Help desk
< October 5	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 7 >

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.

October 6

2017 in music

Can you start the 2017 in music article I think in 12 weeks will be a new year. 2600:8803:7A00:19:9D7E:13F1:A658:38BA (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, editors attempt not to include "individual items pre-assigned to future events as article titles," until and unless such events actually occur. So don't worry, the article will be created in good time, the closer we get to the year 2017. In the meanwhile, wish you the best experiences at Wikipedia. Lourdes 03:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Royds

Plesae fix up ref number 8 on this page - I have noticed that is faulty. Thank you Srbernadette (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srbernadette hello. Thanks for pointing out the error. You might also be interested in going through referencing for beginners. It will help you correct this reference error and future ones yourself too. I'm curious, so would be good if you could please confirm whether you are going to read the suggested reading or not. Have fun editing. Lourdes 03:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Eagleash (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've invented a thing.

I've invented a thing, and would like to create a page about it, but wiki won't let me because it says that I invented it. Is the only way to get a page up to have a friend of mine create the page about my invention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSoDave (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the only way to get a Wikipedia page about it is to have other people, who don't know you, discover your thing and then write extensively about the thing you invented, so that other people who also don't know you can research about your thing and write a Wikipedia article about your thing. As long as you, and/or any friends of yours, are involved in any of the writing about your thing, it will not have any article about it at Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 04:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SoSoDave, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of personal inventions that you or someone close to you may have invented. Wikipedia requires an article subject to attain a certain notability standard, before being included. If you believe your invention has been covered significantly by reliable sources, then some or the other editor may eventually create the article. Rather than creating the article yourself, you may find it better to request some other editor on Wikipedia to assess the notability of your article. You can do that at our requested articles page. And before you do anything else, be sure to read our conflict of interest guidelines. Hope all this helps you. If not, come back. Lourdes 04:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that unless the media or a journal writes about it, Wiki won't allow it. Correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSoDave (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The media runs Wikipedia

I've invented a thing, but the only way to get a wiki article about it is to make it so popular that lots of folks talk about it and write about it elsewhere. Which is nearly impossible without the media behind me. So, really, Wiki is only about what people already know a lot about, because the media has made those things popular. Does that about sum it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSoDave (talk • contribs) 04:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're an independent tertiary source based on journalistic and academic sources -- not a means of promotion. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The media" does not really talk about the Elamites, the Postcentral gyrus, the Liber Officium Spirituum, or Marcasite, but we've got articles on those. We don't have articles on whatever dress some celebrity wore this week or whatever distraction from politics is currently popular. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that unless the media or a journal writes about it, Wiki won't allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSoDave (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ==[reply]

Do you really think that Wiley-Blackwell, Brill Publishers, or Taylor & Francis are the same thing as The New York Times, Ars Technica, or The Christian Science Monitor? Or that those things are the same as Facebook or National Enquirer? You keep talking about "the media" as if it's one simple thing when it's far more complex than that. There's not some conspiracy to oppress you, it's just that no one besides you cares about that thing you made up.

Now, are you here for any other purpose than promoting that thing you made up and complaining about not being able to do so? If you want to work on the encyclopedia, there's plenty of people who would be glad to help you -- but if not here to help the encyclopedia be a tertiary source that represents the best possible selection of secondary sources out there, you need to find something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the companies that you mentioned has been used as source material for articles here, so for Wiki purposes, yes: They are the same. As for Facebook: If some new phrase or phenomena exploded onto Facebook and had tens of thousands of folks talking about it, posting pics, etc., it isn't worthy of a Wiki page until Brill or the Times or a local TV station decided to cover it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSoDave (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree with you, will you go away? Yes, Wikipedia is evil, run by The Media, and exists solely to destroy the world and crush the hopes of the small guy everywhere. Everything you say is correct. And you still don't get to write about your invention. --Jayron 32 19:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcasm doesn't enhance your case. But I suppose it's all you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSoDave (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Following the first paragraph in the Early Life section of this article - there is a problem with the link on the words Middleton relatives. Please remedy. Srbernadette (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Srbernadette: In this edit with the edit summary "link added", you tried to wikilink Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and "Middleton relatives". The line now reads

Her [[Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge|Middleton relatives] were reported as having played host to British Royalty "as long ago as 1926".

You can see that it's missing a closing bracket at the end. See Help:Link#Wikilinks. Please fix this yourself. - NQ (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srbernadette, can you please confirm if you have read the help pages linked by me and NQ? Please reply so we know you are reading our replies and are intent on learning editing over time. Lourdes 08:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I fixed up the mistake by myself - I am improving everytime I do editing Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Steve Bassett (disambiguation problem)

I need help in finding all of the articles on people named Steve Bassett. At Articles for Creation, I reviewed a draft Draft:Steve Bassett, and was told that Steve Bassett already exists. On viewing that page, I saw something peculiar, which is a disambiguation page that doesn’t have blue links. It lists three people named Steve Bassett, but none of them link to the articles. The page has apparently been defective in this way for four years, and has a history of edits, but evidently none of the editors realized what was wrong with it. How do I find these three people in order to make the disambiguation page do what it should do? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: (search results for intitle:Steve Bassett) shows the disamb page as the only one with the title Steve Bassett. The ones listed on the page do not have standalone articles as far as I can tell. - NQ (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So presumably what Robert McClenon needs to do is rename/move his draft to "Steve Bassett (Musician)", have the article accepted in Mainspace, and then amend the relevant entry on the Disambiguation Page (the second of the three entries under "People") to include a (blue) wikilink to the new article?

It might also be appropriate to render one or both of the other two "People" entries to be red links, depending on whether their referents appear to merit having their own articles some day. It looks to me from a quick web search as if both are just about sufficiently notable. {The poster formelry known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, it isn't "my" draft. I am only the reviewer. Second, a disambiguation page should not have redlinks. Third, should I request that the disambiguation page be deleted? I think that it never really should have existed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages CAN have redlinks if the article subject is notable and a corresponding redlink exists elsewhere. Having these redlinks assists in resolving disambiguations, and makes it more likely an article will get written. See MOS:DABRED. MB 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of existing page

Elms School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect)
Trent College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good morning. This week I created a new account and made some minor updates to a junior school page (minor text edits to change incorrect information and removal of an incorrect logo).

Since then the page has been redirected to the senior school page by an administrator.

Do you know why this might be please and whether I need to talk to the administrator? I have read all the policies and as far as I can see we are not in breach of anything.

Could it be that I didn't always click the 'minor edits' button and so it appears I have made several major edits and am a new user?

Many thanks

Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmsuser (talk • contribs) 08:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the page has been re-directed as the other editor felt that the school did not have sufficient notability in its own right to warrant a Wiki page. This is probably because it is part of the larger organisation and seems to share the same location. The fact that it was re-directed by an Admin. is only 'coincidental'; any editor could have done so. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to discuss the matter with the other editor at their talk-page. Please do not mark edits as minor unless they satisfy the criteria (see WP:ME for more info). Please sign your posts on talk-pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) which will produce your signature and a time stamp. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, if you have a connection to the subject, please also see WP:COI for more info. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elmsuser. Although secondary schools are generally considered notable junior schools are not. It may help if you read:-

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Notability "Articles on elementary/primary and middle schools are normally blanked and redirected or merged into the school district article (USA) or the appropriate locality article."
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD."

Arjayay (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. For UK schools, this means primary schools & nurseries (including infant and junior schools) are not notable, whilst secondary schools and sixth form colleges are. (This is a simple conversion of US terminology into UK school system) Joseph2302 11:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need correction

On Computer-aided design § History, under References, at no. 15, my name is wrong.

Bozdoc, Martian (2003). "The History of CAD". iMB.

My name is Bozdoc, Marian (not Martian)

I will be more than happy if someone can change that. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.84.14.8 (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for letting us know. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a longstanding typo; it's been in the article since early 2011. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question regarding BizBon deletion

BizBon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

yesterday I had created company's BizBon wikipedia page, it was all in a descriptive manner, stating when the company was established, who is the managing head etc., I do not agree that there were any promotional aspects going on there... May you please clarify me why it was deleted?

I would be very thankful for your response.

Regards, Criri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criri (talk • contribs) 11:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the page. Our criteria for speedy deletion permit a page to be deleted if the author blanks it soon after its creation, so someone else found the page and marked it for speedy deletion. You then went back and expanded the page, but you left the speedy deletion marker, {{db-author}}, at the top of the page. Since people can add this marker (a template) when it doesn't apply, administrators have to check to see whether it really applies, but since you created the page and you were the last one to edit it, one could easily see that it hadn't been faked by someone else, so the deleting administrator had no reason to think that you didn't want to have it deleted.

Since your words now make it obvious that this isn't what you wanted, I'll undelete the page immediately. Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But since you have asked about this, Criri, I would like to take the opportunity to point you at Your first article and advise you to use the Article wizard to create a draft. I'd also like to point out that if you do create an article about company Bizbon, it will not be Bizbon's page, and Bizbon and its representatives will have no control over its content. --ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change picture in a page

Good afternoon,

I'd like to replace a picture in this page: it:Giuseppe Marotta (dirigente sportivo) in which i made some minor changes. That was the first time I made it since I received the request to made it.

Could you please help me?

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federico Magnani (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Help Desk for the English Wikipedia. You can find the Italian Wikipedia help desk at it:Aiuto:Sportello informazioni. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues regarding article Minolta Dimage 7 series

I am trying to sort through an article (Minolta Dimage 7 series) that I believe has multiple issues, but I am unsure of how to proceed.

First, while all the images under the section "PCB" meet criteria for WP:CAPTION, no article I've seen covering similar devices goes to such lengths to display each and every internal component, and it seems like it may be in conflict with MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. There is nothing notable or groundbreaking about this device that I feel warrants the display of all or perhaps any of these images.

Second, the lists containing individual replacement parts and accessories seems unnecessary, but I can't find a MOS policy to cite justifying their removal.

Third, the table containing the technical specifications is entirely too long and again, no other similar device's WP article seems to contain a table that goes to similar lengths to list tech specs. I'm not sure if there is again a table MOS policy that I'm missing, but a nudge in the right direction is greatly appreciated.

Lastly, before I made any changes, I did go to the article's talk page to solicit help there, and was met somewhat confrontationally by a user who a) has made multiple edits to this article, b) has only ever edited this article and no others, and not since 2010, and c), has no talk page to discuss matters further with.

Help is appreciated, thanks! Illini407^talk 13:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think you are heading in the right direction, I agree that no other device is similar. I'm really spooked by an IP that hasn't made an edit to the page in 6 years responding as quickly as they did, the response has definite WP:OWN feelings. I'd go ahead and trim it (at the very least the circuit boards) and then when the IP user reverts, offer to bring in a 3rd party. It won't be pleasant, but I'm not sure getting out a hammer quickly would be better.Naraht (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illini407. I agree with you completely. WP:NOTMANUAL. --ColinFine (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Authorities

Nicholas French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does the presence of an Authorities section remove the need for an article to have inline citations? Nicholas French has no citations but an Authorities section, which I don't remember coming across before. There is no banner 'article lacks inline citations'. It's impossible to identify support for the unreferenced statements in the article without doing a laborious amount of digging in the authorities, even if available online. There are many statements in the article not present in the single reference (1911 Britannica). Clivemacd (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Clivemacd. The short answer is no. Per policy at WP:V, all content must be verifiable, and information that is not, is subject to removal. However, as a general rule, if you come across content that is unsourced but also uncontroversial, it is better to try to provide sources for the information, rather than remove it. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming a whole Wikipedia category

I've been doing some copyediting on our Outline of cryptography page and came across the "Uncracked codes and ciphers" subsection. As this section pertains mostly to as-yet-undeciphered documents of historical interest, such as the Voynich manuscript, I have retitled it as "Undeciphered historical codes and ciphers". I think this makes the classification clearer, as it could be contended that most of the modern ciphers listed in the sections further up the outline article are "uncracked", due to the computational infeasibility of any attacks against them that would lead to the ciphertext being decrypted without knowledge of the key.

There's also a category category page using the "uncracked" term, with 14 member pages. Is there any policy suggesting I shouldn't go through and change this whole category to use the "undeciphered" wording, to ensure sure the classification is as clear as possible for all member pages of the category? I note WP:Bold, but I'm still new to editing so I thought I should check for further opinion. — Alex Haydock (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest for this that you go through the WP:CFD procedure to rename the category. If that's approved, I think it will be changed by a bot.17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC) (add identify Naraht (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

2017 NBA All–Star Logo

I Saw the 2017 Logo on sportslogs.com The logo is there but can you upload it for me please. 2600:8803:7A00:19:9D7E:13F1:A658:38BA (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page creation

I have created my main page, and now I'm ready to create my second page.... cannot for the life of me figure out how to create a second page, nor can I figure out what the exact name of my main page is! Help, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyMcDonald (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to look at the pages you've edited by clicking the link at Contributions which you can also find on your page. Your entries have been at your sandbox page at User:AmyMcDonald/sandbox. It is unclear to me whether you are trying to have this become an article in mainspace or not. As for creating a second page, you can just do that in any name user your user area, so User:AmyMcDonald/sandbox2 would be fine.Naraht (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rael Levitt rights

Rael Levitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Dear Editorial Team,

We act on behalf of Mr Rael Levitt who has rights over his personal information ito various legislative instruments.

We respectfully request the removal of Mr Levitt's entire Wikipedia profile from Wikipedia.

105.228.75.15 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use CAPS. Its shouting. Your client does not not have any rights whats-so-ever over what is in the public domain! However, all the references appear to be based on advertorials and thus, your client doesn't appear to be a notable enough person, whom is suitable for inclusion in any encyclopedia, so I have no objection to it being deleted. If other editors agree – it will be deleted. --Aspro (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm afraid Wikipedia is only repeating information which is readily available in other reliable sources. There's really nothing anyone can do, as those sources have already been written. I have gone through and removed any information which lacked reliable source text to back it up, though, so I hope that helps. --Jayron 32 19:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Levitt employed you to do this (probable a great expense) when he could have requested this himself for nothing?--Aspro (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs a re-write, certainly, but if all those accomplishments make Rael Levitt non-notable, then so are half of the people with articles on Wikipedia. I oppose deletion. Kiltpin (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we only have your word for it, that you act on this gentleman's behalf. All we know about you, is that you're situated in Cape Town, along with hundreds and thousands of others.--Aspro (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the {{request edit}} as there is not a solid enough argument for deletion. The article should be rewritten, but beyond that it is unclear as to what action can be taken. Also, to anyone who believes the article should be deleted, but has a policy-based argument, AFD is thataway. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any incorrect information in the article (N.B. we do not have any "profiles" on anyone, only neutrally written encyclopaedia articles about people), we will be glad to improve the accuracy of it. We can't, however, just take your word for it (as indicated above). Additionally, since you have mentioned various legislative instruments, please note our strict policy Wikipedia:No legal threats. While you are not making an outright legal threat above, we generally can't deal with legal issues here. If you need to raise any legal concerns, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects, and email the specialist team which is experienced in dealing with such cases at info-en-qwikimedia.org. Please ensure that you clearly identify specific issues of concern when contacting them, as we generally do not entirely remove a biographical article just because the subject of that article does not want to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Removing or correcting inaccuracies on biographical articles, on the other hand, is given significant attention and priority. You are welcome to raise any specific content issues here, to help us correct inaccuracies; as long as they do not involve any legal demands or threats. Murph9000 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Yearly NavBox

I notice that Template:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Yearly NavBox says "-1" for calendar year 2010. Does anyone know how to fix this? Please {{ping}} me when you respond. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: It seems your recent reorganization borked the template {{List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, List}} which was used to populate the NavBox automagically. I'm not sure how to fix that, but it looks like it's going to involve creating ANOTHER template like the ones used later for when the year articles were also split, i.e. {{List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States Annual Total}}. It may be an easy fix, such as swapping out the one format for the other. Maybe try that. --Jayron 32 19:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: It actually was that simple. See Here. --Jayron 32 19:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logging me out

I can't swear to the time frame, but it seems like ever since they increased the amount of time you can remain logged in from 30 to 365 days, I keep getting logged out, sometimes in just a few days. Is this a known bug?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Are the logouts coincident with your IP address changing? I don't know if WMF's CentralAuth implementation does it, but it's not unusual for general web application session keys to be tied to an individual address (or something like a /24 (IPv4) or /64 (IPv6) subnet), for security reasons. I'm managing to stay logged in without issues on a static IP. Murph9000 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Murph9000: They don't seem to be because they happen in the middle of a single session of editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Have you changed any of your cookie settings? If they are somehow clearing during a session that would cause the log out. --Majora (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: Nope.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, when something strange is in your neighborhood, who you gonna call. Lourdes 01:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Well, I'm mostly out of suggestions here. N.B. your address can change mid-session, depending on your exact setup. I can only speculate without knowing fairly precise details of your connection, but DHCP leases can be renewed, a cluster of proxies can change, external NAT addresses can change, IPv6 address randomisation (second 64 bits randomly selected and frequently changed), etc. Given your status here, I'm sure you know these things, just a reminder can sometimes be useful. You could always CU yourself to confirm it. The other possibility is something on the WMF end causing your session keys to be invalidated, e.g. someone trying to attack your account in a way that causes the servers to act defensively and invalidate your session. Something else that can be worth trying is manually clearing all cookies for the involved domains (i.e. *.wikimedia.org and *.wikipedia.org), in case something odd has been stored there which is confusing the session management. If it persists, I suggest raising the question at WP:VPT. Murph9000 (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance to add an Institution and Course Page

Request help in adding my institution to the list of educational institutions - and creation of a course page. I am working with a Women's, Gender, and Sexuality studies class. We have a simple assignment to add content for American Crime Story season 2 (summaries, audience reception, and basic information). We would like to use a Course page; is this mandatory? or can we make simple a pages of information for each episode. Our first attempt resulted in deleted pages, so we want to make sure we follow Wikipedia rules (though we thought we were). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsuklarson (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to provide articles on notable topics. If you are trying to use it for something else, that is against Wikipedia policy, and likely to be prevented. If your assignment requires you to update the information in existing articles, preferably with references to sources that support that information, that's great. But if it requires you to create new articles, then your teacher is misguided, and the assignment is likely to end in grief: creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and we don't recommend anyone trying it until they have experience with other easier tasks. Maproom (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wsuklarson; as Maproom says we are not here to promote anything, or any cause, please see WP:SOAPBOX and neutral point of view.
However, we do have a procedure for including coursework, provided it openly declared and in accordance with our core principles, rules and guidelines. Please read and follow Wikipedia:Student assignments - which includes:-

"Student assignments can help improve Wikipedia, but they can also cause the encyclopedia more harm than good when not directed properly"
"Instructors are expected to have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia and should be willing to help address core content policy violations. Each assignment should have a course page .... Instructors should be identified at the course page, and their user page should provide contact details or enabled email."

There is also a very readable essay at Wikipedia:Assignments,

Please ensure that you, set up a course page (including contact details) and ensure that all your students' user pages link to that course page. If you have any questions these should be asked at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors on Savelugu

Reference help requested.

Thanks, Njevuri (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC) How do i cite?[reply]

Please clarify the problem you are experiencing. There have been no edits to the page since February 2016 and the link you provided seems to point to a version of the page from June 2014. It is noted that you removed content in some edits around that time and that the page was subsequently, at least partly, restored. Please see WP:REFB for a basic guide to adding citations but please feel free to return to this page if you have a specific problem you need help with. Are you responding to an old message indicating a referencing error? Eagleash (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at Njevuri's talk-page it looks as if the message does date back to June 2014. Eagleash (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]