Help desk
< March 13	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 14[edit]

one question for[edit]

would like to speak with Mr. Healey one question without using my email. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.160.166 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only edit by your IP address and I don't know who you refer to. Where did you see the name Mr. Healey? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pages are getting bias.[edit]

Okay so the pages for 3 of the schools of thought of Islam are being changed and trying to show Islam in a bias and barbic light compared to reality. Its by the User:RLoutfy and like really this what I wrote when I tried removing the bias parts:

"The User:RLoutfy clearly has a bias and is trying to show Islam in a negative light. Like over the course of 3 weeks they changed the 3 schools of thought pages into highlighting violence, Apostasy, Blasphemy, Stoning, and Slavery EVEN before mentioning prayer which is the biggest part of Islam."

So whats the deal can something be done or will this user just continue to change Islam topics to try to show it in the most negative light possible?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverhawkJD (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with users should be brought up with them on a talk page first, if it cannot be solved then use alternate methods of dispute resolution. PhantomTech (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very inaccurate article[edit]

I have not edited a Wikipedia article before, but have come across the entry for "Parental alienation" which (unlike other Wikipedia entries I've read) is so profoundly wrong that it's difficult to propose minor edits. It really needs to be re-written from scratch. Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.143.175 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible if you have enough verifiable sources to backup your claims. You should head over to Talk:Parental alienation and discuss how and why the article is wrong and tell others what you plan on doing to the article and collaborate with other editors.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 01:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the great thing about a wiki is that you can fix it! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding personal letters as a reference[edit]

How do I add personal letters (from a university verifying facts) to a wiki topic? I was able to add the letters once, but they were pasted to the bottom of the topic (probably incorrectly) and someone removed them. They noted the existence of my letters using superscripts 1 and 2, but when you click them, it does not take you to the letters. Need the topic to see, or is it incorrect to post links here? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestTexasDave (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia only accepts published material as sources. Personal correspondence is not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFSOURCE allows self published sources in some cases. If the article is about the university then the letters may be useable as sources however it may require the university to verify them with WP:ORTS. PhantomTech (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal correspondence isn't published at all - and letters concerning third parties (as is the case here - see the relevant edit [1]) wouldn't fall under WP:SELFSOURCE even if they were published. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We also have no way to verify that the letters are authentic. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're right, I didn't bother to look for the edit when I replied. Since it is about a third party, it wouldn't be usable as something that's self sourced but, since the university is the only place capable of verifying this information, it might be usable if it was verified. I think I remember someone somewhere being advised to use ORTS to verify unpublished information uploaded to commons for use as a source but I can't find that post and the closest thing I could find was removing BLP issues and granting image usage rights so I might be wrong. PhantomTech (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unified login[edit]

I have a unified login and I wish to know how to change the interface language for all wikipedias without change in each language. --Marce79 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marce79: This is unfortunately not possible. meta:Help:Unified login#What it doesn't change says: "It may be possible in the future to set global preferences.Bug 14950" PrimeHunter (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pic Insert[edit]

Can anyone tell me how to insert a photograph in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayazf (talk • contribs) 12:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See:

CiaPan (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed naughty or nice?[edit]

I'm watching a new user who first showed up on 10 March and made five edits, all rather trivial and low-profile, in one eight-minute cluster. Today (14 March) they are back and have made five more, similar edits in a five-minute grouping. And that's it, for now. I cannot help but notice that this user now has exactly ten edits over four days. No, I am not naming them here, of course. Yes, I am aware that there are a number of innocent explanations, including pure coincidence and a desire to become autoconfirmed with minimum effort in order to be able to edit usefully as soon as possible. Both fine. On the other hand I did wonder if there is something else going on... Is this a common behaviour, like a Known Thing That Happens? Do we have a name for it or any documentation? Obviously if they misbehave then, sure, they can be dealt with under whatever heading as vandals or spammers or whoever. That's not a problem. I am just interested in whether this is an unusual behaviour, or something that experienced editors are familiar with? I've not encountered it before, but then why would I? Thanks DBaK (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen that sort of behavior in accounts that go on to engage in some sort of bad-faith editing (vandalism, tendentiousness, sockpuppetry, whatever). But the action itself is not bad-faith, so the most I would recommend is keep an eye on them and give them a welcome message (for the same reason why shop clerks ask if you need help: they don't really care, they're just discouraging you from shoplifting by letting you know they're keeping an eye on you). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know of nothing in the Wikipedia cultural consciousness beyond the general Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Interesting comparison, Ian.thomson. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAME could definitely be used as justification to turn a couple of inappropriate actions (that we'd normally forgive in isolation) into a case that the editor is here in bad-faith, though the ten minor edits in four days still wouldn't mean anything by itself. I guess that year in retail hell wasn't totally wasted. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the OP's general question, without comment on this particular case. I think we're all agreed that there is no "there" there. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals, trolls, and POV-pushers have been known to create and archive 'sleeper' accounts (WP:SLEEPER) in order to evade blocks and bans, to edit (or edit war) through semi-protection, and to use as sockpuppets. If the edits suggest substantial previous Wikipedia experience (and their speed, as described, may prompt a raised eyebrow) then it's worth keeping a passive eye on, but I wouldn't get too worried. If they start doing something funny then they will attract scrutiny whether they are autoconfirmed or not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the discussion and advice. I think that wiki-culturally WP:GAME and WP:SLEEPER were the concepts I was groping towards. In terms of the particular user and their behaviour, no worries at present, but I will continue to keep an eye. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

find a recent article change[edit]

how do i identify the recent changes to the wiki article "Charleston, South Carolina" — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigFoot2002 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a History tab at the top of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking "View History" next to "Edit" and "Read" will show you a list of diffs ordered by when they were made. You can click on the "prev" link next to each diff to see the changes made by it, the "cur" link to compare the page after that diff to the current page or select two diffs with their radio buttons and click "Compare selected revisions" to see the differences between the page at those two times. PhantomTech (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See more at Help:Page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and if you want to directly search for when a particular word appeared, you can use WP:WIKIBLAME. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]