Help desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 3

regarding references.

hello, i added genuine references for the article but still it shows it may deleted within 7 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadiraj31 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vadiraj31: Hello, unfortunately the references you added are not acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. Please see WP:RS for more information on what constitutes a reliable source. Please also see WP:UGC. The most recent source you added may be better but was misplaced. You need to place references in-line, at the point in the text where they apply. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love what Eagleash contributes to WP. I was writing this, as an "edit conflict": hope this helps. Hi Vadiraj31 On reviewing your "references" for the article: Choran Jeevi, it appears that the references that you have added are indeed not references that Wikipedia deems "reliable sources" enough to warrant notability for inclusion: i.e. "Facebook", "Website", "Twitter", "Pinterest". (None of these are considered "Reliable Sources": WP:RELIABLE). All "Reliable Sources" must be an Identifiable Source that are removed from the subject. If you have any more questions, you can reach me here: Talk at my Talk Page. Cheers. Maineartists (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Maineartists:! I have tidied the page some and added tags. Still needs better references and I'm not certain about notability. Eagleash (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally edited while logged out

I'm new here and I accidentally edited a page while logged out that I plan on further editing soon. This would tie my IP to my identity which is something that I would wish to avoid. Is there any way I can have the IP address removed from an edit in the edit history to avoid this? CJK09 (talk · contribs) 04:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CJK09: Yes, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. -- John of Reading (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Toe

I'm 70 years and I have never had pains in my feet because of Mortons Toe. I am half Irish 7/16ths English and 1/16th Cherokee. All my family have toes like mine and nobody has foot problems or foot pains. I was surprised to see this article in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C205:1F00:B03E:AE98:6160:3E6B (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:8807:C205:1F00:B03E:AE98:6160:3E6B: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. It's good to know that this variation in bone structure has caused you no difficulty. However, the article does say pain may be felt, not that it is certain to occur in all cases. Further, this is the desk for help in how to edit Wikipedia...any concerns as to article content should be raised at the article talk page. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Morton's toe. I agree with the OP. The article gives the false impression that having a second toe longer than the big toe is a symptom of a disease. Maproom (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family

Two things please:

I have just added a file in the Francis Martineau Lupton section which is good - but the associated caption has the words "Lupton family" in black bold. This looks odd to me. Please fix if able

Also - the other file added is up the top of the page and it is far too big. Are we able to make it smaller? Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the bolding. The larger image is compromised further by the overlong caption. Eagleash (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BABEL Speech Corpus

Please could you advise what should be done to enable removal of the "page issue" template that has been added to this page? I do not know what action is being required to make it satisfactory. RoachPeter (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The COI template was added in 2015 by User DGG. Pinging him for clarification. Rojomoke (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I dunno, do you think perhaps it could be because RoachPeter, who wrote the article initially, is listed as the "Project Director" for the BABEL Project? To me, that does sound a bit like somebody who has "a close connection with its subject". --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, no need for sarcasm Gronk Oz. Unlike most writers, I don't hide behind a pseudonym, so my connection to the topic was transparent to the reviewer (and declared). If the article didn't comply with WP rules, it should not have been accepted. My question is: what am I supposed to do to make it OK? RoachPeter (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to me to be written in standard Wikipedia style with no bias and only a brief mention of Peter. I would support removing the template. Perhaps we could replace it with a mention on the talk page, but we need more unbiased articles written by respected academics, so I don't think we should discourage the practice by those who understand the concept of WP:NPOV. Dbfirs 17:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa RoachPeter, my response was uncalled for and I apologize. However, I cannot see where the connection is declared - you might like to check out How to disclose a COI just to keep everything above board. --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that Gronk Oz. I'm happy to put in the disclosure template that you mention - I didn't know about it. I was thinking of the questions that have to be answered when an article is submitted. I must think if any of my other efforts ought to be similarly marked, as I have quite often written about topics in which I have research publications. A mention on the Talk page is also no problem. RoachPeter (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article moved to drafts

Someone moved an article I wrote to drafts saying it was un-sourced (although it had several references) I've added more references so how do I move it back to being an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkyT (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(DarkyT (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)))[reply]

What that editor actually wrote (and you removed from your talk page) was:

"An article you recently created, Jake Lloyd Jones, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page."

Is that advice not helpful? The article needs some detailed reliable sources, then when you have found them you can just add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. Dbfirs 16:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I guess this must be about Draft:Jake Lloyd Jones. If it is, which of the sources cited do you think provide in-depth discussion of the subject? I didn't find any. Maproom (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to edit at public library, because the IP is believed to be a "web host provider". What does this mean, and is there a solution?

A couple of times over the last few days, while at a nearby public library, I've tried editing Wikipedia on my laptop, but have been blocked. A "Permission Error" pops up, saying, "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons: Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis."

A little further down, the page says, "The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia."

These are two separate "blocks", as they were implemented by two separate administrators. The first block mentioned is something called a "global block" - I'm not really sure what that means. The global block was implemented in October of last year, and the other block was implemented even earlier, in May. The rational for the global block also says, "leaky colo + open proxy". I'm not familiar with the terms "leaky colo" or "open proxy", nor do I know what a "web host provider" is. I'm afraid that I'm not very tech savvy.

What's strange is that, only a few weeks ago, I had no problem editing Wikipedia from my laptop in that library. I also tried logging into one of the library's own desktop computers and found that those aren't currently effected by the block.

Can anyone explain what's going on, and if there's a solution?

Thanks --Jpcase (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jpcase, I'm not clear what's meant by a "web host provider" or "leaky colo", but see open proxy and Wikipedia:Open proxies, plus WP:Global blocks and Meta:Global blocks. Presumably this library's IP address for public wi-fi is dynamic, or otherwise the months-old block wouldn't have just started to affect you. I might be able to give more information if you provided the IP address(es) associated with the wi-fi service that are being blocked (just log out and go to Special:Mypage; this will be the IP's userpage), but as always, there is no requirement that you provide this information. Basically, you've been caught in a hard rangeblock — the block has been set to apply to a range of IPs (not just one), and it's configured to prevent people from editing with that IP even if they're using an established account. The solution is IP block exemption, which I can give you; I've filed a request for a checkuser (solely to ensure that you're truly a victim of some hard blocks; this is not a suspicion of sockpuppetry), and I'll grant you the user right if all comes back fine. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 'citations'

Hello. First of all thanks so much for your continuing service. I'm am both amazed and disappointed how often there is a rolling of the eyes when one mentions Wickipedia, as though the site is not to be trusted. This if born out of ignorance, sired by prejudice. I do occasionally stick a five in your pot as a thank-you. I'm a pensioner with limited resources. Were matters to improve I would contribute more. My question: I am writing a book, a novel, surrounding my early life in the West Riding village of Kiveton Park. Just now I've come across some valuable material concerning the hamlet's Domesday record (ref: http://opendomesday.org/place/SK4983/kiveton/), which I would like to add to the main entry. Adding citations, information, what you will, baffles me at first glance. If I insert the facts during Editing, I'm confused about the process of cross referencing this. Can you help. Is there are 'live' guidance? Second question: for 20 years I was a journalist with the South Yorkshire Times newspaper, which lacks a significant place within Wickipedia although it is around 150 years old and was a major force in its heyday. I have copies (literally) of pages from its 5oth anniversary edition in the 1930s. These are in jpeg form as I don't have the original. Can I quote from that in a Wicky entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTramp 1942 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the South Yorkshire Times, as long as it's considered a reliable source, material from it can be used (with a citation). The fact that it's on paper rather than online is no problem. The main consideration is that newspapers mostly treat the news of the day, and as time passes, historians will probably be able to offer a better perspective than reporters writing immediately after an event happened.

As for how to do citations, there is no mandatory house style, so you should follow the system already in use in the article. So you would have to tell us which article you'd like to edit before we can advise further. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a newspaper can look like this,^[1] and is made easier by selecting "Templates" from just above the top left corner of the edit panel and choosing "cite news". Citing the Domesday Book is also possible. Maproom (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Carter, John (25 July 2017). "Bellerbys College in Osney, Oxford, to close". Oxford Mail. p. 7.

Pornographic images in the graphical search results on the home page

Hello, Entering the word "pedicure" in the search bar (set to EN) on the main page shows two results in the drop-down menu (without pressing enter): "pedicure", and for some reason "anal sex". The image for the "anal sex" result is pornographic. These types of images should definitely not be showing up on the main page, especially on a completely unrelated search. Someone should probably look into this. It makes Wikipedia unsafe for children/work and is generally unseemly.

Even on the article page to which such images are tied (e.g., the "anal sex" article), there should be some kind of warning that you have to click through before being exposed to the images. Even porn sites have such warnings. Surely an encyclopedia should be more responsible and respectable.

Thank you for looking into this.

207.38.61.154 (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anon. It's not totally clear how you are getting these search results. Since there is an article named "pedicure", the search results should take you directly to Pedicure. As to the images, Wikipedia is not censored, and images are not removed or covered with warnings because they may be of a taboo nature. The general basic standard for including images on articles is whether they are educational and contribute to an encyclopedic understanding. Obviously, taboo images on taboo subjects are often going to meet this standard, and that's why they remain. TimothyJosephWood 19:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There are a few issues here.

In regards to what the search bar shows, it should only things which are less than two characters away from what you type. When I type Pedicure, I get Pedicure and Pedicare (which is one letter away), so *that* is an odd situation, it may be a glitch (I tried it logged out and got the same thing. If it continues to happen, then it should be looked into (I.
As for the images on Anal sex, Wikipedia is generally not censored, please see WP:CENSOR, which includes "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living personsand neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)."

You can personally change some settings so you don't have to see these images, which you can read about here. You also suggest a warning system, and there was a proposal for this which was rejected which you can read about here. Seagull123 Φ 20:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the informative links Seagull123. The options available for hiding images are rather limited, ineffectual or otherwise problematic. I shouldn't have to create an account and add some obscure command to a script file in order to not be exposed to obscene images when I'm searching for innocent topics. Hiding all images until "click-to-view" is unnecessarily restrictive. Manually hiding specific images is of value in only very specific cases, and would not prevent the problem I encountered here with an unexpected search result. What is needed is a classification scheme for potentially objectionable images. The rejected rating system proposal you link to was for articles, not images, and was based on a single number to classify potential offensiveness. Please see my suggestion in "Next Steps" as to what could be a good alternative solution. 207.38.61.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here at the English Wikipedia "the main page" refers to Main Page. I guess you actually refer to the search suggestions at https://www.wikipedia.org before you activate the search. I don't know why Anal sex is the second English suggestion on "pedicure" when the article doesn't contain the word, but stuff happens and Wikipedia is not censored. An image from the suggested article is automatically displayed. It's a matter of interpretation whether File:Wiki-analsex.png is pornography or just an illustration of the subject. I think a photo would have been more likely than a drawing to be called pornographic. The article has no photos of the act. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand here. Pedicare is a redirect to Anal sex. The Anal sex article contains the sentence "Another term for the practice, more archaic, is pedicate from the Latin pedicare, with the same meaning.[122]" , so in that case, Pedicare makes sense as a redirect. The search in en.wikipedia.org in the upper right hand corner simply shows Pedicure and Pedicare, the www.wikipedia.org search, OTOH, interprets the redirect, shows "Anal Sex" instead of "Pedicare" and shows the first image on the page.Naraht (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to whether "File:Wiki-analsex.png is pornography", perhaps a more clear example of the issue is if the person doing the searching on www.wikipedia.org searches for "Prince Albert". The third article shown is from "Prince Albert (piercing)" which is actually a photograph of a penis with a particular piercing. Based on that, I'm simply not sure if we should be including pictures in the www.wikipedia.org search.Naraht (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht, where are you getting pictures on searches from? Mobile I assume? TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see pictures at both mobile and https://www.wikipedia.org. The original post said "in the search bar (set to EN)" so I guess it referred to the latter. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found on the https://www.wikipedia.org site (not any language version), if you type "pedicure" in, both pedicure and anal sex come up, with the pictures on the left (without clicking search, or enter or anything). Seagull123 Φ 22:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Naraht. Your example clarifies the point. "Pornographic" is perhaps the wrong term to use and debating what is or isn't pornography is a waste of time here. I should have used the term "sexually explicit", and explained that such images are potentially objectionable/offensive/harmful to certain viewers/in certain environments. 207.38.61.154 (talk)

NP. While the situation with Pedicure is illustrative, Prince Albert is better....Naraht (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next Step

So where do we go from here? I generally give no support to complaints "I went to the article called Penis and it showed a Penis, which is obscene", but this is different. I really don't see a solution to this other than getting rid of the image in the search at www.wikipedia.org. Where would I propose that?Naraht (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An intermediate step would be to disallow images for two-characters-away results of a search. It would probably be technically tricky to do so without disabling two-characters-away text results, which are probably worth keeping. Anyways, is the Teahouse really the place to have that discussion? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the Help desk, not sure how you are reading this at the Teahouse. I'm quite willing to move the discussion, not sure where.Naraht (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one could add classification tags to images, such as "sexual" or "violence" or "gore" and then by default not show images with certain tags in the search bar. One could perhaps also give users an option in their settings to enable these images in the search results if they really want. I get that individuals' perception of what is obscene or offensive can vary wildly and be controversial, and so some would rather avoid the issue altogether. But I think it is possible to come at some reasonable "default" standard (e.g., a work/professional environment) and then accommodate particular users with the option to enable/disable certain other categories of images according to their own standards of what is objectionable. It isn't censorship to hide images in the search bar. Anyone who wants to see them can go to the article in question.207.38.61.154 (talk)
The displayed image for an article is called the page image and picked by mw:Extension:PageImages. The only current option is to prevent it from being the page image, e.g. by adding it to MediaWiki:Pageimages-blacklist. But that will remove it from all features using the page image and I oppose it as censorship. The image is very illustrative of the article subject. The blacklist is so far only used for a few images like File:Ambox important.svg which just happen to be in the lead but have no relevance as page image. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, which is why, IMO the only solution is to stop displaying any images there.Naraht (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Where is place for support suggetions with new articles? (sorry for my English) Dawid2009 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Thanks :) Dawid2009 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page move help

Hello,

I submitted a request to change (move) the page "Hydro Massage" to "Hydro Therapy Massage". There has been no discussion and it is therefore in "backlog". How do I get it to be discussed and effectively moved? Additionally, I see this under my request but with no reason, so I'm confused as to what the next step is: "This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)"

I'd appreciate any help or suggestions you can provide.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HilaryW2009 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HilaryW2009: I can't see the page "Hydro massage" at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests; however, I can see it here. It seems as though it has been removed from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

. You may wish to ask at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. Seagull123 Φ 21:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otto warmbier

Otto earned a posthumous BA of arts and sciences with an Economics major at university of Virginia. August9,2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B145:34FC:7C1E:3BFB:96DA:A808 (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you provide a reference for this please? I couldn't find any on Google, but we need a reference for this to be included in the Otto Warmbier article. For help on this, either visit the reference desk or the referencing for beginners page. Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 22:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Carter, John (25 July 2017). "Bellerbys College in Osney, Oxford, to close". Oxford Mail. p. 7.

[1]