Help desk
< February 4	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 6 >

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.

February 5

Wrong picture in article

The picture appearing in the article regarding the town of CERDA (in Sicily) shows a nice large pixel photo identified as being a panorama of the town of CERDA, but in fact it is a photo of the town of SCIARA, a few miles away across the valley. I know this becaus I was born I SCIARA.

My question is how can we get the photo removed and placed in the correct article for SCIARA instead?

Domenic Tardibuono — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domenic Tardibuono (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have corroborated what you've said by finding an independent picture of Sciara which is distinctly the same town as shown in the picture at the Commons ([1]). I have therefore removed the image from Cerda, placed it into Sciara, and asked for the image's renaming at the Commons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what If ...

Bold text my girlfriend has used the word to describe something taking place between us as being Creepy, tonight my girlfriend had addressed me with a text message saying what had just just let her know I was thinking of her and I loved her was creepy! she had regarded our sending text messages simultaneously as creepy, it was late in the afternoon I haven't heard from her and she hadn't heard from me in the day, loading in the afternoon my decision was to send her a text, letting her know I was thinking of her and I love her, she also was having similar thoughts, With that said simultaneously exchange our messages she replies our simultaneous experience as being creepy my thoughts were this was a poor choice of wordage sure expressing an OMG moment I'm not sure what to think of this addressing a tender moment in radar love telepathy, I was hurt by her having regarded my text messages being creepy please give me your feed on this thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.110.229 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Wikipedia help desk where we give help regarding how to use Wikipedia. We are not allowed to give mental health or relationship advice. The reference desk WP:RD may be able to point you toward some online sites that have a good reputation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And when you do that, please use more punctuation than you did here. Punctuation, especially periods at the end of sentences, will likely make it easier for the readers to understand what you're asking. Dismas|^(talk) 09:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

copyright of non-free image

How to upload non-free map to Wikipedia (not wikimedia commons)?. This map created on 2003, i need to take a photo of the page in the book and upload to Wikipedia. What license is suitable for non-free image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.3.75 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the guidance at WP:NFCC. Your question is probably better suited for WP:MCQ RudolfRed (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

preemptively block network

I want to run a public proxy into wikipedia(specifically)from Cjdns#Hyperboria, is there a way I can request disabling public edits on my servers IP to stop problems before they happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.253.153 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of correcting your link to Hyperboria. If I understand it correctly, I think you need to read WP:PROXY. CaptRik (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulation with provided links to my website
Ram Bahadur Bomjon

Dear Editors,

This is a complaint concerning Ram Bahadur Bomjon Some time ago there was an attempt of authors/editors of this biography entry about Ram Bomjon to use it as a means of libel of my person, who am mentioned in the article as one of his victims, the Slovak woman (former versions) and now, as Marici.

Last time it was a sentence where the author cited the public justification of Bomjon (the biography entry's subject), that he had kidnapped, tortured and let raped me because of "witchcraft". So after my complaint to Wikipedia, this sentence had been taken away.

Recently but a hidden manipulative attempt appeared again, when, though a new paragraph appeared about my person under the Controversies chapter, which is much more accurate, yet the link to my website provided there was directing not to the Home Page of my website, but to a long article about the attempt of this cult to create a public opinion that I am supposed to be schizophrenic, mentally disturbed, etc.

Unwisely I myself had named that single article "Is Marici schizophrenic..?", not knowing that someone will misuse this title to manipulate with public opinion about me by adding a link to this single article on Wikipedia, avoiding the link to the more relevant Home Page, from where the readers could learn also about the more important facts : criminal acts, the other victims, names of perpetrators and witnesses, media articles,etc. Only a few people did read the whole article, where I am explaining how this cult tried to "make me crazy" in the public eye. Most people, most probably, just absorb the content of the title.

I have written to Wikipedia with a request to correct this problem, and replace the link with the more relevant link to the Home Page of my website, but finally I decided to correct it myself. To prevent similar misuse of links to my website, I took the liberty to add a short sentence mentioning my website in the other language versions, as there I am giving an overview of all known controversies connected to Bomjon, not just my case. Also a more relevant link (than an article about my alleged mental problem) would be an overview about the media articles dealing with Bomjon. People should know about the background activities of this person. But, being an officially declared "enemy" of this Guru and his cult, I don't want to advertise my own website in this article, which should remain neutral. Yet, when the authors and editors breach the neutrality of the article by using it against me, I wish to correct the biased information and manipulation with links provided by them.

But I was unable to correct this link on the References chapter, as it had been blocked for new links and also repairs. That's why I am writing here, with the request to replace the link to the single article mentioning schizophrenia, with the link to the Home Page of my website.

Also, after repeated attempts of the followers of Bomjon to use Wikipedia as a weapon of their libel-war against me, I am requesting the board of editors and anyone responsible for the standard of Wikipedia, to make sure that similar biased updates, harming individuals connected to the biography subject, do not happen anymore in the future.

Thank you, Marici Punarvasu (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the confusing link to a section within your website, and reformatted the link to the the home page of your web site. (The references section is not "blocked for new links and also repairs" – it's just that Wikipedia reference sections don't actually include references, they just show the references which were given in the preceding article, so you change the references at the place where they are given in the article.) Maproom (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Why Style is uppercase? It's strange. Does Style have special means?--GZWDer (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yup. It appears the our manual of style does not conform to our manual of style... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it's not a generic manual of style, but our specific Manual of Style. So isn't it therefore a quasi-proper noun?--ukexpat (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the actual title of en.WP's manual of style thus it is formatted per WP:TITLEFORMAT, by contrast Manual of style, the article about the concept of style guides in general, is in sentence case. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using print/ export download as pdf

I push button "download as pdf" article "Adiabatic theorem" but in pdf generated after title Referrences the same references are missing. It is in contrast with 2012 year when there is no problem with references, they are included in pdf. I also prefer that the license not to be included every time but instead reference the license on this site to check as a note. And content has not good arrangement of printable space because when printing there will be a lot of blank space on pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.171.245 (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is still a bug in the PDF rendering regarding the references. -- Gadget850^talk 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Redirects from Greek to English

I'm looking for pages like ΦΒΚ with redirects to Phi Beta Kappa where the page being redirected *from* is all or partially greek letters and the page being redirect *to* has none. Any ideas on how to do this?Naraht (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Naraht: I think the AWB Database Scanner is flexible enough to do this. "Look for pages with at least one Greek letter in the title AND the content contains '#REDIRECT' AND the content does not contain any Greek letter". I'll have a go tomorrow once I've finished uncompressing the latest dump. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmarnock & Troon Railway.

Resolved

– Hyjack7 (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Locomotive.

I have just removed a reference in this article because it is obvious that whoever put it there had not read Robertson's book. I have the book here, and in its notes at the end the writers of the quoted letters are named, so the speculation ("probably...") about who wrote them is pointless.

In removing this speculation I have wiped out a reference to a work by Paxton, which has somehow led to a "Cite error" message in bold type. I do not know how to deal with this.

The book from which the quotations are made is Dr C. J. A. Robertson's "The Origins of the Scottish Railway System" (1983), pp 24 and 355 (note 83). Hyjack7 (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the reference you removed was also used in other citations, which were left dangling. It would have been better to remove the "probably" if the source did not support it, but leave in the ref, or if the ref did not support any part of the content in that paragraph, move it to one of its other uses. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)with this edit [2] on the left hand column you can see where a reference was named "paxton" was cited, that you removed.

further down in the article, a second claim was cited to that same paxton source and after you had removed it above, there was nothing for the named cite to show causing it to display the error message. [3] I replaced the full cite information at the second call up. (This is an error that bots will generally find and fix) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I understand. But the article now has a note [15] (a ref to Paxton) after "Bailey" which is meaningless. Paxton didn't mention Bailey, he said the chap concerned was "probably John Wilson" - which I removed because the source (Robertson) clearly gave the name Bailey. This "[15]" should be removed, but I hesitate to do this myself in case I cause more disruption.Hyjack7 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 78.148.84.187 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today I tried to delete the pointless and misleading [15] and this same "Cite error" message appeared. There is another [15] in a section above (Laigh Milton viaduct) where the [15] is followed, in the text, by the complete ref to Paxton etc. This complete ref, I think, ought to be down among the refs at the foot of the entire article. All I'm trying to do is get rid of the [15] in the "A Locomotive" section. Hyjack7 (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user name

My user name is appearing incorrectly. How do I fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent loringe (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing username has instructions how to change your username. Astronaut (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get our article "verified"?

I have created an article about UK National Astronomy Week, with the help of others, which is now published and is here: National Astronomy Week

In several places the following comment appears: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources."

I have now added a couple of citations (there were already several that I would have thought sufficient). For example, amongst other citations, the article in the learned journal A&G ("Astronomy and Geophysics") about the week would have been sufficient to verify that the article and the week is genuine.

So how do I go about getting these comments removed and the article "verified". Is there more that should be done?

I've been searching hard for guidance on this, and probably didn't look in the right place, so apologies if that is the case?

Thanks....... Brendan Blake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan blake (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may remove tags which you are convinced are no longer appropriate, but you ought to use an edit summary to explain doing so. I have removed an unreferenced section tag from a section which obviously now has references. I have, howver, added a tag to a section where you have included external links within the text, in contravention of WP:external links. Other editors will doubtless look further at the article, & they may decide whether the refimprove tag for the article as a whole remains justified. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I had hoped to get the "unreferenced article tag" removed for the article as a whole. However, you've just pointed out these can be removed, and it seems I can do this. We shall see whether one of the editors disagree! Thanks. The event with the external links was not added by the NAW team, but by a local astronomy group. I'll get that changed. --Brendan blake (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brendan. If you and other members of the "NAW team" are editing that article, please make sure you are familiar with Wikipedia's recommendations on editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective italicization of article titles

Is there a way to control the automated italics range in titles, whose articles include Infobox album? This is the case of Romeo and Juliet 1968 film soundtrack, for example, where only Romeo and Juliet should be in italics. There I'm thinking of | Name = {{noitalic|1968 film soundtrack)}} | Italic title = no, but not sure whether that would work. Thanks in advance. Brandmeister^talk 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to the more correct title of Romeo and Juliet (1968 film soundtrack), and that has automatically sorted out the correct italicisation. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing results of discussions

If someone closes a discussion and you don't agree with their concensus, who should you appeal to? (assuming the discussion with the editor doesn't achieve the result you were hoping for) Op47 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is the main place to make this appeal. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou anon126, I am sorry if I was not clear. What has happened is that I closed a split discussion as concensus to split. Another editor does not agree and yet has failed to convince me that I may have got it wrong. I would like to suggest to this editor the correct course of action to take. I hope that is clearer. Op47 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC maybe?--ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Op47 - Challenging a closing lists where editors can have a close reviewed. If you are referring to this close, the split request was posted 6 July 2013, there was only one reply, and you closed the discussion 10 January 2014 as "No support to split page." There was no consensus to split and closing the discussion had the benefit of removing the split tag from the article.[4] -- Jreferee (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Jreferee, that was exactly what I was looking for. Sadly it is not Timeline of organised crime in Chicago, it is at Largest organisms. You can see the dispute in the history and talk page. The original discussion has long since been archived to Talk:Largest organisms/Archive 1#Size split?. My intention is to say that if he doesn't like the way I closed the discussion then he should look at your first link. Thankyou for you help. Op47 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing disclaimer box with broom at top of page

How can I remove the informational/disclaimer box (with the broom) from our page (The Westport Library)? I have edited the page so it is now compliant with required rules of style; it is now more formal, factual and objective. Thank you for your help,Westportlib (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding an inappropriate mission statement is not fixing the style problems found by whoever added the cleanup tag. So, no you have not made it "compliant with required rules of style". It is no more formal, factual or objective than it was before your edits. What the cleanup tag is about, is the history of the library being laid out in excruciating (and unsourced) detail. Compare it with (say) the article for New London Public Library; it really needs a severe pruning, not a mission statement. Astronaut (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I removed the maintenance tag. Compared to this version when the "story" tag was first inserted, the article is, in my view, much improved. Perhaps Astronaut will disagree. It does still require better sourcing, and perhaps a pruning of detail, particularly if that detail remains outsourced. As to a mission statement, if that statement is published by an official source, and can be cited as a direct quote, i wouldn't object to it, but that is a judgement call. DES ^(talk) 18:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And please note it is not "your" page - It is "our" page about the library please read WP:OWN. Please also note that your user name appears to contravene our user-name policy - Arjayay (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see the earlier version; indeed there has been much improvement from that one. However, the edits made by the OP (remove the previous name and add a mission statement) do not on their own cause it to be suddenly "compliant with required rules of style... more formal, factual and objective". I still think there is far too much detail of the building's history when most other provincial library articles simply say the date it was founded and by whom, and perhaps the date it moved to a new building. We really don't need 17 paragraphs with details such as "...the Library added lamps, benches and shrubs along the river bank and a sidewalk of bricks with donors’ names". Westport Library is not even on the National Register of Historic Places, unlike the library in New London. Astronaut (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

messin up a deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Randell

can an experienced user help me with this please ? Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has Cyberbot I fixed it for you now, or is there another problem? Astronaut (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes. Cyberbot I didit, thanks Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could also consider notifying the article creator (Jack39 (talk · contribs)), but they have not been very active for some years. Astronaut (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

citing personal knowledge

How do you properly credit the info source when you get it directly from the individual? Thanks, J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.128.137 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the answer is, you don't. wikipedia only accepts reliably published sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So i would need to either publish interviews, or gather info from existing articles? Seems like i have the most reliable source, however, i need to figure out how to prove i'm getting the info from the actual individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblims (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews would have to be published by a reliable third-party source which would have done some fact-checking and editorial control over the content. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Icon image not displayed on table

Hi, I don't know why the marking images (like ✓) from the table of Roman army in Dacia are not displayed. Inside the table I'm using as marking image a tiny template, Template:Marked, displaying a mark icon or sign. Some time ago they were fine. -- Saturnian (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the use of {{Main other}} by {{marked}} make it return a blank if used in mainspace? I see that {{Yes check}} says it shouldn't be used in mainspace & refers to WP:ICONDECORATION. Presumably {{marked}} ought to have documentation to point out this feature? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand now. ~~The template includes now the alt text as WP:ICONDECORATION#Remember_accessibility_for_the_visually_impaired requests. Is there a possibility the use the icon?~~ -- Saturnian (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template contains now only this ✓ character but the marks are not visible in that table. What could be the cause? -- Saturnian (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The marks are visible in the table for me. If you weren't seeing them it might have been a caching problem. There have been numerous reports recently of delays in seeing the results of template changes; it has often been necessary to purge each page on which the template is trancluded. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing John Cena's page under Personal Life

I can't seem to edit John Cena's page, but there are two things that are missing. 1.Former WWE Diva Victoria(real name Lisa Marie Varon)dated John Cena back in 2002. Confirmed by her. Here's a website for that. http://www.diva-dirt.com/2012/06/27/tara-clears-her-name-talks-other-women-in-wrestling-her-future-and-more/ 2.Cena has been dating WWE Diva Nikki Bella since August 9, 2012. Confirmed by her personal twitter account. @NicoleandBri and also http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2013/0810/564750/john-cena-and-nikki-bella-celebrate-anniversary/.

If you can make these changes for me, I really appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnandtrishfan (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnandtrishfan: Hi, it appears you've already posted an edit request on the article's talk page. Since Wikipedia is not in any hurry it's fine to wait for experienced editors to decide whether or not the information should be added. The article is locked, which is why you are not able to edit it directly. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]