Help desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 3 >

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.

March 2[edit]

Barun De[edit]

I write to appeal against the editing of an article I had started on 21 May 2007 on Barun De. I signed in as B_de2002. It has been locked for an year, until 15 February 2014, by a group of editors, who have all commented on TalK: Barun De. My contention is that the contents of the page are not agreeable with the original writer of the article. Since there is no agreement between the original writer and a few editors, I sincerely request that the page be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.241.191 (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has been explained in crystal clear terms at Talk: Barun De, so you know that by coming here you are wasting your own time and ours. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy that no one "owns" an article and the caution against forum shopping. By coming here after having the situation explained on the article talk page, you are forum-shopping. You have a right to request that the article be deleted via the Articles for Deletion process, but, as was discussed on the talk page, that is unlikely to prevail, because, although the subject is not notable as a historian, he is notable as an administrator. You do not have a right to request that the article be deleted because of disagreements between different editors, or because the article is not satisfactory to the subject's family. If you think that the subject's family has the right to veto the article if it doesn't pass their wishes, you are mistaken, and as David Biddulph said, you are wasting everyone's time including your own. That is not how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to waste anybody's time, but I must say here that it was grave mistake on my part to have donated any article on my father, Barun De to the Wikipedia in the first place. Mores the pity that such rules exist, but clearly copyright rules vary from search engine to search engine. There's nothing much that I can do about this. A page will exist on my father on the internet that will misrepresent his contributions to society and will not be anything more than internet spam. So much for the legitimacy of this particular search engine. Henceforth, I'll have to tell people not to rely on or use the Wikipedia. All best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.214.178 (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not our intention to misrepresent anything or anyone on Wikipedia. But there seems to be a content dispute, and somehow your opinions on appropriate content did not match those of others. It's unfortunate when that happens.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is, indeed, unfortunate. It has to be stated here that there are some editors on the Wikipedia, going by pseudonyms, such as Sitush, who demonstrate a deep inferiority complex, and who are extremely unreliable editors. They should be removed from the editorial board of the Wikipedia for retaining the board's reputation of impartiality.117.194.239.123 (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing link target in template[edit]

There are quite a few articles, such as Liswerry and Ringland, Newport, that use {{Infobox UK place}} with unitary_wales = [[Newport, Wales|Newport]]. But the sentence below the map that says, for instance, "Liswerry shown within Newport", still links to Newport (a disambiguation page) rather than to Newport, Wales. How can I fix this? —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is in Template:Infobox UK place/local, which is a protected template. I have made an edit request at Template talk:Infobox UK place/local. Thanks for pointing it out. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shyne Po[edit]

Shyne po is from flatbush gardens. It use to be called a different name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.17.101 (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have information to contribute to Shyne Po or any other article, you are welcome to put it in; but please be aware that information in Wikipedia (especially about living persons) is required to be referenced to a published reliable source. The information about his origin in Belize is cited in the article which in no longer available, but you need a reliable source to change it to something different. --ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Redesign 2014[edit]

Dear all,
The main page redesign has started, welcome to hand in your designs and join the discussions! :)
Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how to change title of an article[edit]

There's a small mistake in the name of the person. (link below)

the last name first letter is in lower case, and I dont know how to change it:

it says: David lussier but it should be David Lussier (capital L)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_lussier

is there a way to change it? Because if the search engine is case sensitive it could be a problem.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisez001 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wisez001: I've moved it for you and done a copyedit, added categories and so on. You would not have been able to move it yet as your account is not yet autoconfirmed. Here's the problem Wisez001: you are not using reliable sources to verify the article but rather using user generated sources which neither show notability nor are they proper to verify the article's content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "thank" button[edit]

Apart from the two parties involved in the process, does anyone ever see who thanks whom? --Theurgist (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Theurgist: Yes, Special:Log/thanks --Glaisher [talk] 10:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Glaisher: Thanks. Does the log (or anything else) not indicate the specific edit for which one is thanked? --Theurgist (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. --Glaisher [talk] 10:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Theurgist and Glaisher: You can follow the intense at times discussion about allowing some editors to view which edit on T51087. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting log - starting at 17.07 today, one editor thanked the same other editor 30 times in 4 minutes, with 7 more in the subsequent minutes - is this a competition? or does it actually achieve anything? - Arjayay (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arjayay, that actually sounds like abuse of the feature to me, which has been part of the argument for logging which edit in that BZ ticket I mentioned above. My current position is that the people who should be able to see which edit include the system itself (another ticket which is mentioned in there could use this information being added to the database to prevent multiple thanking from one user to another for the same edit), the user sending the thanks, the user who received the thanks, oversighters, and anyone who has been vetted through an election process or is otherwise attached to the privacy policy (admins, crats, developers, etc). Anyways... Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few incidents in which the "thank" feature has been used abusively as a form of harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit - end reference -[edit]

page Counterfeit electronic components#Purchasing policies and procedures - error message occurs; missing end reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fineng5893 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the missing </ref> tags. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I upload an Image[edit]

I need help in knowing how to upload a JPG image from my computer so it shows up in my page article and question that I want to ask on the reference desk? I am new to Wikipedia, this is my first time. I don't want to mess it up and would appreciate a walk through the process. Can I copy and paste with my photo or what is the process? I am totally confused and need your help. thank youPolkateer (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Polkateer. Adding images to Wikipedia is a two-stage process: the image must first be uploaded from your computer to Wikipedia, or preferably to a sister project called Wikimedia Commons (because then the pictures can be used in other projects, such as other-language Wikipedias). Wikipedia is very strict on copyright, so the picture normally must have been explicitly released by the copyright holder on a suitable licence: if you hold the copyright (which will usually be the case if you took the picture), then you can licence it; but if you don't, and are not in contact with the copyright holder this may be difficult. (Most pictures found on the internet cannot be used, or can only be used under very limited restrictions, for this reasons). Once the image is in Wikipedia or Commons, then you can use it in an article.

You can find out more about how to do these two steps at Help:Uploading images and WP:Image tutorial. --ColinFine (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query about inappropriately protecting talk pages[edit]

I have a concern about what I feel may be inappropriate protection of a talk page. A while back, I commented on a discussion on this talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anjem_Choudary

I recently came across another dispute on the same page and, curious to see how the original discussion turned out, looked at it again.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anjem_Choudary/Archive2

The page has now been archived but, in a nutshell, it was addressing references to photos published in tabloid newspapers. User:Bencherlite felt that details sourced from tabloid newspapers are never acceptable for inclusion and, as he felt that this should be the end of the discussion, he made the decision to protect the section from further edits with the following justification:

"Wikipedia does not source information of this sort from tabloid newspapers. I have protected the page from editing from anonymous and new editors to prevent further breaches of the Wikipedia policy for articles about living people. That's enough of this discussion."

I have been unable to locate a particular Wikipedia guideline or rule that specifically addresses this but, as far as I am aware, for an editor to simply shut down discussion on a talk page because he disagrees with the forming consensus is way out of line. Is this correct? I have not seen this occur anywhere else on Wikipedia.

As an additional note, what concerns me further is that User:Bencherlite was probably wrong anyway. According to Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources the use of tabloid newspapers should only be avoided when there are other reliable sources. A blanket ban is simply not correct. As tabloid newspapers were the only source for the news in question, the information cannot be removed on this basis. Thus, it is even more concerning that not only did User:Bencherlite inappropriately close down a discussion, he did so on the basis on an incorrect application of editing policy.

I appreciate that this happened a while back (June 2013) but, on my recent revisit, it is clear that a small group of editors, primarily User:Bencherlite and User:Parrot of Doom have driven off a large number of other editors over a lengthy period of time with a constant refusal to permit edits they have not made, twinned with a generally aggressive and hostile approach. Thus, the issues that are raised by this inappropriate action are still ongoing and seem to be having a negative impact on the quality of the article and the collaborative editing process. I have said that I felt that the editors in question are acting inappropriately but many others have made similar comments and have been rudely rebuffed.

I would be grateful if someone could a) let me know whether I am way off base with these concerns and b) what steps I can take (if any) to try to assist in resolving these concerns about the editing process of this article? Thanks. Robinr22 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is the policy you are looking for. Content about living people must be from impeccable sources, particularly potentially controversial content. Tabloids are certainly never allowed for use for their main fare - scandal about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I see now that the criteria for BLP is tighter than for other wiki articles and that tabloid sources shouldn't be used in any circumstances. I had previously only reviewed the general guidelines which stated that they should only be used when there are no other reliable sources. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. However, I still have concerns about the approach of the editors on the article, namely Parrot of Doom. There is no question that something is going badly wrong with the editing process -- a quick explanation of the relevant policy would have solved the issue immediately, yet his responses (and those of his cohort) are rude, abusive, hostile and aggressive to both me and other editors. Is there any advice you can give me to try to put something in motion to resolve that? Robinr22 (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the discussion was closed but the talk page was never protected. The article only was semi-protected for 20 days, which was thereafter extended by another admin. By the way, I agree with both the protection and the decision to keep out unproven accusations by sensationalist sources in a biography of a living person.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I've misread the comment above the closed section. I thought Bencherlite had protected the talk page but he had actually closed the discussion and protected the article, as you rightly point out. Is closing an ongoing discussion still acceptable though? I also accept that I was wrong about the use of tabloid sources in a BLP and so now have no issue with the article being protected. Thanks for the help! As I state above, I still have concerns about the behavior of the editor involved. No reference was ever made in the discussion to anything other Parrot of Doom's personal opinion, while a brief reference to the relevant policies would have cleared this up immediately. Additionally, he is generally abusive and hostile to other editors and acts with a unnecessary degree of contempt and rudeness. I think there is a need for additional community involvement in order to get the collaborative process back on track and prevent a single editor from dominating the discussion and owning the article. Any tips on that? Thanks again for the help Robinr22 (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]