Help desk
< January 26	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 28 >

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.

January 27

Disambiguation

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article McCrone report and would like to disambiguate it from the article McCrone agreement. I know there are pages explaining the process but I'm either too tired or too dumb to figure it out. Any help would be appreciated. Jack forbes (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that in this case a headnote would suffice—something like {{about|the report on Scottish independence|the agreement involving Scottish teachers' working conditions|McCrone agreement}}, which would produce

You could also put a corresponding headnote at the top of McCrone agreement. Deor (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia be edited?

I am from wyoming. I work in a school. Our teachers won't let students use wikipedia because it can be edited. So is it true that your pages can be edited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.73.35 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are some that are protected from editing because of vandalism, but most of the pages can be edited. Some teachers don't want pupils to use Wikipedia for their course work, as you don't know if a specific article has been vandalised or not (although the vast majority of vandalism is very quickly caught and undone!). My advice to students is to use Wikipedia as a first source - a good article will have a list of references and sources of information (some also have further reading) - use those for more information - those are the sources which a teacher is more likely to accept, especially if they are from a printed book which you can find in a library. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is freely editable - you just edited this page to ask this question. But it's really a nonproblem. In general, students shouldn't be using Wikipedia, or any tertiary source for that matter, as a basis for any serious schoolwork. Any encyclopaedia, Wikipedia included, should be used at most to kickstart research for primary and secondary sources. Many teachers simply ban Wikipedia because they negatively perceive the open nature of this site, when they should ban all encyclopaedias. Xenon54 / talk / 02:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way. When your teacher assigns you a research assignment, they want you to create a report paper about your topic. You are expected to research good sources about your topic, and write a summary of what you learned, citing the sources you got it from. So, the dilly is this: Wikipedia is basically a collection of research papers! So isn't every single encyclopedia written. That's all an encyclopedia is, just a collection of topical research papers. You teacher doesn't want you to use Wikipedia because that means your simply reading other research papers to write your own. Seems silly, right? Its like reading your classmates research paper and then writing yours based on his. Instead, your teacher wants you to go to the places where the people that wrote Wikipedia went to when they were writing THEIR papers. Find the books, journals, etc. used at Wikipedia articles and USE THOSE to write your paper! --Jayron32 04:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good advice guys but, I don't think the ip is a student. He/she says they work in a school. Jack forbes (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, Jack... that's why my reply was not written to a student! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Phantomsteve. It was a late night and tiredness can make things a wee bit blurry. :) Jack forbes (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say they said the poster was a student. You only said you didn't think the poster was a student. It is not clear how much we can read into your use of the word "but". --Teratornis (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling edits

According to Special:ListGroupRights, autoconfirmed or confirmed users can mark edits as patrolled. How do you do this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:NewPages. When you click on a page that has not been patrolled (highlighted in orange), you will see a link in the bottom right corner of the new article that says "Mark this page as patrolled". TN X Man 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My posting was called vandalism

I tried to post an update to a page I am a fan of. The edit was deleted and I was told it appeared to vandalism. There as a link to"talk" to the user who removed my edit. I tried the link but must say even though I have been a profession in the computer industry for over thirty years and am familiar with most systems I bump into, I could not figure out who to accomplish the simple task of conversing with the user who was removing the edit I was posting.

I understand some content is "protected" I did not have any idea it was at a level this deep. If my post is disputable, there ought to be a mechanism for even the most rudimentary discussion on the dispute. Did I miss something?

By the way the edit was on the Author Diana Gabaldon's page. I am a big fan. I own all of the books she wrote on her first series and loved them. When I saw her new series, I wasn't sure but figured I would give it a try. I was disgusted by the complete switch from a writing style that was romantic and perhaps more graphic than I cared for to a style that was suddenly focusing the theme of the book on a gay Soldier having graphic sex with his step-brother. As a fan,if I had read that comment, I would have saved myself the money, time and the experience of trying to find my way through the book hoping it was just a brief part of some key to a bigger story.

I realize my opinions are not politically correct, but I was careful not to be either mean spirited, vulgar or offensive in any way. Unless my thought are offensive. If that is the case, free speech and tolerance are dead, and wikiapedia is the shovel being used to bury them. I do hope I am mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1qaz1qaz1qaz (talk • contribs) 06:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions on discussing a matter of dispute can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. However, your content was, in fact, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia only publishes neutral content. That is the content that can be backed up by reliable, secondary sources. An editor's personal opinions or observations are not permitted in an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was harsh of User:Love dance of scorpions to describe your edits as 'vandalism': I think he/she is breaking the Wikipedia guideline "assume good faith". But there is no doubt that your edits did not meet Wikipedia's requirements, specifically they were not neutral, and they were not backed up by reliable sources. If you think that there is something more at stake than your personal opinion, I urge you to begin a discussion at Talk:Diana Gabaldon (pick the '+' at the top to start a new section, and give it a suitable title: then you can reach agreement with other editors over how the issue should be resolved. Remember to sign your post on talk pages by ~~~~.

You could have begun a discussion with Love dance of scorpions the same way: pick the 'history' tab at the top of Diana Gabaldon, find an edit by that user, and pick the 'talk' next to their name. That will take you to the user's talk page, and you can begin a new section by picking '+'. --ColinFine (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Colin, the tab to click at the top would be labelled "new section". You see a "+" because you enabled a gadget to make it look smaller. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, perhaps you are correct, but I do believe that while my edits may have reflected my perspective they were in fact factual and descriptive of the new series. The author in famous for her first series which was based on a concept of romance and time travel. Her fans would assume that she was writing in that genre. The fact is her new series is follows a new theme. I have seen a number of Wikipedia entries that detail authors series content and found the information very helpful. I suppose if I wrote the edit in a blander style, it would have been fine by Wikipedia standards. However, I don't think any edit I posted would have been accepted. That is in my mind unacceptable. Wikipedia's strength is the community.

Thanks also for the tip on signing posts with ~~~~ 1qaz1qaz1qaz (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you block a comment that is written about you on a page that you haven't created?

Please can someone get back to me.

Taritam (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can just edit the article. Alternatively, if we know what article it is, we can do it. If the comment reveals personal information which you want to have permanently removed both from the page and from the page history, email this address giving the details of the page and if possible (using the page's history) the date/time the comments were added. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Resolved

– Article has been speedily deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys! I've created the Joe Ontario page but I made a mistake since the http link was wrong... so I deleted the wrong page (Joe ontario) and recreated a new one: Joe Ontario... now the problem is that when I openthe new page it tells me that I wanted to delete it!!! And I don't know how to fix it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theraf90 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the "page history" tab at the top of Joe Ontario, you will see it has been nominated for speedy deletion by another user, on the grounds that it does not sufficiently assert how Joe Ontario is notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. This is probably because your article has no references or citations to back up the facts in it. It is also slightly promotional in tone, and needs rewriting in more neutral and factual language.

Please don't remove the speedy deletion tag. If you want to challenge the speedy deletion nomination, follow the instructions on the tag, place a {{hangon}} tag on the article, and explain the reasons why you feel the article should be kept. You will also need to find some credible references to add to the article soon, otherwise it may well be deleted anyway. If you are sure Joe Ontario is notable enough for Wikipedia, it would be a good idea to cut and paste the contents of the article into an off-wiki document in case it does get deleted. However, if this happens, please DO NOT recreate the article in its currrent form. Instead, paste it into a sandbox in your user space. You can create a user sandbox by clicking on this link: User:Theraf90/Sandbox, typing in the space and saving the page. You can then work on improving the article without the danger of it being nominated for deletion in this way. Regards, Ka renjc 12:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I stop someone abusing and deleting entries

As a members of a politcal group, we have added ourselves and a link to our website in the Puntland page. Someone keeps on deleting the entry of Puntland Independence Movement in the politics section of Puntland page.

I do not know how to stop this person. It is as if the person wants to abuse the page or he may be from a unionist political group who oppose our political ideals.

Please inform me how I could stop this, How do I request the attention of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa1371 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, your edits to the page were removed due to original research and verifiability concerns and not in an attempt to "abuse", when information is added to Wikipedia it needs to be sourced, however, you are strongly discouraged from editing articles with which you are affiliated with the subject thereof as there is a possibility you will have a conflict of interest. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please read WP:COI. You have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from editing material to do with your political movement. If you do edit such material your edits must be entirely factual and written from a neutral point of view.

The material about the Puntland Independence Movement seems to have been removed from the Puntland article because it does not meet Wikipedia's criterion of verifiability. This is because your only source for the material is a link to a website which appears to be published by the group itself, which is not a reliable source. Material that is not verifiable may be removed by any user at any time. The Puntland Independence Movement material needs references from reliable third-party sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles or other published information (not self-published) about the group, and this also applies to the Puntland Independence Movement article, which also lacks such sources. Find the references, and try discussing further changes on the article's talk page. Ka renjc 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search, including Google's news archive. Nothing except Wikipedia and mirrors of Wikipedia. I've therefore taken the PIM article to AfD and once again removed the material from our Puntland article. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what query Doug used, but this google news query suggests the movement is real, but the capitalization of the name is suspect. LeadSongDog come howl 14:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put "Puntland Independence Movement" (including the quotation marks) into Google's news archives, I think you'll get nothing. Some of the articles from your search seem to mention movements, etc, eg [1], but are they the same organisation as the one in question? Other articles seem irrelevant entirely. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from other hardware

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this already at the village pump, but I did not get a good answer (no offence, whoever you were). I'm wondering on how to edit from a DS, as it would be much more simple than having me holed up in a computer chair. Thanks,

Buggie111 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a DS? --ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if so there is a Nintendo DS Browser version of Opera that's reported to be able to browse WP, but I can't believe that it would be usable for editing in Wikipedia, there's just too little screen space available. LeadSongDog come howl 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a Nintendo DS. Ok, thanks.

Buggie111 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd-looking citations

I wonder if someone could take a look at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The most recent edit added six in-line citations, but in a form that created a second list of numbered footnotes in the References section. The additions are fine, but it also has meant the citations appear as ^[CAST] in each case. I've never seen this "look" before but it seems a little odd. Thanks. RadioBroadcast (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it may look strange, it is perfectly valid on Wikipedia! However, I have put the publication details in a new "Sources" section after the refs, and incorporated the CAST refs into the main ref list. I know many editors prefer this format. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Phantom Steve!RadioBroadcast (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the references for CAST were specifically after the CAST external source, which seems to make sense, under what conditions would it make sense to actually do reference groups, if not there?Naraht (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How?

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How I do? I've created my page yesterday: MIKEREADfr and that's give me a new page on fr:wp ahem, MIKEREADfr; in fact's I've got my own page MIKEREAD and MIKEREADfr now also on fr:wp. It was a few moment, I've change my password, to give the same expexting that will be clearest as usual: MIKEREADfr here and MIKEREAD on fr:wp ... How I do now, it doesn't work. Thank's--MIKEREADfr (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) finally I' asked to renown my account here as "miguel nocte"--MIKEREADfr (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page (User:MIKEREADfr) is blank, and your talk page (User talk:MIKEREADfr) just has the words "Well well". Your French Wikipedia user page (fr:Utilisateur:MIKEREADfr) does not exist, and your French Wikipedia user talk page (fr:Discussion utilisateur:MIKEREADfr) contains a welcome message, and another message which is about changing your username (I think! My French isn't great!) They suggested asking at the French Wikipedia Bureaucrat Noticeboard (fr:Wikipédia:BB). However, we can't give advice about using the French Wikipedia. You might want to ask your question at the French Wikipedia's Help Desk which is here if you don't want to ask at the 'crat board. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To rename your account, go to WP:CHU -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank' a lot Phantomsteve, brrrr...(french!)--MIKEREADfr (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

I found an article that seems to have no categories: Selective school.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know - I have added it quickly to a couple of categories. In future, to add an article to a category, edit it and at the bottom, add [[Category:category-name]] and then save it. Many articles are not in categories, especially if they are relatively new. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use HotCat, available as a gadget from the gadgets tab of your user preferences, or by adding the installation script to your .js file. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

band leader

Resolved

– – ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki -- I am very much a newbie - want to get my band - Harmonious Wail www.wail.com onto Wikipedia -- can I do this or do I need someone else to start the process? thanks -- <e-mail redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmonious wail (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - please take a look at WP:BAND and WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote your band. May I suggest some other sites, such as www.myspace.com or www.facebook.com? They both are more suited to your purposes. Wikipedia does contain properly written encylopedia articles about notable bands, but it is not advertising those bands in any way. --Jayron32 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a citation link in a list of notes

I wish to repair a broken citation link in the article "John F. Kennedy assassination," but the HTML source for the Notes section of that article says only {{reflist|2}} and does not include the actual citations. How can I make the repair? Thanks. Rl1rl1 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To edit the reference, you'll need to find the corresponding superscript number in the article and edit that section. The reference is located between a <ref> tag and a </ref> tag. TN X Man 19:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]