Help desk
< July 19	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 21 >

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 20

Afd verdicts discrepancy

A bunch of World Series of Poker winners were nominated by User:Handpolk on July 8. Five(?) were deleted by User:Postdlf and two procedurally closed by User:Kraxler because Handpolk was found to be a sock puppet. That seems rather inconsistent. Where's the proper forum to raise this issue? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The correct forum would be WP:DRV if you disagree with something that was deleted, merged or redirected. My procedural closures say that renomination can be made. But, what is the "issue"? Kraxler (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he's asking why five articles nominated by Handpolk were deleted if two from the same batch were procedurally declined because Handpolk is was a sock. Rwessel (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked into these, but perhaps the deletions were carried out and stuck because a significant number of good faith users voted to delete. We don't negate the opinions of multiple good-faith editors because the coincidentally share the same opinion with someone who happens to be abusing Wikipedia rules. --Jayron 32 04:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You name User:Handpolk as the sockpuppet responsible. In at least one case (where the vote was "keep"), the nominator was User:DegenFarang – another sockpuppet, probably of the same person. Maproom (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The DegenFarang AfD was in 2013, And yes, that's the same user, DegenFarang is the sockmaster, according to the SPI. I suppose that the AfDs were closed as delete either before Handpolk was blocked, or because the closer was not aware of the sockpuppetry. Closing AfDs one usually doesn't check out all the users who voted, that would take a lot of time. But the regulars should know what's going on. As soon as I got aware of the sockpuppetry I cleaned up, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. DegenFarang/Handpolk seems to be heavily biased against poker players, more than half of his nominations were kept or speedily kept. Anyway, take any AfD closure you disagree with to WP:DRV. Kraxler (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery syntax

Can someone explain to me why on Earth I can't seem to get the images in the packed-hover gallery at Dance to scale to the size defined in the height parameter? Much obliged for any forthcoming help. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I think you left off the s in heights. —teb728 t c 05:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud - haha. Many thanks, TEB728. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 06:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About written name

YOU ARE WRONGLY WRITTEN THE NAME OF GAUHATI UNIVERSITY IN ASSAMESE LANGUAGE ..PLEASE CORRECT IT.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.219.57.254 (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you have found a problem with an article, you are more than welcome to fix it yourself. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Gauhati University --Dismas|^(talk) 07:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is গৌহাটি বিশ্ববিদ্যালয correct translation? Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 07:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not stated what is wrong with what we have, what it should be, or provided a reliable source for what you are asking it to be changed to.
However The official University Website uses গুৱাহাটী বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় which is what we already have in the infobox.
Please note I have removed the name from the lead as per WP:INDICSCRIPT - "Article lead should not contain regional or Indic language script" - Arjayay (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apply for this school

Dear volunteers,I'm an international student and I want to study in this school next spring.But I'm not sure if you can enroll me to become the one of the school.And if I can do it,what things should I prepare?I'm looking forward to hearing from you.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.202.190.94 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Hey, I am a new user on Wikipedia. I just created my account MPOMonkeyTT3 and I created a page about a song called "To our yes". I added reference tags so the page wasnt dletd but I couldn't input info into the references. How can I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MpoMonkeyTT3 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MpoMonkeyTT3. Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a huge, complicated beast, with many policies and ways of doing things, that take a while to learn. My suggestion would be that you spend some time getting to know it, and making small edits before you plunge in to creating a new page. Some pages that will be helpful for you to read are WP:42, your first article and referencing for beginners.

The answer to your specific question is that you have not inserted references at all (which should go between <ref> and </ref>): what you have done is to insert wikilinks (between [[ and ]]), which are only used for linking to other Wikipedia articles (and may never be used as references, because Wikipedia, paradoxically, is not a reliable source). What should go between the <ref> and </ref> is as much information as will be helpful to a reader who wants to find that source: title, where it was published, author and date if known, and a URL if the source is available online (it doesn't have to be). There are templates available to make it easy to lay these out (you don't have to use them, but I always do)

So the Guinness reference could look something like

<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-officially-released-song
| publisher = [[Guinness World Records]]
| title =Longest officially released song
| accessdate = 20 July 2015
}} </ref>

which would appear (in an automatically numbered footnote) as

"Longest officially released song". Guinness World Records. Retrieved 20 July 2015.

In my view, that Guinness record may be enough confer Notability on the song, even though such a factor isn't specifically mentioned in the guideline. Better to find one or two places where people unconnected with the band or the label have written about it at some length and had their writing published in reliable places such as major newspapers; because if the Guiness reference is the only independent published source about it, then there is almost nothing that you can write in the article. (Wikipedia articles should be based entirely on reliable published information). --ColinFine (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove a wiki feed on Facebook?

Hi, I work for a non profit organization that has its own Facebook page that I manage. One of our members just found this page https://www.facebook.com/pages/Temple-Emanu-El-Beth-Sholom/127143167434528?fref=ts&rf=116288185084945 full of inappropriate posts (at least from our organization point of view) that I already reported as spam. Nevertheless, I want to know how we can prevent this to happen again. I understand that the page is originated by Wikipedia content. Thank you,

Barbara Templemontreal (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Templemontreal: I'm sorry, you will have to deal with this through the administrators at Facebook. The only content from Wikipedia on that Facebook page is the two sentences in the "About" box at the left, beginning "Temple Emanu-El-Beth Sholom, Westmount is a Reform synagogue... -- John of Reading (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am puzzled by your request. Wikipedia has this article about a synagogue in Quebec, which appears to me entirely appropriate and respectful. Facebook has the ~~article~~ page which you cite, apparently about the same synagogue, but adorned with pictures of a skimpily-dressed young woman. I can see why you might complain to Facebook, but I don't see that Wikipedia is in any way responsible. Maproom (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of "he" in sports broadcasting

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THE PROPER USAGE OF "HE" IN SPORTS ANNOUNCING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. TRIVETTE (talk • contribs) 13:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. TRIVETTE first, please do not shout. Next, what are you talking about, does this question have anything to do with a Wikipedia article? If it does can you specify what article does not use the word "he" properly? -- GB fan 13:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related to Caitlyn Jenner at a guess.--ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tartrazine

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add an information to the page "Tartrazine" here at Wikipedia. First my information was deleted because the user stated the source was not reliable. Then I went and looked for a reliable source, namely a book about cosmetics. I find this information useful for consumers because "Tartrazine" is said to be linked to causing cancer.

Now, what would be the next step for me to get this information published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunpoint (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sunpoint. The next step is for you and Jytdog and probably Alexbrn to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, and try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, dispute resolution explains what to do next. Note that the goal is to reach consensus on making the article as good as it can be: this may or may not include the information which you want included. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Colin, thank you very much for your response. Do I just type on the talk page? Do I add the information that was deleted? Is there anything else I need to conside when doing this? Sunpoint (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have posted this on the TALK page now. What next? Do I need to "invite" the other users or an administrator? Thank you for your help, and I am sorry for the rookie questions. Sunpoint (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a message on the talk pages of the other users asking them to participate in the discussion. You don't need an admin for this.--ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have been editing for a few years but have some very basic questions, I have posted a welcome message to your talk page that is normally given to new editors and contains links to many policies and guidelines. Reading some of them might be helpful to you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunpoint: claims about X causing cancer fall into medical claims and require not merely a "source" like a book but a specific medical appropriate source as described at WP:MEDRES . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for my dissertation

hello, My name is yilmaz. I am doing master at University of Sussex in the field of media and cultural studies and I am writing dissertation about Wikipedia as a commons but I need to have interviews with at least three (3) Wikipedians. I put an interview form down here, which consists of twelve questions. The interview is crucial to analyse the main logic of Wikipedia and digital commons. I hope you will help me for this. This is link for the online interview <redacted link> Best Regards Yilmaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilmazaliskan (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 July 2015‎

Please read Wikipedia:Research recruitment and Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia. You need the consensus of the Wikipedia community to conduct on-Wikipedia research using interviews etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can an essay and proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process say that consensus is needed for this to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.180.6 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 20 July 2015‎

Compliance with policy is a requirement under our terms of use - though obtaining prior informed consent is a general requirement for such academic research, as I would hope any institution teaching a master's degree would make clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but there isn't any policy. There is an informational page and a proposal of a future Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia is an informational page that says "Where required, they may also need to obtain permission to carry out research of Wikipedia editors from appropriate bodies at their research institutions." It does not say they need community consensus. Wikipedia:Research recruitment is a proposal, there isn't community consensus that this is binding. So again how can either of those two say they must do something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.180.6 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 July 2015‎

Can you clarify whether you are Yilmaz or not (and log in if you are) - I'm not going to engage in an abstract argument here, this is a help desk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you post here, you should sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, if you are Yilmaz, please stop editing logged out and log in before editing. If you can't take Wikipedia guidelines and policies on how to edit seriously enough to follow those guidelines, we may have difficulty taking you seriously. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Yilmaz. I believe you are giving bad advice at the help desk. There is no current policy that says he needs to get consensus from the community before doing interviews. You should not be telling people there are requirements when there are none. If you can't take me seriously because I don't do some stupid little signature thing, so be it. here are your 4 stupid little tildes 155.178.180.6 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC) p.s. corrected a spelling error, wouldn't want you to not take me seriously because I made a spelling mistake. Here are you 4 stupid little tildes again. 155.178.180.6 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out to a Master's student that prior consent is generally required for academic research in the social sciences is hardly 'bad advice' - and it remains so regardless of the precise status of the guiding material I linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But pointing out that those pages say he must have community consensus is bad advice and then compounding it by saying that the TOS require following policy when there isn't any policy requiring community consensus is bad advice. If you had said that prior consent is generally required we wouldn't be having this conversation. Robert McClenon, here are your 4 stupid little tildes so you can take me seriously. 155.178.180.6 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a court of law. It isn't and such policies and guidelines as we have are there to ensure that Wikipedia resources are put to their intended purpose - creating and maintaining an encyclopaedia. We don't need explicit rules about every other possible use such resources might be put to - people using Wikipedia for other purposes (including conducting research without permission) risk having their editing privileges withdrawn. That is how this place works. And since that is how it works, we have in the past blocked people for engaging in research (or what they claimed to be research) without permission. Regardless of whether a page that states that it "describes a communal consensus" is actually policy, it is a fair reflection of the reality - and I was advising Yilmaz of the reality. Which is undoubtedly better advice than your Wikilawyering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yilmaz: If you ever make another, approved, attempt at asking people these 12 questions, I suggest that you first rewrite questions 10 and 12 so that they make sense. 10 is a syntactically valid sentence, but I can't guess what it means; 12 is not even a valid sentence. Maproom (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Research recruitment is not a policy or a guideline, indeed it looks to me like a failed proposal that should be marked as historical. It has no consensus and hence no force. Moreover, even if it were a guideline, it says: "if you want enough Wikipedians to respond that you are posting invites on mailing lists and/or enough talkpages that you might be considered to be spamming people then you need to go through this process first." I don't see posting on a single help page as qualifying as "spamming" or "mass mailing". Accordingly I am going to restore the redacted link, and at least consider taking the interview myself. DES ^(talk) 21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do that - as I have said, we have blocked contributors in the past over such issues (see [1][2]) and it would clearly be better to allow Yilmaz to decide how to proceed having been made aware of the facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, and you reverted. I won't edit war over it, but I think your reversion is wrong, and I am considering raising the matter at ANI. As for your threat to block over posting a single link to a survey, the case you link to above involved someone who apparently advertised a survey to the personal talk pages roughly 30 different users, which is a far cry from a single post on a public page that no one has to read or respond to. I would like to see where in the blocking policy such a block would be authorized -- at the moment it seems to me like an out-of-process block which, if performed, ought to be undone promptly. I did take the survey, and of course anyone interested can find the link in the history. As to the question of research needing informed consent, of course it does -- individual consent. But choosing to follow a clearly marked link to a survey is a way of giving such consent. Nor was anything in the survey objectionable or intrusive, in my view. DES ^(talk) 21:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made a 'threat to block' - I pointed out that a block regarding conducting research without permission had occurred in the past. And I would note that you seem not to be aware of the full background to this. It isn't a simple matter of a single post here - Yilmaz has been posting to individual talk pages, soliciting a response. And I repeat - it would seem appropriate to wait until Yilmaz responds before proceeding further. Why the rush to escalate things? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that he pre-selected three candidates and posted to their talk pages, although without the link to the survey. Two of them are two of Wikipedia's best conflict mediators. That isn't the same as what the previous editor was blocked for, but it isn't just this posting. Can someone who is uninvolved please collapse this section? I hope that this section, including a good-faith editor wanting to conduct a poorly worded survey and an irascible unregistered editor, doesn't have to go to ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why revision was undone

How can I find out why Gob Lofa undid my revision?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octopus1066 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place to ask that question is Talk: 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. However, his edit summary said "NPOV", so he thought that your edit presented a non-neutral view of a controversial topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should this new used be reported?

user:99.53.112.186 started editing 3 days ago. His first edits where congratulating other new users. But those new users did not exist before his congratulations.( e.g. [3]). Then he congratulated them twice, undid himself and so on.

He edited Maddison Elliott and undid other user, with no explanation. The deleted text was immediately restored by a regular user.

Should I report this new user? if so, in which notice board? thanks Ykantor (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to assume good faith, and failed. He is up to something dishonest, though I can't guess what his motives could be. I don't know where he should be reported. Maproom (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, scratch that. It may be good faith, on the part of a script trying to act the part of an editor at about this level of competence. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@99.53.112.186:, I will appreciate it if you explain your edits? Ykantor (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the third paragraph in Wikipedia:Notifications, you can't ping an IP user. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TalkBack message will notify them if they are still using the same IP. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 08:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am trying to act in good faith and prevent vandalism. Would it help if I gave a summary for each of my edits? I only undo edits if I think it's against Wikipedia policy. I am not up to anything bad. I'm trying to help out. Should I change the way I help out? I'll admit hat the two edits you have listed above were bad calls by me. I apologize for that. But I promise that I want to help out. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you undo or revert another editor, you should indicate in the edit summary why you undid or reverted the edit. If it was vandalism, the edit summary can be "revert vandalism" or something like that. If you think it was vandalism but are not sure, you can use a less harsh edit summary, like "revert questionable edit" or "revert unsourced addition" or whatever. Another way that you can help out would be to register an account. This will give you various privileges, as well as protecting against having your IP address change from time to time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have not been using edit summaries. The use of edit summaries is strongly encouraged. You can help out by using edit summaries. One editor was recently blocked for, among other things, never using edit summaries. (They have been unblocked after agreeing to follow guidelines.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you see this, please tell me what I need to change. Please don't report me, I am not here to cause any harm. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a revision that will qualify our submitted article to be published?

I recently submitted an article at the request of a business client to Wikipedia for publishing and it was deleted as a "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host" - can you tell me if there is a way to revise the page to make it acceptable. the address of the page is User:Grantlawllc Thanks for any assistance you can offer. Tom Langner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:E00:8B07:FA1E:DFFF:FEE7:7F65 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not. You were permanently banned from editing Wikipedia, within three minutes of posting your question. Maproom (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you are editing Wikipedia 'at the request of a business client', you are required to explicitly declare the fact under the Wikimedia Terms of Use: [4]. You should also be aware of our conflict of interest policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embedding youtube videos in WP articles

Hi. Is it actually possible to embed a youtube video into an article, rather than including it as an external link? If so, I have a related question (other than 'how do I do this?'). I have in mind this Pathe News clip from Youtube which certainly appears to have been uploaded by the original copyright holder but does this mean it would be useable here on a WP license? I suspect not but I have looked all around to find out and cannot find the answer. Many thanks in advance Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the material has been uploaded to Youtube on a Creative Commons license (which is an option there [5]), I don't think it can be used here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...I thought that might be the situation. If a video is licensed with a CCL, can it be added? I mean to say, is it technically possible? (like adding images, perhaps?) Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hey Meetthefeebles. Videos cannot be "embedded" here in the normal sense of playing directly from their source, but video's can technically be taken and uploaded in finicky ways (i.e., using only Ogg Theora or WebM) and then can be made to play in articles. See Wikipedia:Videos and Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Video. But to the best of my understanding, that video is licensed under the standard YouTube license, meaning in turn it retains its original copyright, which means in turn it is fully copyrighted and will not be out of copyright until at least 2021, and very probably significantly longer ("70 years after the last to die of: principal director, author of screenplay, author of dialogue, or composer of music specifically created for and used in the film"; see List of countries' copyright lengths]) – so the 2021 year is pegged to the earliest it could potentially enter the public domain – if everyone died in a bizarre gardening accident the same year of publication. While we do allow use of non-free content under fair use if certain strict requirements are met, I do not see any way the video could be uploaded under it. "Minimal use" would require only a screenshot or at most very short segment, and "contextual significance" would require that use to be only in an article about or commenting directly on the newsreel itself. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured when I couldn't find instructions on how to embed that this meant it couldn't be done. I'll have to make do with a screenshot I think. Thanks for a comprehensive answer Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problems

I'm trying to edit my first article in a personal sandbox (User:Wpulley/sandbox). I'm using the drop-down template for a source that you fill out after clicking on "cite" then "template." I've filled out the access date two different ways, both 13 May 2015 and May 13, 2015. However, when I click "Save page," I get the following error message in red print where the access date should appear: "Check date values in: |date= (help);"

A second problem: I'm citing an article within a book. But I only see one box for "title." As this point, I've put both the article (in quotes) followed by the book in the title box. However, the "Save page" then causes both to show up in italics. Typically, the article title would show up in quote but not in italics like the book. Any idea on how to make it happen this way using the template? Thanks,

Wpulley (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpulley: The first problem isn't in accessdate but in |date= as the message says. Change date=Marcy 27, 2015 to say March. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually also a problem with accessdate. It's only used for online content to give a date when a url had the specified content, so it isn't displayed by {{Cite book}} when no url is given. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archives indexing

On the page Talk:World War II, I placed the code for archive indexing, as explained at User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn. I defined multiple "mask" parameters, as explained at the said page ("you can specify multiple mask parameters"...). But, for some reason, Legobot only indexes posts at [[Talk:World War II, but is not indexing archives (Talk:World War II/Archive Index). I don't know why or how to fix this. I posted a question at User talk:Legobot a month ago, but nobody answered. Maybe you can help me? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: After reviewing the bot source code, especially lines 160+, I have removed the numeric suffixes from the opt-in template. If this works, I'll update the bot documentation page. Unfortunately this adds the page to Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. For most templates, having multiple parameters with the same name is an error, but this one is parsed by specially-written bot code. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: Thank you. I received an error message ("duplicate arguments") when tried to do so. The bot runs every few days, so I'll review if it's OK in few days. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Europa (East Europe)

The article I prepared on my Kingdom of Europa was apparently erased summarily by Wikipedia without notifying me of the intention and allowing me to edit.

Yet there is another article Kingdom of Europa which was apparently discriminatorily accepted. What makes this unknown kingdom more notable than mine?

--Hmkingroman (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmkingroman: What is that other article? Give us the title. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmkingroman: Please read WP:OR and try to conceptualize the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and one that merely collects and collates what other reliable sources have already published ). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no article on any 'Kingdom of Europa', and nor is it likely to ever have one since it appears to be an entirely fictitious entity. Are you perhaps referring to another Wiki [6]? If so, we have no connection with it, and no control over its content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted draft was a mess, sourced to the article's creator and promoting a claim of his to be a king, thus purely self-promotional. Doug Weller (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is a long-time intermittent editor whose recent edits appear to be posting patent nonsense that he is a king (and his user name is that claim). Can an administrator warn him that those claims may be treated as vandalism and can be blocked? The OP should read the boomerang essay and realize that posting to a public forum, such as this one, that his patent nonsense is being deleted, is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already been done: [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]