Help desk
< June 25	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 27 >

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.

June 26

Reference problem

Hi everybody,

I've met a problem as pertains references on Étienne Vatelot which I don't know how to fix. Can someone please help me out ? Thanks in advance. LouisAlain (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now it looks much better. Thank you! LouisAlain (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question on citations with photos/no textual evidence

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/KickerTom

Noticed that this guy makes citation via references that uses photos or it doesn't provide enough textual context to support something. What's the take on this? Is it not okay? Just wanna clarify on this. Ominae (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ominae. A photo can be a reliable source, provided that it is published somewhere reliable. But there are caveats. Does the support depend on interpretation of the photo? If so, the claim may be original research. Does it depend on the statements in the caption of the photo? If so, the reliability of those may need to be assessed independently of where it was published. As often with reliability, there is not a clear-cut answer. I suggest taking it to WP:RSN. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation quotes

Hello, how can I correctly render this text: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Candel_Astra#In_popular_culture ?--Neurorebel (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neurorebel, and welcome to Wikipedia. You definitely need additional citations to reliable sources. Also, please give the title of any source you cite, as well as the name of the work in which it is contained (name of the web site, for a web source). Please also give the author, date of publication, and page number when these are available. The date of access should always be provided for online sources. You can use {{Cite web}} for this, or format the information in another way. See Referencing for Beginners for more detail.

As for how to format your "In popular culture" section, I will need to think about what would be the best way. Perhaps for quotations as short as this, using {{quotation}} (which builds a blockquote) is not the best way, and simple quote marks may be better. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "" ?--Neurorebel (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Hello

Please, could you advise how to change the heading? Sekunjalo Investments should read African Equity Empowerment Investments. (www.aeei.com) . They changed their name because of the confusion.

Thanking you, Marianne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianne2000 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If what you want is to change the title of the article from Sekunjalo Investments to African Equity Empowerment Investments you should move the article, this is done by searching on the upper part of the article (sometimes inside the "more" section) the "move" section then click it and follow the instructions. This will enable you to move Sekunjalo Investments to African Equity Empowerment Investments.

Also note that this has already been made before, what means that somebody before you thought that Sekunjalo Investments was the propper name rather than African Equity Empowerment Investments.--Neurorebel (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Marianne2000: However, this facility will not be available to you until your account is at least four days old and you have made 10 or more valid edits. In the meantime you can request a move at WP:RM or perhaps a volunteer here will move it for you. Please provide evidence to back up the change you wish to make. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also If you still want to ask for the moving I encourage you to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in order to maintain the consensus.--Neurorebel (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best route to ask for subject-expert input and scrutiny on a draft section I'd like to add to an article

I'm editing a highly technical page of post-PhD mathematics related to a number theory topic. I've drafted a section to add, that gives a non-technical overview of the topic content to make it more accessible and less daunting to mathematicians without such backgrounds. Because it's a very technical area, I'd like to post my draft on the topic talk-page and request the attention of subject-matter experts to scrutinize and collaboratively edit it, to ensure I've got it right.

Is it best to use WP:RFC, post at WikiProject Mathematics, or use {{Expert needed}} or {{Expert needed talk}}? I've looked at all of these, it's not entirely clear. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that an RfC is the best way to do this. An RFC is more for disputes or making choices on how best to proceed. If your draft is fairly short, I would post it on the article talk page, if it is more than a few paragraphs, i would create a userspace page, such as user:FT2/Draft X (Replace "Draft X" with some meaningful name, please) and place a link to that page on the article talk page. Then I would both use {{Expert needed talk}} and post at WikiProject Mathematics, the better to attract an editor with the needed background. I myself know math through roughly undergrad-level differential equations, and a hobby interest in number theory, particularly as it impacts encryption, perhaps not really enough for what you are describing. But you might place a link to the page in this thread as well -- someone with the needed knowledge might see it here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC) @FT2: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section added. See Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem#Non-technical summary of Wiles'_proof. As it's a huge proof itself, this is about the detail needed to make the basic approach accessible to those lacking advanced mathematics. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helping me with my entries

You have a stub entry on me and two of my intellectual inventions (Locally Unwanted Land Uses and the Buffalo Commons). I would like to fill them out a bit, but am not particularly good at computers. I'd like to send draft entries that you would then enter into Wikipedia. Would that be possible? Thanks for your help.

                 Frank J. Popper

Rutgers and Princeton Universities <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by FPopper (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FPopper and welcome to Wikipedia. We don't normally operate in that way, but I will send you an email and perhaps be able to assist. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Mihaylovna Bebutova looks like a mess...

Hello,

While trying to add info on wikidata, I noticed this article seems to mix 2 very different persons : Olga Mihaylovna Bebutova (1879-1952) and Kate Burk (alive in 2002 at least)... the reference to beauty pageant in 2002 makes no sense for Bebutova.... :(

in fact, from this diff, it really looks like vandalism, OR somebody wanted to write another article, but crushed another article by doing so... I did not dare to restaure previous version, since I'm not wikipedian...

Could someone please try to fix this ? --Hsarrazin (talk on wd) 21:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to be vandalism from Feb 2015. MB 21:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Hi Hsarrazin. Thanks for noticing this and posting about it. This could have been vandalism, but it also may be a misplaced edit, and we only describe clearly bad faith edits as vandalism. That being said, this content obviously is misplaced, whatever its origins, and so I have reverted to a prior version. If you read the linked page, you will learn how you could have easily done this yourself. The moment you made an edit you became a "Wikipedian". There is no central authority, no authorized Wikipedians, just a collection of people trying to build an encyclopedia. Some may be more experienced than you but your instinct about this edit that it needed to go was spot on. You really could have gone right ahead and made the edit here. See Wikipedia:Be bold. See also Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ! I know I could have done it, but I don't dare when I'm not home (i.e. wikidata and fr.ws) and I'm not sure what happened ;D

also, I was tired yesterday evening... and didn't notice that the contributor only totals 15 edits, including these 11, which is to me a clear evidence of vandalism...

I'll be bolder next time :D - have a nice day ! --Hsarrazin (talk on wd) 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family

Please help - I am new to adding files. I think I stuffed up in the Francis III section. There are 2 little brackets up the top. Please help Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srbernadette:

Fixed. Eagleash (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ying Compestine Page

Hello,

I'm creating a Wikipedia page for myself and I would like to use the bio from my website. How can I do that without it being identified as "plagiarism"?

Below are links to the wikipedia page and my website:

Best,

Ying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycompestine (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ying, welcome to Wikipedia. Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. I quote our guideline, which strongly suggests: "We want biographies here, not autobiographies." Please go through WP:YOURSELF to understand why Wikipedia does not encourage such contributions. Do not hesitate to ask us for further assistance. Thanks. Lourdes 00:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ycompestine (Ying) basically, you can't. You could go through the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials which would release the text for anyone in the world to reuse, modify and/or sell, but even then, if you used that text in an article, it would be speedy deleted as blatantly promotional. Since you have an obvious conflict of interest it would be much better if someone else were to write any such article, starting from scratch. If you try to write it, at least start from scratch, using only what can be supported by independent published reliable sources. Please read Your First Article before going ahead. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]