Help desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 2[edit]

request edit of page about me: Richard Crasta[edit]

Hello, I have left a note on the "Talk" page requesting an edit of the article about me. To make it easy, here are the specific sentences I would like removed, because they convey an incorrect total picture of me in such a short article:

1. Delete line from 3rd paragraph: Although he considers himself an open-minded agnostic, some writers attacked his first novel as anti-Christian; Crasta responds that he has been deeply influenced by fundamental Christian principles, which remain with him.

2. Delete: Ever since the age of 16, he knew he had a novel to write, but felt he was too poor to afford clean white paper.[6] (reason: comic statement quoted out of context as if serious.)

3. Delete: Entire section on "philosophical views", which I disown as distorted, incomplete picture of the real me, given the diversity of my work. The only sentence I accept as correctly representing me in that section is: Ideologically, Crasta describes himself as "a profound, all-round sceptic whose religion is literature, laughter, and love". He states that his beliefs are diverse and that these cannot be lumped into any single brand of philosophy.

4. Delete (from Para 3 of "Early Life and Education"): He later served in the IAS for 13 years.[1] (Reason: wrong. Just worked for 4 more months as Joint Director of Industries (SSI), Karnataka. Actually worked in the IAS for a total of 56 months.)

5. Correction: In 2008, he published "The Killing of an Author", a literary and publishing autobiography. He has recently published a few other books as digital books on Amazon and other platforms, and one book as a paperback on Amazon Createspace, and is working on seven books in progress. should be: In 2008, he published [The Killing of an Author[ital], a literary and publishing autobiography and critique of the publishing industry. He has recently published a few other books as digital books on Amazon and other platforms, and a few books as paperbacks on Amazon Createspace and Lulu, and is working on seven books in progress.

Thank you.Richardjcrasta (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Richard Crasta, April 2 2016[reply]

I did 1, 2, & 4. No opinion of the other two requests. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot issue?[edit]

Today was the third time in the last 15-20 days that I've noticed the bot hasn't added a L-1 header for the date. Is this a bot issue? And if so, where's the best place to report it? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If something need to be reported, then most probably at bot owner's talk page here. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a user to read their talk page?[edit]

...or take notice of any kind of communication attempt? I'm becoming a little weary of cleaning up after an editor of clearly good faith but minuscule clue who keeps adding probably correct but always unsourced information to species articles. I've been gazing upon their works and despairing for a month now, and neither mass reverts with explicit edit summaries nor repeated talk page requests seem to have any effect. I believe they are not aware that they have a talk page, do not revisit previously edited articles and do not use their watch list. So how does one get into communication with such a user? I'm not aware of any mechanism exceeding the lil' alert icon on top of the screen. And I don't think they should go through their tenure at WP having to be constantly cleaned up after and having 75% of their stuff reverted (or, as just happened, speedied as a hoax b/c it was unsourced)... -- Elmidae (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, if an issue persists despite talk page messages - despite handwritten messages, not templates, I've noticed time and again that templated messages are less effective than handwritten ones - you need to ask admin assistance at WP:ANI.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this problem before, and it was resolved at WP:ANI- when I went there, they gave them a final warning to communicate with others, and after that failed they were blocked indefinitely.

Good faith but not very competent and non-collaborative editors aren't good for the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this happen before too, for a user who made controversial edits over several months and never once left an edit summary or edited a talk page. Blocking was the only thing that got the user's attention. This is a collaborative project, and communication with other editors is required to make it work. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death notice posted on my page for March 29[edit]

Hi, Someone posted a death date for me on my page....when I discovered it I posted a disclaimer on April 1... The hacking horror is no longer there but I would like to find out who did this ....is that possible? Nick Catalano96.246.237.179 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can view all revisions of a page by visiting the history page of the article. Other than the IP address (if the edit was made anonymously) or the username of the account (if the edit was made by an account), the information you see is exactly what is available. If you still have concerns and wish to contact someone at Wikipedia, you need to do so by clicking here. This will direct you to the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team, who have the proper tools and training to verify your identity and assist you with your specific concerns. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was done 29 March by the IP address 198.105.45.134 in [1]. http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/198.105.45.134 says the IP address is registered to Pace University so my guess would be one of your students. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Mark Twain (I believe it was), the news of your death was greatly exaggerated!

~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filter out list of article based on my expertise[edit]

Hi,

Just want to know if there is any way i can filter out the list of article which requires my attention based on my expertise? I am looking for technology articles requires modification. As i am an engineer i can easily help in those article.

There might be a feature but i am not able to find it. Please help me in this regard.

Regards Vivekanand Gautam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekanand30 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Vivekanand. Three suggestions: (1) Join WikiProject Technology and work on the articles flagged up there. (2) Articles in the technology area are listed in Category:Technology and its sub-categories. (3) As you come across articles of interest, add them to your watchlist so that you can monitor changes to them: Noyster (talk), 20:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informational notes[edit]

What's the template for informational footnotes, as opposed to citations? I mean the ones whose tags you can specify as, e.g., a, A, 1, I, i. I'm a fairly experienced editor and I've used it, but I can't remember the name of the template, and as far as I can tell it's not mentioned on the doc or information pages for references and citations... which would be a very helpful set of places to cross-refer to it. Please {{Ping}} me in reply. --Thnidu (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think look at WP:EXPLNOTE, you use reflist groups with custom numbering crh23 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: I asked the same question a few weeks ago. Here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 25#What is the template to add notes in an article?. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro and Crh23: Thanks to both of you. When I've caught up on real work I'll add those See alsos, in one form or another. --Thnidu (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are quotation marks allowed or disallowed in Wikipedia article titles?[edit]

I had always thought that quotation marks were not "allowed" in a Wikipedia article title. I thought this was either a style policy or perhaps some limitation of the computer system. Today, I ran across an article with the title List of works with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" (which obviously employs quotation marks). So, what is the story here? Are they (quotation marks) allowed or disallowed in an article title for Wikipedia? Or has something changed with this issue in the recent past? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are thinking of Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format which says "Do not enclose titles in quotes", but there is no ban on quotation marks around part of the title. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? If that's the case, why are names of songs and names of short stories (just two examples) never listed with quotation marks, as they should properly be? I think I even tried correcting one (a while back) and I remember being told that I was unable to do so. I thought it was a computer limitation. Here's an example of a song title: Candle in the Wind (that really should have quotation marks, as all song titles properly should). Here's an example of a short story title: Pigs Is Pigs (that really should have quotation marks, as all short story titles properly should). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLEFORMAT says don't. But, it doesn't say why. Perhaps you can find a reason in that page's talk archives.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist the monk, PrimeHunter just quoted some text which says "Do not enclose titles in quotes". If you enclosed either of those titles in quotes, you would have enclosed a title in quotes, which it says not to do. The title you mention above is quite a different case: the title involves a specific string, and there is no reasonable way to express it without quotes. Whether or not a song title "should" be quoted is a matter of style, and different organs have different style rules. --ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. I quoted the same thing. I mentioned no titles so am at a loss to understand how the rest of your post applies to me.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: I think that ColinFine's post was addressed to me, not to you. Probably a typo from ColinFine. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Song titles are traditionally enclosed in quotation marks in prose partly to distinguish them from regular text. Compare:

"April in Paris" is lovely.
April in Paris is lovely.

The first is about a song; the second is about a particular city at a particular time of year.

But this problem doesn't arise in all contexts. Look at List of songs recorded by Frank Sinatra. The list is formatted as a table with three columns, headed "Song title", "Year(s) recorded", and "Songwriters". The titles have no quotation marks, because

they're unnecessary, and
spattered all through the column, they'd look like a cloud of mating flies

Similarly, in page titles that consist only of a song title there's no text to confuse it with. If there's a significant chance of confusing the song title with something else of the same name, it may be distinguished with a brief parenthesized description. Compare

and of course

Blue Moon (disambiguation)

Disclaimer: I'm no one special, just a long-time Wikipedia editor, career-long linguist (language researcher), and lifelong language geek. --Thnidu (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It (somewhat) makes sense. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Page: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chedi%27s) Has Been Deleted And There Is No Response From the Deleting Admin[edit]

Copy of your message to SuperMarioMan

Hi

The reason cited is G11. Did you need to provide an opportunity to the page creator to explain how it is actually compliant with G11?

Another Wikipedia reviewer earlier marked the page for speedy deletion because he believed the page contravenes A7. Enough reasons were provided to that reviewer how it complies with A7 in the talk page.

In the first place please provide me the page contents and talk page contents as it existed before deletion.

Secondly please guide if reasons for A7 have been considered and suitably disposed of. Please explain how. It appears strange that different rules are being applied to facilitate the page's deletion.

And thirdly please let me know how an iconic 24 hour coffee shop with so many references on the internet from notable persons, be unambiguous advertising. In 55 years that coffee shop didn't open franchisees because it was and remains dedicated to serving society. It has actually been doing social work for the past 55 years.

I will need to add. If hundreds of 24 hour coffee shops in Chicago or Colombo or elsewhere can have a Wikipedia page why not Chedi's? Have you considered deleting all those pages applying A7 and or G11 or another rule? Why not?

I wait for your reply.

Thanks

What do I need to do now?

Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthakurr (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Administrators reviewing speedy deletion requests are not bound by the reason that the nominator has provided. They can speedy delete an article based on any speedy deletion criteria that they find appropriate. Regarding the article itself I agree that it was written in obviously non-encyclopedic style and can be considered promotional. It also lacked reliable sources—facebook and blogs are not reliable! I can undelete and move it to your userspace if want to continue working on it. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: As is very often the case with pages deleted under G11, this was also an undiscovered copyright violation, in this case of multiple pages such as this, this and this (so of course it cannot be userfied). --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mthakurr. Please read WP:42. No subject in the universe "has a Wikipedia page" - Wikipedia has articles on subjects that are notable - which doesn't mean important, or popular, or famous, or influential, or significant, or iconic, or anything else other than "has been the subject of in-depth coverage by independent writers published in reliable places" (which doesn't include social media). It is also required that the article in question reference these sources (indeed, be almost entirely based on them, though without infringing their copyright) and be written in a neutral, non-promotional tone. It is entirely possible that some of those other hundreds of articles you refer to are not satisfactory: many of our five million articles are not of the highest quality. If so, the proper approach is to improve them, or delete them if they cannot be improved, not to admit further sub-standard articles. --ColinFine (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting administrator, I'd like to suggest to Mthakurr that patience is a virtue. Not everyone is on their email all the time.
Regarding the matter at hand, while I didn't think that CSD A7 was applicable, the article was very much promotionally written and therefore speedy-deletable under CSD G11. Also, as it turns out that the page was a copyright violation (thanks, Fuhghettaboutit), it cannot be restored or emailed to you.
As for your final point ("If hundreds of 24 hour coffee shops in Chicago or Colombo or elsewhere can have a Wikipedia page ..."), please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
You are welcome to start a new article provided that you 1) write in your own words, 2) write neutrally and 3) make a clear case for the notability of Chedi's. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 21:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with Wikipedia admins & reviewers finding different reasons to mark it for speedy deletion and then delete it (though it appears irrational) without considering the 12+ contests to deletion provided before it was actually deleted; and so I am okay with a copyright violation allegation as well. Please take some time to elaborate how this becomes a copyright violation when links to copyrighted pages are being explicitly provided and no claims to such copyrights are being made. Now can you please make the article and its contests to deletion and/or its talk page available? So I can see how best to move this page ahead.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Mthakurr, Copyright is a legal ban on any use, other than by the author(s) or their licensees, of any fixed artistic expression unique enough to be copyrighted in the first place. There are some exemptions to copyright's exclusive right, such as fair use (which is what allows us to use limited quotations, for example—marked as such with quote marks and cited to the source). Copyright is automatic – no notice is required; there are no formalities. A work is assumed fully non-free copyrighted in the absence of a public domain release or explicit association with a free copyright license. Copyrighted material cannot be used here under a one-time license. Rather, to be used here, other than under fair use, copyrighted material has to be released (into the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license). The page you posted, besides being unencyclopedic in content and tone, was filled with copyrighted, previously published material. If the person posting material here is its original author, there are processes for that person to release their copyright, thus making the use here okay. But that release process requires the author to demonstrate in a verifiable way that they are the owner, which would seemingly be very difficult here given the multiple sources and pseudonymous nature of the web postings. In any event, little of this material is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, so the effort to release it for use here, even were that possible, would be a great waste of your time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this be true, Wikipedia has hundreds if not thousands of such violations. Do you want me to list some for you? Or will that be insured by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Thanks for your time answering my questions. Looks like I am beginning to discover how Wikipedia operates practically. So far I used to trust it the way Google trusts it.

@Mthakurr:. Actually, I believe it's more like tens of thousands of such violations. We are drowning in casual copyright violations, and non-notable topics, and advertisements masking as articles. It's a shame, but inevitable given certain trends, policies and practices we've enshrined, and the misplaced reluctance to engage with proposed pragmatic methods for enforcement. Yes, do see WP:WAX. The fact we have lots of bad content is no valid basis to allow further bad content once focused upon or discovered—anymore than the condition of a park with no littering signs posted but nevertheless being shamefully covered in litter from uncaring litterbugs, would be a good basis to not stop people from further littering.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has DMCA refused to help you? There is Copyscape and cousins available for you to mass delete. Or have they licensed you to selectively delete without reading (and acting upon) the contests for deletion? I still fail to understand how copyrighted material outside quotes but linked to the original content become a copyright violation. I will need to investigate this deeper but I guess nominative fair use covers that and it becomes a violation only when you begin to claim it as your own. Again thanks for your time answering my questions.

Location of Ole Miss campus in Jackson, MS[edit]

I need the location of Ole Miss campus in Jackson, MS. Thank you.

Did you check their website? I found it very easily. Here: [2]. Way at the bottom of the page: University of Mississippi Medical Center, 2500 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39216. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a simple way to take an Excel spreadsheet and convert it into a Wikitable?[edit]

Is there a simple way to take an Excel spreadsheet and convert it into a Wikitable? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Help:Table#Converting spreadsheets and database tables to wikitable format. -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 20:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. When you click the link, it says "404 File Not Found". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Tools has a tool that will convert Excel files to WikiMedia tables. I found it by typing WP:EXCEL into the search box and the second result looked promising. Often typing "WP:" followed by a keyword will get you close to if not exactly what you want. Dismas|^(talk) 20:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'in character' images in BLPs[edit]

Hi, is it permissable to use an 'in character' image of an actor or actress in a BLP of that person? I'm sure what's just happened on this article is not allowed, but can someone advise me? I removed the images and suggested to the user that they should discuss the matter on the talk page before re-adding them, but was met with the "what part of Wikipedia says I can't do this?" response, and they were re-added. I've always been under the impression there are only specific circumstances in which such an instance would be allowed, such as if the person is deceased (which is not the case here), but guess I could be wrong. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@This is Paul: WP:NFCC and WP:NFC#UUI are two things you can point them to. It is a little tricky for actors and actresses since fair use does apply for articles on fictional characters. However, it does not apply for articles on living people as it is usually considered possible to get a free use image of a person if they are still alive. So confusion is normal but there is a big difference between a fictional person, where it is not possible to get a free use photo of them since they aren't real, and a living person. --Majora (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora:, thanks, I'll give it a go. This is Paul (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images may be used only if all ten of the non-free content criteria are met. Usually, pictures of a living person are not allowed because they don't satisfy criterion 1 "No free alternative": since in principle somebody could go and take another picture and donate it, you can't use a non-free picture. But this criterion doesn't necessarily apply to something ephemeral like an actor playing a particular character.

It seems to me that the criterion under which it might be challenged is 8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." But looking at the discussions in WP:Files for discussion, it seems to me that this use would like be accepted. I may be wrong, though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've posted to his talk page, and Traveling Man has removed the image from the infobox (I've taken care of the series promo one), so hopefully all's well that ends well. What I'd like to know though is why these things always seem to happen late at night, just before logging off time. :) This is Paul (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the renewable energy plants[edit]

Comparison of the renewable energy plants with fossil fuel plants over their complete life cycles This discussion is posted here to elicit information regarding the cost of renewable energy, so that there can be enlightened discussion based on available factual information including the uncertainties in these estimates. People who are very enthusiastic about renewable energy claim the cost of Wind, Solar and Phoo Voltaic cells are coming down fast and one day they will compete with enrgy from the fossil fuels. But people with opposite point of view and Climate Sceptics claim that it is untrue. My question is a more basic one. Are there any estimates available for the following. 1. Let us consider a solar energy panel installed on the roof of a house. Within its life time certain amount of energy is generated. How does it compare with the cost of the energy required toproduce that solar panel including Photovotaic cells,Aluminium and the enrgy required to produce that solar panel. Similar estimates for the Wind Energy Plants etc. If the energy required to produce these solar panels is much more than the entire energy produced by the panel in it life time,then the whole purpose is defeated in using these solar panels. Similarly people talk of the Electric Cars.Where does the electricity come from to charge these batteries? If they are coming from fossil fuels to that extent they will produce CO2. I wonder whether any systematic scientific studies done covering these facts. I will be interested in the publications that contain this information. §110.20.77.23 Ramaswami Sastry Vedam

Can the above article be posted in the community portal to attract a better response from others interested in this topic of the "Comparison of the renewable energy plants with fossil fuel plants over their complete life cycles" Ramaswami Sastry Vedam

Hello, Ramaswami Sastry Vedam. I'm not quite sure what you're asking about, but I'm pretty sure that this page is not the right place for it. This page is for questions about how to use (and especially, edit) Wikipedia. If you're asking about the content or layout of a particular article, that article's talk page is the right place for it. If you are asking for some information that you can't find in Wikipedia, then the reference desk is the best place. --ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]