Help desk
< November 13	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 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.

November 14[edit]

contacting[edit]

How can I contact Wikipedia management to present them with a suggestion about how Wikipedia can be improved by a parallel idea that would enhance your great website? Dybach (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Visit the Village Pump. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:49, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

How to get an AFD closed?[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion last month. It appears, however, that the article has been completely rewritten, all complaints against have been addressed, and there is now consensus that the subject is notable enough for a WP article. However, no one has closed the discussion. I think WP:BOLD only goes so far. So, since this AFD appears to have reached a decision, how does it get closed? Will it happen automatically or something like that? NealCruco (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NealCruco: Discussions are reviewed by admins after seven days. Looks like the discussion was last re-listed on November 7, so an admin should come through within the 24-48 hours to close the discussion (or re-list it, if necessary). There are exceptions to this, such as when the nominator withdraws their nomination, or if it's a clear snowball keep or delete. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for the information. NealCruco (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article for deletion, and am withdrawing my nomination by striking the nomination and adding the phrase "Withdrawn by nominator." Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the colors of a single cell in a table[edit]

In 1st Wisconsin Legislature, there is an Assembly seat which was held by members of two parties, and I don't know how to split it. I'm not good with this kind of progammer-like syntax, and all that I know is that my first guess was obviously wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit cumbersome but splitting the column in two and merging the two cells for all the other rows can give the wanted effect.[1]PrimeHunter (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A simple example of the suggestion above:

R
R	D
D

Dwpaul ^Talk 05:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please create wikipedia article on yify torrent site[edit]

please create wikipedia article on yify torrent site this site has alexa rank below 1000 but it lacks wiki article,

if kickass torrent have wiki article why not yify torrent?
yify torrent maintaining site for freely providing English Movie BluRay Rips since august 2010 through peer 2 peer service. Ram nareshji (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be suggesting that someone write an article promoting a site that regularly violates US federal law and many international laws by illegally reproducing and distributing copyrighted content, I think it's probably best that this conversation end here. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

then why kickass torrent & Movie4k.to site had wikipedia article? then why not yify torrent? Ram nareshji (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because those sites are notable as a result of coverage they have received in various reliable independent news sources, primarily about actions taken to prosecute them for copyright infringement and/or otherwise curtail their operations. If similar press occurs concerning efforts to prosecute and/or shut down yifi torrent, perhaps they'll eventually end up with an article as well. I don't know that they'll be appreciative of it. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, just because there is an article on one thing doesn't mean there should be an article on a similar thing. Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists .--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count[edit]

According to this tool, I have around 300 edits. But when I am going to [[2]], they are showing my edit count is more than 400. Why is this anomaly? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IEditEncyclopedia: The tool works with a copy of the live data, not the actual data, to avoid overloading the live servers. The copy is usually only a few minutes out of date, but currently the tool's result page says "Caution: Replication lag is high, changes newer than 396 minutes may not be shown. " -- John of Reading (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you look at the top of this page, it states "Caution: Replication lag is high, changes newer than 390 minutes may not be shown." whereas you preferences total is up to date. You have carried out a lot of edits since 04.30 UTC this morning, which will not be in the first search.
I note, however, that most of your edits appear to be saved unnecessarily, e.g. putting a double bracket before Finland, then saving, then putting a double bracket after Finland, and saving, then putting a double-bracket before France, and saving etc. These petty edits appear to be an attempt to boost your edit count, rather than useful contributions. Please stop. - Arjayay (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancy for me is 235 edits. I don't think you can attribute that to lag, as 235 edits ago was on 9 November. Not that I care about a roughly 3% discrepancy, if I care about my edit count at all. But it's an interesting question. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the discrepancy is deleted edits, one tool counting them and the other not?--ukexpat (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that another place that a discrepancy between edit counts happens is on page moves. If I remember right the Wikimedia software counts each move as a single log entry. The edit counters count each move as two edits, one on the old name and one on the new name. -- GB fan 13:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have 22 deleted edits and 9 moves. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:BALL article[edit]

I am currently looking at XVII International Chopin Piano Competition and I need a second opinion on how to proceed.

1 - I am not entirely sure as to the notability of the competition. Searches don't appear to produce anything in the way of notable, third party references.

2 - Assuming the notability is there, then should I move the page to the draft space for the creator or submit it for deletion with the advice that it can be recreated in just under a year for now, when the competition takes place.

Thanks in advance. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO {{speedy delete}}, maybe to the author's sandbox for a year of quarantine – nothing important can be said about the competition a year in advance. Also remove the link in International Chopin Piano Competition, possibly replacing it with a note about the next planned edition. --CiaPan (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BALL does not apply. Scheduled future events do not meet the definition of WP:BALL. We regularly have articles about future events which have not occured, but will occur. For example, we already have an article on the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Please don't hunt through Wikipedia trying to delete all of these, it would be seen as disruptive. We have these articles, and have had them for a long time, for any reasonably confirmed notable event. In this case, we have plenty of sources which discuss preparation of the event, including preliminary competitions scheduled and/or already under way. See [3] for example, from which you can find a lot of information about the competition. --Jayron32 13:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of hunting through them and deleting them at all (not entirely sure why you think I would do that, but oh well). The more pressing concern is that the link you have provided leads to the competitions own site, as do the reference links on the page. How is that at all notable? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing to a future FIFA World Cup (or Olympics, etc) is not valid because the venue selection processes for World Cup, Olympics, etc. occurs many years in advance and tends to receive substantial press coverage, thus they have real notability long before the first ball is kicked. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Druxiness[edit]

I found the word, Druxiness, in the USA Crosswords Jumbo, www.kappapuzzles.com, dated October, 2014, Puzzle 74, page 81, number 32 down. The answer is decay, but I found no meaning in Wikipedia. I also checked an old unabridged dictionary with no results. Does Druxiness mean decay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:ce3f:ec00:89b9:b7f0:72b8:a353 (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try our sister project Wiktionary, or Merriam Webster. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, it's "A disease in timber, caused by a wound in the cambium layer being attacked by fungus". So, sort of. In future, please note that general reference questions like this should be addressed to the Reference Desk. The Help Desk is for questions about using Wikipedia. Rojomoke (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refdesk archiving[edit]

Do the Refdesks archive a section after about 7 days, even if it's still active? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 14:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the way the bot is set up it archives a whole day of posts at the same time. It does not look to see if there is still a discussion going on. The best place to ask about it is on the operator's talk page, User talk:scs. -- GB fan 14:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you.‑‑Mandruss ☎ 14:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: If you're worried about that "C-H" thread, I think the best thing to do, should you find out any new information, is to create a new thread at that time (including a link to the old thread), in which you can provide your information. You might want to ping the OP, as well. Deor (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's that. I personally wouldn't see a problem with moving the section down on the page, to the current date, extending its life for another six days. That would eliminate the need to link threads. It's not like the thread has gone idle, the last comment was 10 hours ago. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Vanquish4758#Image copyright problem with Image:Bobmiller2.gif[edit]

I've provided everything but shoe size and blood type. What else is needed to get this pictured placed on this page... Bobby W. Miller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanquish4758 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things: First, to whom did you provide it? If you sent it to the permissions e-mail address there is usually a huge backlog there so it will take time to be reviewed. If it was somewhere else, please let us know where. Second, the article has bigger problems than lack of an image - it is currently nominated for deletion (discussion here), so I would direct your energy to providing more sources to establish notability rather than worrying about the image at the moment.--ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L B McGinnis, Author, former Amarillo College Professor[edit]

Please refer to findagrave.com on his death to update his bio on Wikipedia. Mr. McGinnis passed away April 5, 2014. I am a former student of his, but I do not know what the cause of death was. Thank you for updating his information on your website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.11.53 (talk • contribs)

From a quick read of WP:FINDAGRAVE it would appear that their dates can be unreliable.--ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I found his obituary in the Amarillo Globe-News and have updated the article. It still needs work to ensure that his notability is explained (with citations) and that the article will remain. Perhaps his former student will help. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads[edit]

Technical question, which I've done my best to sort out before asking for help... I am bringing the article Camas pocket gopher up to speed (GA or maybe FA status). I don't like the current image of the animal, because it is a taxidermy specimen labeled "California." This rodent is only found in Oregon. That is all beside the point. I emailed the non-profit here [4] to ask about using their image. The creator of the image emailed me back with 4 excellent photos that I want to use. The email read "Hi xxxxx -- Go for it. I've attached the three good photos I got that day of the animal, plus one of the mounds. Feel free to use one or more for the wikipedia page, and please credit the Institute for Applied Ecology for the picture(s). I look forward to checking out the new page when you're done with it. Thanks, xxx" I can post a copy of that email with the uploads. My question: Does this qualify as a license and if so, which one? If not, do I need to email him back and ask that he upload the images himself? I would prefer to take care of this on my own, without asking more from this generous person... —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actual copyright holder will need to donate the materials directly / verify their donation for free use. see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To editor Gaff: Unfortunately, no, this does not count as a license. Asking them to upload it themselves is also not effective, because we have no way of verifying that an account actually represents the owner. You should ask them to send back the form letter here, so they understand what it means to provide images to Wikipedia. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common situation - the copyright holder is willing to have someone else add their work to wikipedia. The procedure is described here. Murdomck (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]