Help desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

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.

February 12

My post

Please be advised that I have entered a page for wikipedia and I got a message back saying it was promotional. I can't see where ut is promotional and would be happy to change it and resubmit it, but I need some direction as to what needs to be changed etc. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Melonie_Dodaro&oldid=342105862

Could you please advise me.

Thank you.

Melonie Dodaro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melonie Dodaro (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem is that you've written the article about yourself. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged because of the inherent problems with conflict of interest and bias. There is no indication that you are notable, i.e. important enough to deserve an article; if you were, chances were you would already have an article. Also, all information must cite a reliable source. Although you cite sources, they all appear to be self-published, unduly promotional, or otherwise unreliable. Xenon54 / talk / 01:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One qualification, this is a user page. It is acceptable to create a user page about yourself but it should relate to your Wikipedia activities and not be used as a free webhost to post a resumé, curriculum vitae or similar promotional activities. – ukexpat (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification to my qualification: if it is intended it as a user space draft, it will almost certainly be speedily deleted if moved to mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that being the author of a book by a vanity press is not a qualification of notability. Anybody can be published by a vanity press, notable or not. -- kainaw ™ 04:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Messed up" a page on accident

I was editing the "CD90" in an attempt to fix a spelling error ("peptie" should be "peptide") and I hit the back button while the save was being recorded. It simply deleted the word rather than fixing the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.93.210 (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check CD90 again. It looks fine to me. -- kainaw ™ 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kato

Dear sir: I searched wikipedia about Kato cranes but i did not find any yhing about this title please add some material for this case. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.240.130 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate question removed ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else has answered you, so I'll have a go. Wikipedia is entirely created by volunteers, who create the articles that they are interested in. Asking your question here might cause some editor to say "Yes, I'd like to write an article on that" - but there are other ways that are more likely. (Incidentally, an anonymous editor added Kato cranes to the disambiguation page Kato in 2008, but because the article has never been written, the link is red.) Here are some suggestions:

If you have some knowledge about the company (but not if you are associated with them, see WP:COI) you might consider writing the article yourself. Be aware, though, that it is not easy for a new editor to write an article which will last in Wikipedia: see WP:YFA.
You might put a message at Talk:Mobile crane asking if there is anybody there who would like to create this article.
You could put a request at WP:Requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia hangs on Monobook theme when clicking links (Firefox)

Occasionally when I click links on Wikipedia pages, it seems that it takes an extra second to recognize the click and go to the new page. This only happens on Monobook. Any ideas? Greenythebeast (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to post my first article without much success

I'm a newbie.

I've created an article and it's within the "my talk" section of my account, and edited and saved it a number of times, and I thought that once it's saved, it's automatically added to Wikipedia. But it doesn't show up in the search box when I type in the title. So obviously it isn't public, or at least I think that's the case. I clearly am doing something wrong. So how does it get moved out of ""my talk" and into a status so others can read it and find it when searching? Any help will be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deejayscribe (talk • contribs) 07:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Deejayscribe (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to physically put the article in wikipedia, you cant just put it in your talk space or it will stay in your talk space. For simplicities sake, you can simply copy the article to this page, but you'll have to search for and create articles on your own in the future. Happy to help :) User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 08:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page "User talk:Deejayscribe" (links | delete) has been moved to "Alec Lorimore" at your request. I did not create a redirect, as you will want a talk page to be available for actual messages. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help moving a page

Resolved

– Article moved, redirect deleted as typo -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just registered, and as such I'm not able to move pages yet. Could someone move Hear Full of Black (Song) to Heart Full of Black (Song)? Thank you very much. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it for you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 08:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it again to Heart Full of Black (song). Disambiguations are not capitalized. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That banner on top

That banner on top Wikipedia is suddenly nothing but grey! You know, the one which displays things like global sysop proposals and all that. Is it intentional? 113.253.206.192 (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it should be completely clear, both MediaWiki:anonnotice and MediaWiki:sitenotice are empty. Try purging this page, and then see what happens: click to purge. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it was there all night yesterday but then it's gone now. :) Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 03:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOW DO I PROTECT a new ARTICLE on a new topic FROM overzealous nonspecific Administrator VANDALISM? The administrator does not reply on the talk page

Resolved

– At least in this forum. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Market 15:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Emily Margaret perry AustinBull Market 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting here because an administrator vandalized my article. The below describes what happened--

Basically, I posted part of the article, it was up a few seconds, and then an "administrator" wrote that I vandalized!

(It was a new article on a new topic on Stephen F. Austin's sister, who was herself one of the founders of Texas.)

Then I posted to the talk page of the administrator and nothing then happened.

I am terrified of doing more work on this article and being wiped out again by an overzealous police force.

What do I do?

Below is the pertinent part of my post to the talk page of the so-called administrator named PMDrive1061...

Any help to protect this article from attack is appreciated.Bull Market 15:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bull Market 15:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear PMDrive1061: I had been working on the Emily Margaret Perry/ Emily Margaret Brown Austin page for a few days on Microsoft Word, and literally seconds after posting anything on this new page, you decided to delete the page claiming 03:40, 12 February 2010 PMDrive1061 (talk | contribs) deleted "Emily Austin Perry" ‎ (G3: Vandalism) No contacting me, no writing a note. Just delete it and type "Vandalism". Did you stop to look at whether there was anything here before? Like when pioneer Emily Perry arrived in Jones Creek, TX, when I arrived at this page, there was nothing written. What possible vandalism could I have caused. I was in the Wikipedia wilderness and you told me I had cut down the trees. But it was tundra and there were no trees other than those that I was planting and that you summarily mowed down.

It is the good farmer who removes the weeds, leaving the flora behind. You uprooted the whole garden.

This reminds me of the police officer who uses unnecessary force on law abiding citizens who mind their own business, claiming they did it to prevent the citizens from potentially vandalizing. As direct as I am here, I'm new and you are very experienced and an award recipient many times over. I'm sure you had a good intention. I wuldl sure like to hear from you, though.

Bull Market —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Bull Market Signs this here BM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

Hi Bull Market. PMDrive1061's contributions show that s/he hasn't edited on Wikipedia since you posted on his/her talk page. All our admins are volunteers and few of them are present on Wikipedia 24/7. I expect s/he just hasn't seen your message yet. I can't see the deleted article so I don't know what might have led to the vandalism tag: it may have been a simple mistake. You did the right thing in contacting the deleting admin, so the next step is just patience. Give PMDrive1061 a little longer to respond, remember to assume good faith of our volunteer editors and admins, and I am sure a solution can be found.

If after some time you've still had no response your next port of call is deletion review, where others will give their input into the rationale of the deletion. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I see you've changed the title of your post: I know you're upset, but please try to assume good faith of other users rather than accusing them of vandalism. You've just found out for yourself how upsetting it can be to have others describe your efforts as vandalism, and you're likely to get a much better outcome if you put your question civilly. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted. For non-Admins, here was the content:

Emily Austin

Emily Perry

Emily Austin Perry

Emily Margaret Austin

Emily Margaret Brown Austin

Emily Margaret Austin Perry

To Bull Market, I can see why someone might think it looks like vandalism. It has no meaningful content, just a name repeated in various forms. It certainly isn't yet an article by our standards. What I suggest you do is read Wikipedia:Your first article and create an article in your own user space. If you have any problems, ask here again.

A couple of other tips. Never leave personal information in an edit, eg phone numbers, email addresses. And please sign with 4 tildes, like this ~~~~ , you don't have to manually sign and signing like that makes a link to your talk page, etc. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Administrators are volunteers like other editors and have other things in their life, for example working (for pay) and sleeping (at a time which may depend on their time zone). You posted to User talk:PMDrive1061 only 11 hours ago and the user had not edited since then when you came here. You created Emily Austin Perry with a list of 6 variations of the name and no other content. That is not a meaningful article and many vandals create meaningless pages like that so the creation was mistaken for vandalism. Otherwise it could have been deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3 (no content other than a rephrasing of the title). You can work on an article draft at a user subpage like User:Bull Market/Sandbox. When it has real content you can create an article. See Wikipedia:Your first article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or try the revamped article creation wizard. Also, please assume good faith. – ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's 7:32 AM here in California and I just checked my talk page to find this person's note. I've left polite word on his/her talk page. Thanks for the support, all. Hopefully, misunderstandings like this won't happen again with this user. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all. I've left a reply to the note. Hopefully misunderstandings will not happen again with this editor.Bull Market 17:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Market (talk • contribs)

Edit Frequency (repost)

What is the ideal length of time a account has to be actively editing to be eligible for Adminship, as I am interested to know. Also what would be considered as an inactive account. Thanks Paul 2387 16:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also could someone give me a list of things to look for when deciding wether to Support or Oppose a Rfa/Rfb. Paul 2387 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links on the Rfa page would be a good place to start. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, an account should be active for at least a year before considering standing for adminship. This page also has a list of what !voters look for in a candidate. However, the more you make adminship your goal, the less likely it is to happen. "Trophy-hunting", as it were, it somewhat frowned upon. The goal at Wikipedia is to make a good encyclopedia, not hold adminship tools. TN X Man 15:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also edited the section title to differentiate between the earlier post and this one. TN X Man 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see on your userpage you say that you would like to "become an admin and do some maintenance work". It's good that you're willing to help out. There's a lot of maintenance to be done around here and most of it does not need admin tools. See Wikipedia:Maintenance if you're looking for more ideas. --Beloved Freak 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per to my questions above, I have rephrased them they are:

Which of these accounts would you say is eligible for Adminship based on activeness and which aren't?

1. An Account active less then a year

2. An Account Active for 1-2 years

3. An Account Active for more then 2 years

Thanks Paul 2387 16:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an indication of what I look for, see User:Phantomsteve/RfA standards - I don't think I am too far away from the 'average' editor in what I look for. Other people have their own standards of what they are looking for (see here for some examples. There are no fixed "rules" as such, and someone could have been editing for less than a year and succeed, if they show the right variety of edits. Someone could have been editing for 5 years and not succeed. Time is not the prime consideration (although obviously someone with only a few months is highly unlikely to succeed). I hope this helps. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Rollback?

I've requested permission a few weeks ago, and failed. A couple of days ago I was editing an old revision of Super Bowl XLIV or what not. I then saw the "This is an old version of a page. If you edit it, all changes after it will be deleted" sign. Isn't that just like Rollback? Just go in to an older evision and make a constructive edit, and all the vandalisim afterward will be deleted. Get my point?

EXAMPLE: (Keep on clicking Next contribution). [[1]]

So, why do we have rollback? From what I see, the feature above already takes care of it. Any explanations?

Buggie111 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The method you described can be used to manually undo changes. Rollback is just a faster way of making reversions. As it says at the top of Wikipedia:Rollback feature, "The rollback feature is a fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense." It is not the only way to revert edits. More ways are described at Help:Reverting. --Mysdaao ^talk 19:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, rollback gives users access to WP:HUGGLE, which cannot be used without it. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback feature does not ask for any confirmation of the action - it instantly restores the prior version, with no preview of the changes - hence it is quick, but slightly 'dangerous', and thus restricted to more experienced users. Smappy (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I think you've tried to do - and correct me if I'm wrong - but it seems you've checked the page history and clicked on one of the dates, and then clicked on the "edit this page" tab, where it gave you that message. That is to say, if you were to save the page you would have manually reverted whatever changes occured after that edit. It's actually doing the same thing as if you were to rollback an edit or a group of edits - in fact, the only thing about rollback that makes it unique from other forms of reverting vandalism is that it's faster, and automatically reverts all the consecutive edits of a single user. There is a drawbacks, though - rollback is a tool that needs to be used with caution; it's easy to accidentally revert a positive edit or multiple good edits entirely by mistake. That's why rollback is typically given to experienced vandal fighters, and why it can be revoked if it is found to have been misused. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI COMPLAINT AGAINST AN EDITOR

Hi I want to find out who I can complain to about one of your editors. I have tried to add factual and historical data to one of your entries and he keeps deleting it The events took place over 30 years ago and I was integrally involved in these events

Lynton Kosis <blanked> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondigold (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first step to dispute resolution is to discuss the issue with the other editor. Who is the other editor and what is the issue concerning? TN X Man 19:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the No Original Research policy. Wikipedia has no mechanism to tie an editor's user name to the person's name in real life, and no way to determine what qualifications the editor has. Thus there is no way to verify that a Wikipedia editor was even alive 30 years ago, much less that he or she was involved in a certain set of events. Thus, any information added to Wikipedia articles must be verifiable by reading, listening to, or watching reliable sources such as books, journals, professionally published videos, etc. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors concerned (for there are more than one) have left their reasons in the edit summary each time they have reverted; and they have also left messages on your personal talk page, which is located at User talk:Bondigold. I note that you have not responded either on that talk page (which is the best place to respond), nor on the talk pages of the editors who left the messages (which is the next-best place).

Many of the aforementioned edit summaries and messages contain links to help pages, policy documents etc., which it is a good idea to be familiar with. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also seem to be under the impression that your edits are being reverted by some member of staff, who has a supervisor to whom they are responsible. Wikipedia is a collaborative project whose articles can usually be edited by anyone, including you, with policies and guidelines to help us all determine what can be included and in what form. There's no official editorial team - your edits have been reverted by other users because they don't comply with the guidelines. There are mechanisms for complaining about other editors' behaviour, and some sanctions that can be used, but your own edits are in breach of policy here, not theirs, which is why you have already received one short-term block.

I do understand that it's frustrating when you edit in good faith and your edits are reverted. You may well have much to contribute, and I hope you do, but first, please familiarise yourself with the way users communicate with each other here. Read the comments above carefully and follow the blue links in them, then do the same with the messages that have been left for you on your talk page. People are trying to help you understand how to contribute successfully here, if you let them. Ka renjc 11:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing title of article

I've written a page on my father but erroneously left out a punctuation mark (it comes up as D Sudhaker Rao, and I'd like it to come up as D. Sudhaker Rao) can I change this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanwada76 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before we worry about the article's title, you need to read WP:BIO - at the moment the article does not demonstrate, with reliable sources, how or why the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines that term. You should also read WP:COI as you clearly have a conflict of interest. The article also reads like a resumé or curriculum vitae - the tone is not appropriate for Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page per Dhanwada76's request and added some tags to express the above concerns. Supertouch (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]