Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< October 26 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 28 >
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.


October 27[edit]

CANTONISTS[edit]

HOW CAN I TTRANSFER THISD ARTICLE TO MY E-MAIL?--Miriam biskin (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried copying the text and pasting it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the cut and paste will not bring the formatting or pictures. Most browsers will allow you to save a web page: in Firefox it is File > Save page as > Webpage, complete. In Internet explorer it is File > save as > Web archive single file.
depending upon what you want to do, simply emailing the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonist and letting the other person go see the current live version (or in the Toolbox on the left column, use the Permanent link to keep a specific version). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just highlighted the entire article in Chrome, opened a new GMail message, then pasted and sent it. All the formatting copied, as did the photo. The only major difference was that the References section has a bunch of "Jump up" links. So if Chrome/Gmail happens to be the OP's arrangement, it should be "good enough for government work" as they say. :) (Much respect intended to TRPoD) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking a cut and paste from the edit screen, which neither you nor the OP would have done, so ignore my claim that it wouldnt work.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If not, and the user's email supports HTML (which Gmail obviously does, as do most webmails), then copying the source should do it from the "View Source" or "Inspect Element" of your browser's menu.  drewmunn  talk  08:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Skins[edit]

Hi, I recently became a Teahouse host and I just created the suggested skins, (viewable here and here) however I can't get them to load correctly. What have I done wrong? I saved them just like I was told to do, but now I just get a bunch of Wikitext. Help would be greatly appreciated. Jinkinson talk to me 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jinkinson: It's not clear what you mean by "I just get a bunch of Wikitext." If you're talking about how your common.js and common.cs pages look, yes, that's what you'll see - "ImportScript" is not like subst: (or like a template); when you save what you've pasted in, it remains as is. That's because the common.js and common.cs files are built - and loaded - dynamically (and thus you should, as instructed at those two pages, purge your cache).
If that doesn't make any sense (and if, upon purging, you find that you're still not getting the behavior you expect on other pages), then I think that posting at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge/User scripts would be the best thing to do. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you're right, I just thought they were supposed to look different, they seem to be working fine. Never mind. Jinkinson talk to me 16:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon is made of green cheese[edit]

For some reason (I don't know why or how), my edits to this article failed to produce the "Ref groups upper alpha" for the notes. It shows arabic numbers. I am too close to this article, and can't see the forest for the trees. Please help. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found Help:Cite link labels, but haven't yet determined how to get the notes group to have upper case alpha characters. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These special group names only work if you use {{reflist}}, not <references>. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. {:>) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Neutral Arbitration Regarding Speedy Deletion of Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership[edit]

Concern, User talk:Orangemike did a speedy delete of Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership, yet the page I saw before it was deleted, and it might have changed, did not seem to be advertising or spam? The award is the equivalent to the Fulbright Program or MacArthur Award for government senior executives in the U.S., and you wouldn't delete that from Wikipedia would you? Do you want to reconsider your action? It might be the user was a newbie who was well-intentioned but needed refining the article, to including articles other than just American University itself but not a speedy deletion? Notable winners include Richard A. Clarke and Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.... perhaps further discussion is needed on this topic? WashD101 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page, sourced to American University and named for Roger W. Jones, promoted the American University award by advertising the award and showcasing its winners. The Roger W. Jones Award page was written by the now blocked Rogerjonesaward user. You can challenge the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review after discussing the matter with Orangemike. The user name/account has multiple issues and it looks like Orangemike merely picked one issue to deal with. The block can be appealed at Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Jreferee, it might have been that the editor needed to make sure to source edits other than American University, however the content that I saw... and I caveat that it might have changed between when I saw it and when it was speedy deleted... was of the same type as Fulbright Program or MacArthur Award... OrangeMike cites G11 but I personally would have said the problems were single source materials and that additional sources were needed... perhaps giving it 30 days to be rectified before pulling the ban hammer? Have left a message with OrangeMike and hope to hear back. Can't contact the user who contributed to identify their thinking given the ban... I appreciate your help and thank you. WashD101 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some source material on the topic from the early 1980s and 1990s, and more after that. About half the sources are press releases. You can find much of the source material at Archives - Washington Post. Most of the source material on the award are the giving of the award, but not about the award itself. The topic needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG, and I don't think you can find two news articles whose main topic is the award itself. I also don't see the topic meeting Wikipedia:Summary style for the American University article. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What led me to do a G11 block was the fulsome "His service was distinguished by his ability to lead change based on the belief that government can mobilize human talents to accomplish goals" and the reference to their winners as "distinguished". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks OrangeMike for the insight, couldn't that line have been struck instead? TheMacArthur Fellowship opens with the phrase "Genius Grant" and "exceptional merit and promise for continued and enhanced creative work" as well? Awards are meant to have some element of fulsomeness. The second, the word distinguished does have meaning in the world of public service, namely the Distinguished Presidential Rank Awards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Rank_Awards#Distinguished_Executive in which even Wikipedia has a subsection on Distinguished Executives? Maybe a better part of valor would have been an AfB or PROD instead? WashD101 (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am not an admin, I do not have access to the original article. However, without seeing the original of the article, I would concur with WashD101 that the use of speedy deletion was an overreaction. I will assume that the article was overly promotional and contained peacock language. However, it had notable content that was capable of improvement. Is there a reason why speedy deletion was used rather than AfD? Was there any harm in leaving the article up for discussion? It didn't violate copyright or BLP, did it? Why couldn't AfD have been used, which provides an opportunity to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
give it a rest. if you have third party sources, created a draft using them that assuredly is NOT purely promotional. if you want a WP:REFUND ask for it. beating the dead horse about a move well within the discretion of the admin is a COMPLETE waste of time and pixels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am striving not to post in to many places about this, since User:EatsShootsAndLeaves indicated we should strive to keep discussion in one place... however since this discussion has forked, might I recommend you listening to this brief video clip in which a team of Wikipedia senior editors themselves experienced a speedy delete from an over-zealous admin when they were trying to create an article about the ragtime songs of the number 2 ragtime composer... fast forward to 2 minutes 50 seconds for both a laugh and a sad moment when the senior Wikipedia editors themselves have the speedy deletion occur on them when they were obviously trying to act in good faith... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NTWW_34-1.ogg sim if Wikipedia is about assume good faith shouldn't we consider whether the contributor did not know additional sources were needed? I am happy to work with them and others if it is restored to try and improve the article, I had seen it all to briefly and thought it needed some work as a stub... also, the admin blocked the user too without even talking to them, since when is that nice Wikipedia behavior? WashD101 (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has gone beyond the scope of the help desk and can be marked as closed here, discussion is continuing at DRV. Яehevkor ✉ 20:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Issues[edit]

I see at least two policy issues. First, one editor has said to take the issue to Requests for Undeletion, and another has said to take the issue to Deletion Review. Since we have two mechanisms for restoring deleted articles, and reasonable editors have taken different interpretations of how to restore this article, perhaps the policies have an ambiguous overlap. Second, perhaps the criteria for speedy deletion need to be clarified, because this was a borderline case where PROD or AFD could have been used. Maybe this should go to WP:VPP. However, should the request to restore the article so that it can be corrected be handled at Requests for Undeletion, or at Deletion Review? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review ("DRV") is the right place, since Requests for Undeletion ("REFUND") is for uncontroversial stuff. DRV is where you go to say "Orangemike deleted this page under this criterion, but it should be undeleted because he made an error with ___ and ___ and ___ etc." REFUND is where you go to say "Orangemike deleted my userspace page at my request, but now I'd like it back again". A proper REFUND request is one with which nobody would reasonably disagree. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WashD101 states that User:Rogerjonesaward made no other edits except to Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership. That in itself is grounds for a block. Someone who comes here merely to promote an organization he/she works for is violating Wikipedia rules, and even if the article had been properly written, the username violates the rules for being promotional.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Vchimpanzee, the same text you cited says Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. ... since no attempt was made to contact the user we don't know if they just didn't know, if they were with the group, or if they were a previous award winner. Honestly it's a bit of an odd policy since folks can create userids that mask their identity even if they do intend to promote other subjects... my observation was the article did not appear promotion aside from once sentence that should have been struck, and Wikipedia has ways to remove that sentence without defaulting to auto-block? WashD101 (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I'm going by what I've actually seen done. I answered a Teahouse question yesterday when I saw it had been unanswered, and the same situation had occurred, but I was nicer to this person than some of those who want to jump on newcomers who break the rules.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to lock the posted / edited content in wikipedia[edit]

How to lock the posted / edited content in wikipedia202.62.93.202 (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pages can be protected by requesting protection at WP:RFPP. But there has to be a good reason. The criteria are supplied at that link. Dismas|(talk) 08:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it will bar IP editors from making edits, even with the "weakest" protection. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplewowies: "bar" is perhaps a bit too strong a word. If pending changes protection is applied, edits by IP editors can change the article, if the edits are accepted by a reviewer. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I guess I'm just not used to pending changes, because when I wrote that, I was thinking of semiprotection. And heck, even then, if a non-autoconfirmed user were to request a change on the talk page, it could still be put in the article (although in that case, those editors actually can't make the direct edits). - Purplewowies (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a photo[edit]

Hello I would like to upload a different photo to use on the webpage for Jean-Louis Cohen.How do I do this?

File:JLC LA 2012 photo NS.jpg
Jean-Louis Cohen

Genevievehendricks (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is how: you go to WP:FUW. Jinkinson talk to me 14:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file upload wizard will not work because Genevievehendricks is not yet autoconfirmed. Genevievehendricks, until you are autoconfirmed you will need to ask for it to be uploaded for you at WP:files for upload. GB fan 14:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is freely licensed and otherwise complies with Commons requirements, it should be uploaded there: Commons upload.--ukexpat (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed food wikilove template[edit]

I would like to turn this into a wikilove template.

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Could you please turn this into a new food wikilove template? I have no idea how to do that. Enjoy! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Dobos Torte is the beginning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Template:Cookie or other templates at Category:Food WikiLove templates to get an idea as to how to create a food wikilove template. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Duncan is the same person as Ronald Duncan (alpine skier)[edit]

Hi, I was editing Ronald Duncan (alpine skier) and noticed that there is another article for him. As you will note from the references on Ronald Duncan, his nickname is Boris. Not sure how to proceed! Can I suggest we delete Boris Duncan?

Thanks, Gomach (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned it into a redirect. Be Bold. Rojomoke (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dobos torte boxes are too long[edit]

How do we close the Dobos torte box from two sections above this one? I tried adding |} after 14:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC), and I tried adding </span> and </b span> after 7&6=13's "thanks", but when I hit preview, all I got was the same thing with those characters added. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure it out either - I've enclosed it in <nowiki>...</nowiki> for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had no problems adding the missing |} on a new line.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's all it was. You edit-conflicting PrimeHunter, you Yintan  22:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation Church & Steven Furtick.[edit]

Elevation Church is a developing media story in the Charlotte NC area. There is a firestorm of controversy surrounding the finances of the the church and the pastor, Steven Furtick.

As such, new information is consistently available for updating the Wikipedia page.

  • Eventhewise* and *71.68.60.201* are consistently deleting accurate and properly documented information -- this should stop. They want the two pages to function as nothing more than a resume page.

Ridintherails (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the edits in question, and while the information may be accurate and properly documented, there's more to the story: in short, these bits are not encyclopedic. We are an encyclopedia, not the newspaper, and we're not the latest gossip rag or something that's supposed to document the latest controversy. We are here to provide the most important enduring facts about the subjects of articles: that means that we should wait until we see whether this incident becomes significant in his life. It's appropriate for our Jimmy Swaggart article to discuss the sex scandal that led to his deposal from the ministry, because we know that it's an important part of his life story. When the news first broke, people couldn't be sure that the incident would be hugely significant (false allegations and accusations against preachers are common, for example), so if Wikipedia had been around then, it would have been inappropriate to add that to his article. Finally, how many churches publish their financial statistics to non-members? Tons of churches don't have websites and definitely can't publish stats any other way, and I can't remember ever seeing a church website with this kind of statistic. Unlike for-profit corporations, nonprofits like churches aren't required by US law to publish their finances for non-members. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can you tell that to this guy? [2]? (different article same shit). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism fix[edit]

Can someone check Central dogma of molecular biology as I believe vandalism on 21st October removed a couple of images... Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_October_27&oldid=1138271266"