Help desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

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.

January 14

Liam Neeson

Hi,

Wouldn't it be better if on the Liam Neeson article it was written "is a Northern Irish actor" instead of the current "actor from Northern Ierland"?

My edits are reverted all the time.

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatsUpWorld: Please discuss at the talk page for the article to get consensus. RudolfRed (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Your assertion that "his nationality is all that matters here" seems a bit misguided, and your edits also made the "OBE" smaller. If you want to query it please do so at Talk:Liam Neeson. nagualdesign 01:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not for profit record wiped as 'infringement'

I'm the Chairman of the national not for profit, Crowd Funding Institute of Australia Ltd, and Wiki deleted my entry due to 'copywrite'.

This is silly, can someone fix it or do we need to do it all again, and then contest the complaints in real time.

Surely a violoation call, should reference who's posting content (i.e. lookup the author).

Thanks if you can assist.

Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Pinter (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blue words in the message on your user talk page are wikilinks to further information on copyright. In view of your statement that you are the chairman of the organisation concerned, please read the guidance on conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Pinter, also note that the article was promotional in tone and did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. There is no indication that the copied text has been released to the public domain. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew Pinter: I am a little puzzled by your request that "a violoation call, should reference who's posting content (i.e. lookup the author)" - that is exactly what happened. Two separate notices were posted to your User Talk page describing the copyright problem that caused your contribution to be rejected. What more or different action would you expect? --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess User:Matthew Pinter expected us to research the organization and discover its chairman is called Matthew Pinter (not mentioned in the deleted draft) and may be the user who wrote the draft. That's not how Wikipedia works, and we would still need evidence as explained at User talk:Matthew Pinter#Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Crowd Funding Institute of Australia Ltd. But while Draft:Crowd Funding Institute of Australia Ltd was first nominated for deletion as a copyright violation, the deletion log shows it was actually deleted as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matthew Pinter. I'm afraid that, like many people, you seem to have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not for anybody (person, company, organisation) to tell the world about themselves. When we have an article about a subject, Wikipedia has very little interest in what that subject says about themselves (or what their friends or associates say) and no interest at all in how they wish to be portrayed. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish in reliable places. It follows that, even if the copyright question can be dealt with, material already published by the subject is vary rarely appropriate from a Wikipedia article about the subject, and cetainly may not form a major part of such an article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They gave me a draft and stuff while the only thing I wanted to create is a redirect.

Hello,

I was given a draft, and a load of help, while I only created Draft:2013 Bosnian census (please edit it as not being a draft anymore, thanks) to make it redirect to 2013 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I was planning to do a lot of similar edits. --Spafky (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by someone. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON SIGNAL/TELECOMMUNICATION MAINTAINERS, SIGNAL/TELECOMMUNICATION ENGINEER IN RAILWAY INDUSTRIES

I AM SEARCHING THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE SIGNAL/TELECOMMUNICATION MAINTENANCE/INSTALLATION/CONSTRUCTION STAFF VIZ. SIGNAL/TELECOMMUNICATION MAINTAINERS, SIGNAL/TELECOMMUNICATION ENGINEER IN RAILWAY INDUSTRIES. BUT I HAVE NOT GOT SUCH INFORMATION. INFORMATION REGARDING RAILWAY SIGNALING IS GIVEN IN WIKIPEDIA BUT THE INSTALLER AND MAINTAINER OF THE SAME ARE STILL IN DARK.

BEING THE SIGNAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT ENGINEER IN INDIAN RAILWAY, I AM VERY SAD TO SAY EVERY WHERE THE SAME IS BEING IGNORED WORLDWIDE. EVERYWHERE THE WHITE COLLAR JOBS ARE GIVEN GOLDEN PUBLICITY BUT THE GOLDEN DAYS TO RAILWAYS ARE DUE TO SIGNAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT.

SURPRISINGLY INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL STANDARDIZATION OF OCCUPATIONS ALSO HAVE FEW WORDS FOR THEM.

MY HUMBLE REQUEST TO WIKIPEDIA TO RESEARCH THE SAME CADRE AND INTRODUCE THEREIN.

THANKS AND HOPE FOR OUR RECOGNITION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBNANGARE (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBNANGARE. Please note that using block capitals is regarded as shouting on the internet, and is especially discouraged here on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so you are welcome to write an article, but if you cannot find reliable sources where other people have written about the subject, then perhaps the subject is not sufficiently notable in the Wikipedia sense to merit an article. You could make a suggestion at WP:Requested articles. Dbfirs 11:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One further point, DBNANGARE: Wikipedia is quite specifically not a place to look for or give recognition. The (special) definition of notability makes it clear that, in order to be reported in Wikipedia, a topic must already have received recognition, at least to the extent that several people have chosen to publish in-depth information about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sources

Hi! Now I edit articles about Lucy Young and Omar Wasow (BLP). I use some sources to take information from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060928021846/http://www.biology.purdue.edu/people/alumni/profiles/young.htm - this one for Lucy Young and http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/business/private-sector-silicon-alley-s-philosopher-prince.html for Omar Wasow. I need to know for sure whether these are good sources? And how and where can I check in future if a source is reliable?

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidiia Kondratieva (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lidiia Kondratieva. The first source is not absolutely pristine. Purdue is where the subject passed out from; therefore, the Purdue source would be considered PRIMARY and should be used under the limitations as described in the WP:PRIMARY policy and the WP:NOTRS guideline. The second New York Times source is perfectly reliable. Please read our guidance on how to identify reliable sources for gaining more clarity on sources. In the future, you can post your queries about reliability of sources at our reliable sources noticeboard. Feel free to ask for more assistance. Warmly, Lourdes 16:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot, Lourdes! :) Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

programming language just like java

what is java ? java is high level programming language and a platform . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.67.155 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Java (programming language), and other on Comparison of programming languages, Comparison of Java and C++ and Comparison of C Sharp and Java. Do these help? Dbfirs 18:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error included ref

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh Samala (talk • contribs) 14 January 2018 18:50 (UTC)

Appears to relate to Ramesh Samala. Multiple missing closing '/'. Page has been nominated for speedy deletion. Eagleash (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to edit revision summaries?

Recently I made a mistake in a revision summary (here). The edit is about a certain text editor program lacking support for long lines, but I wrote instead newlines. I have not found a way to correct this issue. Is there a way? If not, is there a different way to indicate the mistake and provide a correction? Takatiej (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No; the text of edit summaries can be deleted if necessary, but it can't be changed. This is inherent to the design of all wiki software, not just Wikipedia; as with articles, the entire history, including errors, is always preserved. ‑ Iridescent 22:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. However, I could not find a way to delete a summary. In this case, I have no need for such a thing, but could you point me to the option for future reference? Takatiej (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries can only be deleted by administrators or oversighters and it's only done in certain cases, not for simple errors. Wikipedia:Revision deletion says "used to redact grossly improper posts and log entries". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous edit summary makes clear what you intended in that edit,so I don't think you need to worry. If this type of error ever happens again, just make another trivial edit and state the correction in the new summary. Many of us have made that sort of mistake at some time in the past. Dbfirs 22:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will leave it as is, as you advised. In the future, making a trivial edit will surely be useful for this sort of situation, if done quickly. (If even a single unrelated edit is done before the correction, it is probably more confusing than informative.) Takatiej (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Takatiej, adding to what other editors mention above, you could give a quick read to Help:Dummy edit, which may be relevant here. Thanks, Lourdes 01:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]