undisclosed'? If so, it clearly needs correcting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly wasn't the intention. BTW, I'm looking into using

as a third option Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can fix it. I don't want to be a male. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mine seems to be undisclosed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... So, this is what went down and how it works... Andy moved the |gender= from inside the box to a subheader per a talk page discussion (if you wanna call it that). Edokter then made a couple minor fixes. I then came along and figured, why not auto-populate this for those that have the preference set in their preferences. It is not set to a default of male, it is set to {{lc:{{{gender|{{Gender:{{#titleparts:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|1}}|m|f|o}}}}}}} which is whatever you set |gender= to OR whatever you have defined as your gender in your Preferences. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Wikipedian" text can be overwritten by setting |role= to some other value (linked or not; your choice); this is described in the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. My userpage doesn't specify my gender, and my preferences do say that I am male. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't use {{Infobox user}}. It is this template which has added code to automatically display the gender preference if it has been set. It's still possible for others to see your preference if they know how. For example, {{Gender:Robert McClenon|male|female|undisclosed}} produces: male. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if users can figure out my gender. It isn't as if an Anglophone can't figure it out from my user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, Robert has always been a male name from my experience. But then there are girls named Joseph. So who knows these days? Dismas|^(talk) 23:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or a boy named Sue; my parents knew the man from Denver who officiated at this funeral, and see this guy's name. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Michael Learned.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

posting on facebook

how do i post a wikipedia page to my facebook wall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebirdnjb (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the URL of the article you are reading, then paste it to your wall. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the same place you'd type a status update. If there's an "http://", Facebook knows what to do. You might not even need that part, anymore. But if it doesn't work right, try adding it to the beginning. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could also install Wikipedia:Sharebox which makes it a bit easier. But that's up to you. The above method works fine. You don't need a share button to be able to post things to Facebook. Dismas|^(talk) 21:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other users' sandboxes

Is the content of another user's sandbox free to use? I want to create an article and have discovered another user has an excellent article on the subject in her sandbox which has not been edited since July 2012. She has not made any other contributions recently either. Would it be OK to use it as the basis of an article, with a note on the talk page to that effect? Robina Fox (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is to just move it into article space. The edit history is preserved, so she gets her props for her work up to July. I would then drop a gracious note on her talk page, and send her a grateful e-mail if that functionality is enabled for her account. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is pretty much ready for prime time, I would do as Mike suggests as well. If it's not quite ready yet, I'd just make a list of things that you need to do to get it up to par quickly. Then move it. And then make those changes all in one sitting. Just so I wasn't playing in someone else's sandbox. Dismas|^(talk) 21:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good solutions. Thank you! Robina Fox (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afd August 13

Not sure how to fix it, but appears some how someone messed up the references section of the August 13th AfD page. Thanks, Caffeyw (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partially fixed with [3]. A user is making inline references in AfD discussions. We don't normally do that and it causes problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 13 where many AfD's are shown together. I will contact the user. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]