Help desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 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.

June 20[edit]

Current events portal archive[edit]

I am trying to write a historical book. How do I access "old news" using the current events portal? Theskinnytypist (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How old are we talking here? Recent events, distant past? Kurtis ^(talk) 04:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current events portal uses a separate subpage for each day's news, for example "Portal:Current events/2014 June 20". This scheme began in May 2005. The encyclopedia articles May 2005 onwards display the same subpages, so they are effectively the archive of the current events portal. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Craps}}, {{Ballys Gaming}}, {{Ceasars Gaming}} et al[edit]

I have a patent pending on the craps layout and have been all over wikipedia looking for someone to submit my idea to at alot of the big casinos, but there is no info pertaining this. Can you please help me with finding this info. Thank you, Joel184.1.4.178 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't publish new ideas, as it only aims to summarise what has already been published in good-quality publications such as books, academic journals and respected news outlets. So if your idea takes off and people start to write about it, it may become appropriate to mention it in the encyclopedia; but not until then. But please don't try to use Wikipedia to publicise your idea; Wikipedia does not allow advertising. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, before jumping on the questioner, please read the question carefully and respond to what he actually asked.

Joel, this page is for asking for help in editing and using Wikipedia itself. For information and advice on other matters, please refer to our Reference Desk. Thanks, Rojomoke (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

login issue[edit]

Hi,

i just created a new login and password. Received the confirmation by email (meaning they got my login right) asking me to confirm my email online. I tried to do it and the system says my login is wrong... But I received the email so this means the email login was right.

Can you help? Thank you,

Antoinette Jansen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.55.37 (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most frequent cause for this is the fact that both username and password are case sensitive. The second one is when you set up one or the other using '1' (the numberal) for 'i' or 'l' (lower-case L), and similar typographic tricks; then forget you did so. I hope one of these suggestions helps. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have problems then please quote the exact message. Email confirmation is only about clicking a link in an email to confirm it is your email address. It does not involve login so I'm unsure where your problem is. User:Antoinette Jansen was created today and if you remember the password then you can log in whether or not you have confirmed an email address. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Search section headings[edit]

Can you search just section headings? Like if I want to find all articles that have "World War" in a section heading, but not the ones that just have it in the text somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.93.100 (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not with the search engine. That would require a custom search of the database. Spinning Spark 12:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can achieve a similar functionality by typing "=World War=" into Special:Search. Not always. --Glaisher [talk] 13:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good/Featured article[edit]

I'm curious if an article about 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group D can be brought to the good/featured article status.--MJ for U (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason, in principle, that it could not be done. There is no importance criteria for eiter FA or GA; any article at all can be brought up to standard. The requirements for GA are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria and for FA see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. The only thing against it is that it could be considered by some to be a list, in which case it does not qualify. However, I am sure that enough prose could be added so that it was not so list-like and more article-like, and if not, there is such a thing as featured lists. Spinning Spark 12:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hallo Wikipedia, I would like to know if one can not download a Video from Wikimedia. My second concern is what are the advantages of having a wiki account? are there some tasks which require the user to have a wiki account? Wish you a successful work with our Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcibiz2014 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to your second question are at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Dru of Id (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your first question is not clear to me. I'm not sure whether you are asking if something is allowed, or whether you have had technical problems. Please say more clearly what you want to do. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"has issues" disclaimer for Jeffrey Moore (author)[edit]

Hi, I believe I have addressed the "issues" in Jeffrey Moore (author). Can the "has issues" disclaimer be removed? Or is there something else I need to do? Thanks, Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJSour7 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Wikipedia has a policy that biographies of living persons must strictly have reliable sources and references. If you cannot produce the proper reference for any piece of information, you would have to remove that for the time being, so as not to cause potential trouble (like being regarded as attack to that person). --Nigelliusnitrox (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are several references, these all relate to comments about his books, they are not about him at all. There are no references as to where he was born, educated, lives, what he has translated, what he has taught and where. In a biography of a living person these are facts that need to be referenced. Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. W.V. Grant, Jr. of Dallas, Texas....Minister[edit]

In your article, you mention WV Grant, Jr.'s wife Brenda as the mother of their three kids, Barry, Mark and Misty.

Daughter, Misty is not Brenda Grant's biological child. Her mother is Shirley White. WV Grant, Jr and Shirley Grant White were divorced in 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.179.160 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post, but we would need a reliable, verifiable source before altering an article, particularly about a living person. If you can cite such a reliable source, please re-request this, citing your source, at Talk:W. V. Grant. Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the page for Applause (application quality company)[edit]

Hi -- I seem to be stuck in an editing battle and I'm not sure how to move forward.

The technology company uTest recently changed its name to Applause -- by and large, we moved previously approved content from the uTest page to the Applause page, but this content is continued to be deleted by a particular editor and we are left with a very short, incomplete entry. All of the awards listed, company location and other information is properly sourced -- nothing is over the top in terms of language or superlatives. I'm curious as to how to best proceed with this.

Eharrison3 (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Eharrison3[reply]

You appear to be associated with the subject of the article and as such have a conflict of interest. You should therefore not be editing the article at all, let alone edit warring to keep your promotional material in it. You will be blocked from editing altogether if you continue. Spinning Spark 13:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting[edit]

Under WP:3RR this is stated:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."

I think I have understood the rules under WP:REVERT. When copy-editing I often have to rewrite clumsy sentences, but is it right that it does not count as a revert unless in so doing I restore what is on the page to an earlier version, in whole or in part? The answer seems obviously "yes" to me, but how does that then fit with the above, "An edit or series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions ... counts as a revert"? All my changes when rewriting will involve undoing other editors' actions, obviously! --P123ct1 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is an edit that substantially restores the previous content, removing or re-adding previous content. A copy-edit does not change the meaning of the page, but clarifies it, and so should not be considered a revert by any reasonable interpretation. If an edit changes the meaning of the article, rather than simply improving the way it states the meaning, it isn't just a copy-edit. Now, if a previous editor restores the original clumsy or ungrammatical sentences, and the copy-editor restores the rewrite, that is a revert, but that isn't a likely scenario. Does another editor have an opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good enough to me! Hope others agree. And if you do break the 3-revert rule, do you get a warning message before being banned for 24 hours? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether you get a warning before being blocked, the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes you will be warned after 2RR, because that is still edit warring, although it doesn't cross the bright line. Sometimes you will be warned after 3RR. In some cases, two editors both go to 4RR or 5RR before there is admin attention, and then they are likely to be both blocked without the need for a warning. By the way, the action on edit warring is a block, not a ban. A block is a temporary or indefinite suspension of editing privileges by an uninvolved administrator. A ban is a formal revocation, either of all editing privileges, or of some subset of editing privileges. A site ban is only imposed by the community or the ArbCom. A topic ban may be imposed by the community or the ArbCom, or occasionally by arbitration enforcement for an area that is under discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please exercise caution when editing in contentious areas. Most articles that need copy-editing are not in contentious areas, but a few are, in particular in areas about national conflicts (e.g., Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan) that are largely written by editors whose first language is not English. In those areas, especially, if your copy-edit is reverted, it is better to discuss on the talk page or go to arbitration enforcement rather than to get into a copy-edit war. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can another editor answer the question about copy-editing and agree or disagree with my interpretation, please? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful reply. I was just a little worried as I have been copy-editing the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant article (re ISIS and Iraq), obviously a very hot topic at the moment, where some passages and recent additions are clearly not written by people whose first language is English - but I have not come a cropper with anyone yet (have nearly finished) and would hate to edit-war. I have had to rewrite quite a few sentences, so you can see why I was so keen to get the revert rules straight in my head! --P123ct1 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is subject to discretionary sanctions. It is an example of the articles to which I was referring that are written largely by editors whose first language is not English, and that are subject to edit warring because they are about real wars. If your edits are copy-edits, preserving the meaning of text that was written by editors whose first language is Arabic, while improving the writing, you should be all right. If any of the factional editors reverts you, then rather than restoring your edits, which is a revert, you might do well to go to arbitration enforcement, although it is a complicated procedure involving warning the offending editors with a specific template. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think it will come to that, but you never know. There has been quite a lot of edit-warring on this one, but over facts more than anything, which is to be expected. :{ --P123ct1 (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting is not edit warring. It only becomes edit warring if you were to restore your "copyedit" after it had been reverted by another editor. Please also note that articles involving the Arab-Israeli conflict and other conflicts in the Middle East (including Syria) are under special Arbitration Committee restrictions which includes a 1RR restriction and the possibility of blocking without warning. Spinning Spark 16:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Have had to take an axe to some of the text, but there have been no complaints. I did see the 1RR warning on the Edit page, but didn't realise a block could come without warning! :{ --P123ct1 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page Verification[edit]

How can we verify our page so that it no longer has a warning at the top? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YogiOffice (talk • contribs) 15:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC) — YogiOffice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

YogiOffice Please see here: Referencing. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I assume you are talking about the article on Charles Koppelman? However, I am not sure what you mean by "our page" - are you admitting to a conflict of interest?
Looking at the page, there are numerous external links in the text, which need to be removed, or turned into references, along with a certain amount of overlinking and it has a rather promotional tone - but you could be talking about a totally different article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is the page I'm talking about. There is no conflict of interest for the page, no. So you would advise that hyperlinking is taken out, and try to reduce the promotional tone. Could you please give me an example of an external link? How do you reduce overlinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YogiOffice (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC) — YogiOffice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Overlinking" refers to the proliferation of internal links to other articles and you will find it explained further here. The article also uses too many external links buried within the text. If they are useful as references, they should be formatted as such, as explained here, otherwise they should be removed rather than just moved to the external links section; see WP:EL for the kind of links that are permitted there.--ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone who is helping. Although, I did notice that there is now a newer warning on the page. I am trying to fix the problems on the page. Once this has been achieved, will those warnings disappear? Also, is it okay to keep people/pages without their own wikipedias hyperlinked?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YogiOffice (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC) — YogiOffice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The maintenance templates do not disappear automatically. When you think you have dealt with the issues that they raise, you can remove the templates yourself, but please explain why you have removed them, either on the talk page or in your edit summary.--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@YogiOffice "Conflict of interest" means that you have a connection to the subject of the article. Your username and editing history suggest that you do indeed have a conflict of interest. If so, you should certainly not remove the maintenance templates yourself. You should instead request an independent editor look at it. Spinning Spark 16:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understood "Conflict of Interest" differently but now I understand. Where can I find an independent editor? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YogiOffice (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Request for comment[edit]

Hi there, I am new to the Request comment/User conduct resource, but I am being pushed to use it after trying other resources. I wrote the details required and used the template provided to post it (had some layout redundancy problems), but as soon as I posted I was really surprised to see that a senior editor removed it on formal grounds, I can not remember exactly what. I posted on his userpage talk to know more on the reasons for his removal, some 4-6 days ago as far as my memory goes. However, I lost the link to both the userpage and the Request comment resource's archived disputes..., now I am completely lost. Before I go for a second Request for comment attempt, I would strongly appreciate any tips to track my removed post and the above userpage! Iñaki LL (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I took the liberty to check your contribs and retrieved your previous filing here. Referring to the next edit summary, it seems to be the case that you should be posting your dispute to Wikipedia:DRN instead of RfC. Good luck on getting that matter resolved! --Nigelliusnitrox (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nigelliusnitrox! It is about conduct (does not RfC/Conduct apply?), and as a matter of fact I have been referred to RfC in the DRN case I add here. I would prefer to avoid the fuss of the ANI to be honest. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

term definition[edit]

What is tildes? mrsvw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsvw (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This ~~~~ Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle Installation[edit]

Is it no longer possible to install Twinkle? If it is, how can I (cannot find in gadgets section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuartzReload (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in your preferences. Preferences > Gadgets > Browsing (fourth from the bottom). Dismas|^(talk) 17:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

citing an online source multiple times[edit]

Hello, I am developing my first article and am unsure about the right coding to cite the same online source as a reference for multiple points throughout an article. I understand that the number will just appear several times, but I'm not sure how to establish it to do so. I am not understanding the tutorial, either. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInformation14 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all explained at WP:NAMEDREFS.--ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]