Help desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 14

Making custom anchors show up in TOC

Hi, I was trying to make a custom anchor, made using {{anchor}} or {{section}}, show up in the TOC of an article. Alternatively, is there a template or way to make an invisible heading, which would accomplish approximately the same thing? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could use ==={{invisible|Section name}}=== if you want to make an invisible level 3 heading which would show up in the table of contents as x.1, x.2, x.3 etc but would not be visible in the body of the article. There is also Template:TOC limit, which might be useful for you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be possible to add Template:CompactTOC8 and use Template:Break in order for it to appear like a table of contents. This would mean however, that whenever someone adds a new section with a heading, that table would have to be updated manually. See the documentation of the CompactTOC8 template for some examples which might be useful for you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first suggestion with {{invisible}} is sort of what I'm looking for but is there a way to avoid having that big ugly space in between sections? See Capcom Five for what I mean. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a little ugly. Why do you want to hide those section headings anyway? – ukexpat (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to make section headings for each paragraph in that section so there would be a visual shorthand in the TOC for the members of the five, but it felt weird to have sub-sections consisting of a single paragraph. I suggested using anchors but I couldn't figure out how to place custom anchors that would appear in the TOC. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the section headings visible. All TOC entries should have a corresponding heading in the article. It's confusing otherwise. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

can someone give me persoanla help with uploading Lenny Willams image to his wikipedia page. i have uploading the pictures but they are not showing on his wikipedia profile home page Lenny_singig.jpg‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debwms59 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shows now. Many infoboxes add their own image formatting so the image parameter should only be the file name. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS

Does anyone know the actual name of this page? I thought that it had once existed, but Wikipedia:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS is a red link, and as an admin, I can see that there's no deleted history. Early in Wikipedia's history, there was a page with a title something like "VANDALISM IN PROGRESS" that people (for example, the Volunteer Fire Department) could use like WP:AIV is used today; the capital letters were to make it stand out more easily at Special:Recentchanges. I'm trying to find the name of this page, but WP:AIV has an absurdly long history due to the way it's used (far too long to try to find a page move), and the only capital-letter page that redirects to it, as one would expect the old name to do, is Wikipedia:CAPINYOASS, which definitely isn't it. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, any idea what "CAPINYOASS" might mean? Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cap (bullet) in your ass (arse for the Britishy-minded people). It's American street slang for shooting someone. --Jayron32 03:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specially shooting someone for "disrespect", real or perceived.--Cerejota (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, wikt:pop a cap in someone's ass. This is usually an escalation from slappin' someone upside their head.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I expected a quicker response on the page history issue than on the unusual redirect name :-) Thanks for the help on that side! Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for investigation#History. It was before my time but apparently it was indeed called VANDALISM IN PROGRESS in mainspace. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Anyway, there's a bit of a confused progression but here goes: there was a page at the name you thought, but it was not in the Wikipedia namespace; check out the logs for VANDALISM IN PROGRESS, here. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress existed and still does but it was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation in 2006, has a history that goes back to December 1, 2001! and if you look at the logs for that page you'll see there was a history merge with VANDALISM IN PROGRESS. By the way, a method for finding such a move of a page lime WP:AIV, as you thought might be the way here, is to first click on "earliest", which is an option given right above the "compare selected revisions" button. Then change the number of revisions you want to look at and you should see at the end of the resulting URL something like "&limit=500&action=history". Now change the 500 to 5000. (It may take a minute to load). Now use your computer's find function to search for "move", or whatever you'd like. Going out to 5,000 revisions speeds up this type of search greatly. I use it a lot when I'm trying to find something in the deletion log, and I don't know the exact name but I do know something relatively unique from it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just redirected wp:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS to wp:Administrator intervention against vandalism. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder it was in mainspace; in 2001, they didn't have namespaces: everything was either PageTitle or PageTitle/Talk (notice the CamelCase to enable linking, since they couldn't use brackets for FreeLinking). What's weird, however, is that the earliest deleted revision of VANDALISM IN PROGRESS (thanks to PrimeHunter for thinking of that) is a redirect to Wikipedia:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS that resulted when it was moved to that title, but I can't find that original revision, and the relevant section of the edit history for WP:RFI doesn't have any record of the move. I guess it's just an artifact of the poor way that our earliest history has been preserved. Thanks, everyone, for the help! Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Fibers

Can you please expalin me how dispersion increases with length of fiber ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineetha.koneru (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't! But if you ask at the Science reference desk, the volunteers there may be able to help you. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you should do your own homework? – ukexpat (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some eyes on a few things

Hi there. I could use some eyes on a few things, all of which are mildly suspicious, and all of which stem from the article Pyrography.

Pyrography clearly exists, however I can't find any reliable sources describing it, the article itself is a fusion of cleverly disguised advertisement and not at all disguised advertisement, and the gallery conflicts with the article on what is, or is now, Pyrography.
On the subject of the gallery, it seems like one giant clusterfuck of everything that can go wrong with galleries. File:Pirografia Leopardo.jpg was put in there so that the uploader could advertise himself, as were File:OTClarkQueenEsther.jpg and File:OTClarkCreationofMan.jpg. In total, I there are at least four uploaders whose sole contributions seem to be self promotion through the use of that article, five if you could the issue below.
Maybe its because I only have access to English sources, but I can't find a shred of evidence that Párvusz is notable. It seems like the article, and the gallery, were created by Párvusz for his own promotion.

I am personally in favor of nuking most of the images on both pages, Wikipedia does not exist to help nobody artists promote themselves. I'm also in favor of reducing the article to a stub, as between the fact that it's all unsourced and that there's a good deal of advertspam, the page is pretty useless. Anyone around want to either endorse this or talk some sense into me? Sven Manguard Wha? 08:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went on the IRC and was advised that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyrography was the best way forward. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Egypt

Am I the only person getting problems with articles containing the "Egyptian Dynasty list" box? It only happens in Firefox (6.0.2). An example is New Kingdom but I suspect all articles containing "Egyptian Dynasty list" are affected. The article appears blank apart from the info box and the "History of Egypt" and "Egyptian Dynasty list" boxes. When you show the "Egyptian Dynasty list" box, the text of the article appears within it! When I edit the article on a test-only basis and delete the "Egyptian Dynasty list" box, it works OK (apart from the missing box). AWhiteC (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some vandalism to the info box. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It was pretty effective vandalism: affecting many articles. AWhiteC (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the toolbox link for Related changes is your friend for this type of vandalism. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism ?

Can someone look at Mark Twain bibliography, looks like some kind of vandalism but I have not got the brain power to work out what needs revoking... GrahamHardy (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which problem do you see? People can see different things on a page for a number of reasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the page history over the last 2 days. There has been substantial rearrangement which is hard to decipher using the diff view. It seems that the 'Other writings' section has been mostly merged into the other sections or removed. But I agree it's difficult to work out exactly what's gone on with the large IP edit rearrangements and then the reverts Jebus989 ^✰ 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt GrahamHardy was referring to that. It doesn't look like vandalism and his post sounded like the article page itself looked wrong in an odd way. The recent edit summary "self-revert...not sure what's going on here" [1] also sounds like there was some sort of rendering problem. It may have gone away by itself but it's hard to tell when nothing was said about the perceived problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw lots of major changes made without edit-summary and that did not make obvious sense in the diff, so I reverted (assuming the unstated weird thing the OP saw that we're all trying to figure out was that). But then I looked more deeply and spot-checked some links and the edits were not blatantly bad, so I reverted figuring "not vandalism and I really don't know what I'm trying to cure anyway". DMacks (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was the reduction in size from 7K to 4.6K... GrahamHardy (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP reorganized the bibliography but didn't vandalize. The last edit also removed some posthumous publications. Maybe this can be discussed but I don't know the subject well enough. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons Attribution

Can I add Creative Commons Attribution text to Wikipedia? 171.226.126.171 (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which version of creative commons the text is licensed under. Wikipedia uses CC-BY-SA 3.0 and more restrictive CC licenses would be disallowed. Furthermore, some text may be inappropriate for stylistic reasons even if they are under compatible licenses. --Jayron32 14:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't "Creative Commons Attribution" simply cc-by? And don't later versions of cc licenses specifically permit the use of earlier versions of cc licenses? I can't see a copyright-based reason for saying no. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not every creative commons license is compatable with Wikipedia. CC-BY-NC is specifically not compatable. --Jayron32 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? cc-by-nc is Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial; the question is about Creative Commons Attribution, which is simply cc-by, and thus acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter H Thomas

Hello, We made some edits to Peter H Thomas' wiki page and we're now seeing a warning/error message. Can you please advise how to correct these issues?

Thank you, Peter H Thomas

Roden16 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are links provided in the warnings, so please read those. Also, if you are indeed the subject of the article, you ought to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that you have a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The way you could have avoided these problems was by not making any edits to the Wikipedia article at all. --Jayron32 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I correct the page? After following your directions I now understand what not to do, but how do I now correct the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roden16 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issues is that the tone of the article is too much like a press release or a resume and too little like an encyclopedia article. The language is too flowery and isn't very neutrally worded. The problem is that you, because you are the subject of the article, appear to be unable to write about yourself in ways which are going to be in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you want to know what a good biography should read like, find another one, perhaps at Wikipedia:Featured articles and look at the style of writing. The style of what you have written shows no emotional detatchment from the subject. The key problem is that because you are the subject of the article, it may be very difficult for you to have that emotional detachment from yourself. You will tend to overemphasize qualities over facts, tend to ignore the bad and overemphasize the good. It is natural to do so. That's why we ask people to not write about subjects they have a vested interest in, such as themselves. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more. --Jayron32 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing For Biographies of Living Persons

In general, is an internet link to a video of the person in questions speaking about themselves sufficiently reliable for inclusion as a reference for a quotation about that person in a BLP article? That is, suppose Person X says "I like eat red crayons with breakfast." in a video on MTV.com; if one were to include the quotation "I like to eat red crayons with breakfast" in the wikipedia article for Person X, would a link to that video be a sufficiently reliable source? Please be elaborate in your responses, as I am somewhat confused when I compare our policy pages on the subject with what is done in practice on some of our pages.KlappCK (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, is the video in question legit? There are impersonators, satire sites, etc. out there, and some good imitators. Also, is the link to a copyright-respecting location, not to a bootleg or YouTube upload of copyrighted material? Is the wording clear enough that you can rely on what you think you hear them say? (Official transcripts are a blessing, but are too darned rare.) Question, also, whether the content is both unambiguous and encyclopedic: i.e., are they saying anything of note, and saying it in such a way that it can't be re- or mis-interpreted? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question states: "Polizzi has been outspoken about past [[urinary incontinence|incontinence]] issues. In the episode ''And The Wall Won'' of the fourth season of [[Jersey_Shore_(TV_series)|Jersey Shore]] she said "I don't give a fuck what you think about me. I peed my pants in public, I'm still not embarrassed."[http://www.mtv.com/shows/jersey_shore/season_4/episode.jhtml?episodeID=182352]" I reverted, stating it was "Trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources." If this out of context quote is used, perhaps she's trying to raise awareness of those who don't care what others think or showing support for the use of the word "fuck" or... whatever. We can mine any well known person's documented statements for comments we interpret as being noteworthy and meaningful. Following this, every president's article would be an endless transcription of everything they ever said and various editors' interpretations of the meaning of various sections. A reliance on independent reliable sources relieves this problem. If independent sources report on Polizzi's supposed outspokenness about urinary incontinence, we could report it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you being a little bit grandiose here? She said she has peed her pants in public, given the nature of the show, and her personality, it was probably related to drinking (as an aside, JWOWW, in fact, has popped a squat, as it were, on multiple occasions, on camera no less, during the first three seasons of the show, each time as a result of excessive drinking). If indeed drinking did play a role in Polizzi's accident, then it lines up well with our definiion of functional urinary incontinence. Insofar as both of these assertions are correct, I am merely stating facts when I gave context for the qoutation, and I even linked to the video where she says those things. KlappCK (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:UNDUE: this kind of junk has no place whatsoever in an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point seems to be not whether or not the quote was said, but whether it is better for a Wikipedia article to report the quote. Merely being true and verifiable is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to include some fact in an article. Wikipedia editors need to make editorial decisions about which true, verifiable facts to include in articles, and how to include them, or whether to leave them out, and such decisions are not based solely on if the fact in question is verifiable. --Jayron32 17:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being grandiose, I'm seeking to limit the inclusion of pointless details (and, in this case, expansive interpretations). From her twitter page, we can add that she loves NASCAR, often feels like Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, didn't get her tattoo to impress anyone, her favorite thing is popcorn, thinks green tea is (the) shit, etc. Thus, she "has been outspoken about" driving really fast, classic movies, body modification, disliking the raw food movement, believing Asians are into coprophagia, etc. No thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the importance of the content, that is fine (even though I disagree, I buy into WP:NPOV), as long as that is the reason given for reverting the edit. SummerPhD stating that they edits are "trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources (she's seen eating frequently, where's THAT discussion?)" and "Trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources" while failing to realize that they were apparently valid sources given the material, to me, is a classic example of counterproductivity, especially since I have been trying to follow the guidelines laid out in WP:POINT. Those explanations imply a different motivation for the reverts than is being given here. If the consensus is that the inclusion of that detail is inappropriate given the brevity of the page as whole, I can live with that, just don't confuse the issue by pointing at my sources, or with my word choice in framing the subject of my edit (multiple comments have been made of my choice to use the word "outspoken" by SummerPhD: as a rule, it would likely be more productive to suggest an alternative wording than to respond in the condescending manner that that editor has chosen). However, I would be interested in knowing under what circumstances the consensus would be to include such information in a BLP.KlappCK (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If and only if the information has become the topic of discussion in articles about the subject in notable venues. That's why I referred you to WP:UNDUE. In other words, if the articles about this person in TV Guide or Newsweek mention this information, then it might be relevant. If it's only the subject of some derision on blogs and webforums, then generally not. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support inclusion if the allegation were the subject of substantial secondary coverage in independent reliable sources. That is to say, if it can be shown to be A) verifiable and B) non-trivial. We may or may not be able to verify that various people and fictional characters have, at one time or another, peed outside, wet themselves and/or experienced a form of urinary incontinence. However, that verifiable fact must be written in a way that reflects the source and be relevant. "I don't give a fuck what you think about me. I peed my pants in public, I'm still not embarrassed." is NOT the same as being "outspoken about past incontinence issues." It isn't being "outspoken" nor is it "past incontinence issues". As no independent reliable sources have discussed this, it is trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike: That is fine with me. I did read the WP:UNDUE article. That is why I said I bought into WP:NPOV (the parent of WP:UNDUE). I will just have to wait until some other reputable source follows up on those events. Thank you for you help.

SummerPhD: As I have alluded to already, I clearly made a poor word choice. I was having a hard time trying to decide upon the proper to work the information into the article; now that we have had this discussion I can see why. You would be right to correct my prose under normal circumstances, even if core of my edit had been otherwise acceptable. My point was that you didn't address this in your revert or when you left a comment on my talk page. Unfortunately, the reasoning that you did give, although done in good faith, lead me in the wrong direction on how to prevent the problem in the future (hence this discussion). As an aside, pointing out my edit history as a negative runs the risk of coming off as argumentum ad hominem.

That said, I think we are done here. I feel like I've learned something too.;)KlappCK (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You learn something new every day, whether you want to or not. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 (album)

Hi all! I was fixing up some linkrot and came across this article... It has a review box under the professional reviews box which (for me) in Firefox 6.0.2 and Chrome 13 overlaps the Track listing template; a behaviour I've never seen before. Any ideas why?! Cheers, Nik thestoned 16:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine for me in Safari under Windows. The track listing sits nicely to the left of the boxes for me. I know that's not a very helpful answer for you, but it really seems to be a browser related issue. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does the same for me as the OP describes, though I don't know how to fix it. I'm using Safari on a Mac. Dismas|^(talk) 17:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fixed. Wifione ^Message 18:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this Wifione, unfortunately the fix didn't work for me. See screenshot. I have a widescreen monitor, if that helps... Nik thestoned 08:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article review

Backstory: The article for Jeff Dye is a redirect right now. Over the last year or so, several SPAs have tried to turn it into an unsourced biography.

In the last few days, I've been advising Kidnike03 (talk · contribs) on getting sources for a sourced biography to show notability of Dye. In the last few postings, Kidnike has admitted to being employed by Dye's management. They've been able to get a few sources and write a bio at User:Kidnike03/Jeff Dye. I'm not familiar with the article review process(es) and will be incredibly busy over the next week or so. So, can someone here take a look at the draft and deal with it appropriately or tell me what route I can take to have someone advise this user? I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 17:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some reformatting and clean up and it's probably ready for mainspace, just. Will need a friendly admin to move it over the current redirect... – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link for Senator

I was trying to research which Senator I have where I live, and in doing so, found a racial slur through a hyper-link. I had gotten to the page about Senator Gil Cedillo, and at the end of the first paragraph there is a link to show me where 45th District is. When I clicked on the link, it took me to a page about the racial slur "Wetback". Clearly, someone took their time to make this happen. I just hope this is resolved before he finds out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.228.194 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, and thank you for bringing it to our attention. ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:23, 15 Elul 5771 / 22:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please delete Scott Tatman

Hello,

I have changed my name due to safety concerns and I would prefer that the Scott Tatman article no longer be available on wikipedia. I have legally changed my name to Scott Deckard, but Scott Tatman still comes up when doing searches in google. Is it possible to delete Scott Tatman while keeping the Scott Deckard page I redirected it to?

Thanks,

Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitmancdrs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. ~~This appears to be a hoax.~~ In a single day you moved the article to various different names: [2], [3], [4]. The IMDB link still lists it under the original name [5]. ~~I am moving the article back.~~ Singularity42 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC) I am tagging the articles so an admin can make the move. Singularity42 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tatman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Original name of this article.
Scott Leander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) First renaming by the OP: [6]
Scott Lionel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Second renaming by the OP: [7]
Scott Deckard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Third renaming by the OP: [8]

Singularity42 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly the only interest of Hitmancdrs since account creation 4 years ago has been this low-notability article so he may well be the subject. Perhaps the repeated moves was an attempt to hide the original name. But Wikipedia content is based on reliable published sources and they appear to use the original name so it should also be the article name per WP:COMMONNAME. Your best chance to remove the name is probably to ask for deletion of the whole article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Deckard. Deletion is not guaranteed but a request from the subject carries extra weight in low-notability cases. If you have legal concerns as the subject then you can use an email address at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). PrimeHunter (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that I may have rushed to conclusions about the identity of the user. I have struck my comment regarding that above. Singularity42 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem right. A brand new user pops out of nowhere; moves a BLP to a number of different names; provides no reliable sources for any of the moves; and wants the original name deleted from Wikipedia. Shouldn't the user have to prove to Wikimedia or whatever that he is who he claims to be? For all you know he's just screwed with someone's bio and gotten away with it. That's not a good thing.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it all back to the original name. As PrimeHunter pointed out to the OP, he has to provide reliable sources that the person has changed their name, even if he is the subject of the article. Singularity42 (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a brand new user. He has been editing the article infrequently since February 2007. Until the moves yesterday it was a type of edits you often see from the subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]