Help desk
< July 7	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 9 >

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.

July 8

Tried but failed to move a template

In this edit, I attempted to move a talk header template on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. However, as you can see by checking the before and after oldids, the only changes were that the box became a couple of pixels wider and a few pixels closer to the top of the screen. Why didn't my edit cause it to go on top? Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I futzed with it. If what I did isn't what you want, revert it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox and script errors

Hi. Recently I get a lot of script errors in Firefox when browsing, editing, or comparing diffs (Non-responsive script error). That makes Wikipedia browsing slow. I use Firefox 21. This error appeared one week ago and still occurs. How to fix it? Thanks. Zyma (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue is likely caused by VisualEditor. Report your problem to them and try disabling it by going to Preferences, then Gadgets, then checking the first box under Editing. I hope this helps. drewmunn talk 06:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, this issue is caused by the Universal Language Selector, and it is a known issue. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it solved or not? Is using an alternative browser like Chrome helpful? Zyma (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled VisualEditor. Cleared my browser's cache and installed new version of Firefox (22.0). But the errors occur again. Also I've checked VE talk page. Some users reported similar problems (slow browsing and unresponsive script warning when browsing with Firefox). Zyma (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding VisualEditor will not help, because the problem is with an unrelated extension called "Universal Language Selector". ULS is the thing that puts a gear-shaped tool in the sidebar next to "Languages". There is no point in turning off VisualEditor: it won't solve this unrelated problem. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatamidoing (WMF) and TheDJ, you are right. The problem is not related to VE. I changed my browser to Chrome and started Wikipedia browsing with VE and without VE. It works well. But with Firefox, the error happens with VE and without VE. Zyma (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the error messages (script address)

Script: [1]. Zyma (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solved.. By using Google Chrome. Zyma (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Editor

Is the Visual Editor supposed to be available for all skins? I use Cologne Blue, and nothing changed for me last week. The "Remove VE" option is not ticked in my preferences. Thanks. Rojomoke (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that only Monobook and Vector are supported - see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 06#Skins. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grievance against title upon searching 'Ishrat Jahan'

Hello,

If I goole 'Ishrat Jahan' it takes me to the 'Ishrat Jahan Fake Encounter Case'. I have serious reservation against Wikipedia putting this case as fake encounter. It is not confirmed by the highest court in India whether this case was indeed a fake encounter. So I would urge you to omit the word fake. What is going to be your position in case the courts fail to prove that the case was a fake encounter. Until that is proved, we can go with the assumption that the encounter was genuine.

Thanks, Reader

Hi there. This sort of thing should be discussed at the article's talk page, as that is where editors with expertise in this subject will be reading. Thanks — Richard BB 09:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The order in which articles appear when using search engines is not something Wikipedia can help you with. You would need to contact Google themselves. CaptRik (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those not familiar with the terminology see Encounter killings by police: "An encounter is a euphemism used in South Asia, especially in India, to describe extrajudicial killings in which police or armed forces shoot down suspected gangsters and terrorists in gun battles". Ishrat Jahan was one of four people whom were killed in what has been claimed to be such an 'encounter' possibly fabricated by the police, in June 2004. As for the actual circumstances of the case, it will need someone with better skills than me to make sense of the complexities of it all, with arrests of police officers, convictions, allegations of links to terrorist organisations, allegations that the allegations of links to terrorists are based on fabrication, and who knows what else. The article title probably needs changing, for clarity as much as neutrality, and the whole article could do with a rewrite to try and make some sense of it all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting fact about "encounter". I wonder aloud why we are entertaining euphemisms instead of calling it the Ishrat Jahan killing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title is discussed at Talk:Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case#Requested move to eliminate word "Fake" till judicial verdict. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Late" individual

The use of the word "late" (i.e. dead) is particularly common in articles about people and places in the Indian subcontinent, where it is a form of honorific prefix.
I thought there was a specific guideline against the use of it, but WP:HONORIFIC only deprecates the use of honorifics relating to title, position or activity, especially in relation to clergy and royalty.
Is there another guideline, that I have missed? does it come under "Honorifics" by inference? or is it an acceptable use?
Arjayay (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this - WP:MOSIN which says that honorifics should not be used in the article body, or in the name. Does that help? CaptRik (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but I'm sure I've seen a specific reference to "Late" somewhere. Arjayay (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EUPHEMISM?--ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've consulted various style guides but they don't have much to say about the use of "late". You might try bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've raised the question on your behalf at: MOS:BIO. I think it's useful to get clarification on this, and since MOS:BIO hosts the honorifics shortcut, I thought it reasonable to ask on the Talk Page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth do I edit a citation?

I'm struggling to edit a citation - so to take it from a cited web-source to properly citing the names, dates etc of the supportive document. WLunnR (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider using a citation template to format the citations, see Wikipedia:Citation templates. You can simply place them between <ref> tags to make a footnote like this:

<ref>{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = | archiveurl = | archivedate = }}</ref>

You can paste the blank code from the page I linked. Then all you have to do is fill in the values for the parameters like this:

<ref>{{Citation | last = Cahalan | first = Paul | last2 = Owen | first2 = Jonathan | title = Terror in Woolich: Internet is the vital frontline in a war against extremism | series = The Independent | year = 2013 | month= May }}</ref>

-- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you used the Edit tab at the top of the article. If you click this, you will be using the VisualEditor. In that case, you can simply click on the little number like [6] and click on the little icon that appears. Then you can make the changes you like to the citation. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

christianity

Smith Wigglesworth's biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.159.83 (talk • contribs)

Hello - Did you need some help with something? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location

Sirs, If I geotag a photo when I upload it to wikipedia I can add location. If I try to add the location later I often run into difficulties. I have just tried to add ((Location dec |+++++++|+++++++)) to an image and it did not work.

Sometimes ((location possible)) works but more often than not it does not

What am I doing wrong?

Dr John Studley— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorjaynima (talk • contribs)

Your image uploads seem to be at commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Object_location_dec may help or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas O'Toole.

Should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.--ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello.

I have written an Article that merits inclusion in Wikipedia, but I am told the subject, a person, is not properly noteworthy. I understand the wish for secondary source references, but those just don't exist for most newspaper reporters, whose job it was to be invisible as they report their stories. Thomas O'Toole wrote over 2500 articles for The Washington Post over 20 years, after writing first for The Cape Cod Standard Times, The Wall St. Journal, TIME magazine and The New York Times. He wrote a major book forecasting the future with Marvin Cetron, which didn't become a best-seller only because John Naisbitt's Megatrends scooped it by a month and was lavishly promoted. Thomas O'Toole's desk was photographed and reproduced for the set of All The President's Men. He was THE contact person in Washington for NASA over most of his 20 years at The Post. A google search reveals how one article written by Thomas O'Toole in 1983 (Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered) was taken by the conspiracy community and paraded across the internet as a chink in the armor of cover-up of a Planet-X story. Some people would like to see his memory rescued from such false history. Can someone help me edit the article properly and move it forward? Thank you.

Here's the piece as it stands:

Collapsing draft text

Thomas O'Toole was a science reporter and editor at The Washington Post from 1966 to 1987. His main subject was the space program, in particular the Apollo program to land men on the moon. He extensively covered Skylab, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program, the Grand Tour probes to Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, and the space shuttle program. O'Toole wrote many articles on energy, including the burgeoning nuclear power industry in America. He also covered significant espionage stories, from Cold War subjects to Watergate and the hunt for Nazi figures hiding in America and elsewhere after World War 2.

O'Toole was born in 1931 in Jersey City and he attended high school and college at St. Peter's Prep (Hoboken) and St. Peter's College (Jersey City). After doing military service in France, he earned his graduate journalism degree from Boston University and then worked at The Cape Cod Standard Times in Hyannis, reporting on the Andrea Doria ocean liner sinking of 1956. O'Toole returned to New York City, finding work with The Wall St. Journal (1957-61), TIME magazine, and The New York Times (1965-66). He was a partner in the 1962 aerospace and culture magazine USA1, which published five issues before folding. He married Vitaline O'Connell, of Hartford, in 1958 and they had four children.

In the summer of 1966, Howard Simons and Ben Bradlee of The Washington Post hired Tom O'Toole as The Post was growing into a paper of national prominence. O'Toole immediately began covering the Lunar Orbiter program from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. From there, his work covered every imaginable aspect of the space program. His articles were frequently featured on the front page of the paper. O'Toole was twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize and he was awarded the National Space Club Press Award in 1970.

Around 1980, O'Toole was invited to work with Marvin Cetron on Cetron's first book about the future, titled Encounters with the Future. Cetron and O'Toole were both contributors to OMNI magazine, which collected some of the best science news and writing of the time. Cetron's sweeping predictions, largely gained from his insider position at the Navy Advanced Research Laboratory, were put into context and prose by O'Toole, who brought his own working knowledge of science to the project. The book was published by McGraw-Hill in 1982.

O'Toole continued to cover space and energy, among other subjects, for The Washington Post. He visited Three Mile Island during the 1979 crisis at the Pennsylvania nuclear facility. He detailed the space shuttle program from its infancy, although he was in Pasadena covering deep space probe Voyager's encounter with Uranus when the shuttle Challenger blew up in January of 1986.

O'Toole worked for several years at public relations firm Powell-Tate in Washington. He was also an early editor and contributor to space.com. He married a second time, to Mary-Kate Cranston of Washington. They had one child. Tom O'Toole died in 2003 from complications from diabetes.

Owen Sinclair — Preceding unsigned comment added by cosmonaut61 (talk • contribs)

Draft is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas O'Toole. I see you have asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk which is the appropriate place to deal with your request for help.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New User: Page Edit Suggestion on Sign-up Needs Work

Created a new account on Wikipedia and was offered option of editing an article 'for clarity'(assume this is not a 'live' article). In addition to the editing for clarity, the article needs research. Ex: Date of birth provided spanned a period of 53-years. Does one just ignore the research question, if he/she has offered to edit for clarity? May I do both - in my spare time?

Thank you, Shannon M. Kulik

It looks like an error in the article http://www.library.yale.edu/MapColl/oldsite/map/globes.html has him dying in 1773 not possibly born then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to create links on page about me - Michael Berk

I edited the article about me to create a factual, accurate page. I tried using the double brackets [[ ]] to create links on certain words or titles like Baywatch or Thunder in Paradise, but when I save the edit, the brackets were still there and no links. What am I doing wrong? Also, can pictures be added to the article? If so, how? Thanks you Michael Berk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Jerome Berk (talk • contribs) — Michael Jerome Berk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is a prime example of the reason why people are discouraged from editing articles about themselves. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. The material you added is full of glowing adjectives that don't belong in an encyclopedia article. I have reverted it back to the earlier version. If there is material you feel is missing, I suggest that you present it on the article's talk page (Talk:Michael Berk), so that other editors can take a look at it.

Regarding the question that brought you here, you made your edits using the "Visual Editor", a new editing method that was only introduced a few days ago, in hopes of making things easier for new editors by not requiring them to know all the arcane wiki-symbols. The Visual Editor has a different way of creating links -- you do it by selecting some text and clicking on the icon at the top that looks like a chain. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect, Mr. Berk, but you kinda took it over the top there a little bit, and by a little, I mean a lot. :) Wikipedia isn't a resume, it's an encyclopedia. So as awesome as your career has been, the reporting of it here has to be balanced, has to take a neutral point of view, has to be backed by references, and has to sound like an encyclopedia. Industry specific jargon such as "the highest rated MOW of the year building to a 52 share over three hours" should be avoided, as should completely subjective phrases such as: "The warm and moving prime time series", as should folksy expressions such as, "the rest, as they say, is history." I agree with Looie496's suggestion that you issue your edit requests on the talk page, and my strong supporting suggestion would be to provide reliable sources along with your request, to make the job of prospective editors easier, otherwise, you're gonna get a lot of declined edit requests. Also, not every award you've won will be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Not trying to step on your achievements, just giving you a heads-up. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if someone round here doesn't like to be given advice. He's just reverted my removal of his promotional spam (yes, Looie496, the history seems to show me making that edit, not you - weird?). So what's the next step? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back to the earlier version. What happened (to explain) is that you and I both did an "undo" at nearly the same time. When that happens, the server doesn't show an edit conflict, instead it just acts as though the edit was accepted. So without looking at the history I had no indication that you beat me to it. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guessed as much; but was perplexed that neither of us saw an edit conflict. I don't think that has happened to me before. Thanks for doing the revert and placing the additional warning. I was looking for a level 2 uw-coi template when you did so. I didn't find it. Is there one? Should there be one? I'd hoped to find something like "please don't do it again; if you do, you risk being blocked", that is, pretty much what you said in your own words. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Man, tried to use smileys and everything. I'm sure you guys also noticed that User:Michael Jerome Berk and User:Bayberk have edited this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only get an edit conflict when the two simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) edits are different. When you agree, there is no conflict. Maproom (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two BLP's about the same athlete

What are the steps to remove the least informative of the two? ```Buster Seven Talk 22:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to be the same athlete, as they were not born on the same day. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The names need revising, as they were both American Football players, but they are definitely two different people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

um, in the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind!". I saw the Lincoln HS part and jumped to a conclusion. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd venture to say the one could actually be the son of the other. We'd need to find reliable sources to make that connection before injecting it in either article, but I notice one was born in the 1930s and the other, named Jr., was born in the 60s, and both were American football players. For now, our best course of action may be to simply move David Grayson (American football) to David Grayson, Jr. (and then look up some reliable sources to help these articles out a bit). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. A quick search didn't seem to find anything, but someone more familiar with hand-egg might do better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would bet at odds of 100 to 1 that they're father and son. David Lee Grayson born in San Diego, and David Lee Grayson, Jr. born in San Diego 25 years later. But we do need a source, unfortunately. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that 'born in San Diego' is actually correct for both, and someone hasn't added the place of birth to the wrong article. Actually, the same goes for 'Lincoln High' too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any move history for the article. Anyone see any harm in boldly moving David Grayson (American football) to David Grayson, Jr.? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 00:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have though it would be better to move them both - to Dave Grayson (American football, born 1939) and David Grayson (American football, born 1964). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could go either way on it, but I thought moving to , Jr. was an elegant solution. It's no more precise than necessary and employs natural disambiguation. Are we even certain about those birth dates? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Football-Refernence seems to confirm they are separate players, though not (as yet) father and son. It would be a reasonable inference, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not built on inferences but references. Pro-Football-Reference also confirms that the younger one is David Lee Grayson, Jr. while the older one is merely David Lee Grayson. --Jayron32 03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. The Pro Football Hall of Fame maintains a database of fathers and sons who have played NFL football. They confirm that These two are father and son. --Jayron32 03:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, the whirlwind of activity that a simple question asked at the help desk creates is always impressive. A moment ago, I left a request at the Lincoln H.S. article talk page asking if, perhaps, someone affiliated with the school might know. I had no idea that you fine editors were still working on my original request which has led to better information for our reader. Thank you all. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]