Help desk
< April 28	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 30 >

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.

April 29

publication

yes i have a assignment that i need to do and the instructor is wanting us to Contribute your passage to a Wikipedia (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. page related to your research topic. Just find an entry you feel relatively confident adding to, and go for it. Instructions on how to edit an entry are located on the main page of Wikipedia. Add a comment to an "active" blog dealing with the topic of your Research Project. Share a few of your research findings, and you may want to include some final thoughts about your research issues. Submit your passage as part of a letter to the editor of a magazine or a local newspaper, for example, as you deem appropriate. Many publications have details on how to submit on their sites. After you submit your entry for *open publication for public viewing,* post the following information for this Discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAVANNAH2005 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking your questions here. Per your other contributions Opioid epidemic in the United States and Opioid epidemic already exist. Shearonink (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SAVANNAH2005: Your instructor does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and has therefore given you inappropriate instructions. Please do not modify Wikipedia as the instructor suggested. Do not add links to your research as suggested, and do not modify the articles to reflect your research. Sorry. Please show this note to your instructor, who makes unnecessary work for us with such an inappropriate assignment. Please do use blogs or social media sites instead. The relevant guidelines here are WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, and WP:OR. -Arch dude (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SAVANNAH2005: If during the course of your research, you have found information in reliable secondary sources (WP:RS) such as scholarly journals that will enhance one of our articles, then by all means add the information to the articles and cite those sources. Please do not just add those sources to the "external links" sections. Instead add them as cited references for your facts. -Arch dude (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another page which your instructor needs to read is WP:Student assignments. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia:Training/For educators. And WP:INSTRUCTORS. And Training modules for course instructors. And How to Use Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool. Shearonink (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi, Are there any rules/requirements I must meet to re-submit an article that was speedily deleted? I would like to rewrite the contents so that it doesn't infringe on G11 or A7.

Regards, Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwoots (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lwoots: If you are referring to Future Health Biobank, no amount of editing can make a subject notable. You must show that the Biobank is notable by having independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of it(not just press releases or routine announcements) which shows it meets the notability guidelines of WP:ORG. If you are associated with this biobank, you must review and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Page Approval

Hello Admin,

This is our profile/page link which we had created few days back. "https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Tbtimbaker/sandbox"

We would like to know that how long will it take for approval of this page; as its already more then 15 days. We are not getting even any notification regarding rejection, approval or changes related. We request you to make us aware that when we will get approval.

Regards Dr Tim Baker

Tbtimbaker (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tbtimbaker You have not actually submitted the page for review, please use articles for creation to do so. Once you do, there is no specific timetable for its review, as reviews are done by volunteers in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tbtimbaker That page appears to be an autobiography. Please start by reading WP:AUTOBIOG and WP:COI. You also need to consider if you are genuinely notable according to Wikipedia's policies. Please consider WP:NOTSOCIAL, Wikipedia is not a social networking site, you might prefer something like Facebook. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the draft were going to be submitted for review, the references need to be sorted out, see WP:Referencing for beginners. You could also usefully read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also: please explain what you mean by "our profile" and "We would like to know": who is the "we" and "our" to which these first-person-plural pronouns attach? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reviewing could take a while (probably a couple of months), as WP:AfC is seriously backed up. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks

What can I do here on Wikipedia other than editing articles? I don't want to edit articles and/or create them and then later get into trouble can I do anything else on Wikipedia which I can feel comfortable in doing rather than editing articles. I'm not experienced in writing articles nor am I comfortable with doing so, but, I would still like to contribute if I can. ImpWarfare (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ImpWarfare, If you are more comfortable with images, you can try to help out there, but there are also a long, looong list of maintnance tasks you can try out here WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Approval or Review

Hello Admin,

We had already gone as per the process for publishing of our page, Could you help us that where we are still lacking, or is there any other method for publishing our page in short period of time?

Warm Regards Dr. Tim Baker

Tbtimbaker (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbtimbaker: You have not "gone through the process". Please do take the time to read WP:YFA as another editor recommended. Your sandbox is a work area, not a draft, and if it were a draft, you would still need to mark it appropriately to "submit" it for review. No, there is no method to expedite the process. We are all volunteers and each of us does whatever we want. Well, there is one method to accelerate the review process: If you continue to disregard the advice that volunteers continue to give you, one of them will immediately review your sandbox and delete it because the subject is non-notable among other reasons. To publish immediately, put this material on a blog site. -Arch dude (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbtimbaker: Please also respond to the questions raised by ~~Colin~~ Mike in the thread above. Accounts may not be shared, used by more than one person or be in any way 'corporate'. On a general note please do not start additional threads on the same issue. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me, Eagleash! OrangeMike, I think. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it was! Oh dear... Eagleash (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was OrangeMike that posted the comment just for the record. To confirm, I believe its against Wikipedia's policy to have a "shared" account so Tbtimbaker please clarify and stop using "we" and/or "our". ImpWarfare (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template revision

Hi, the template {{primary sources}} reads, "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." I would like to apply this message to a section of an article. Is there a way to change "This article relies..." to "This section relies..."? Can I add the template to a section, even though it says "article"? The "View source for Template:Primary sources" page has a "Submit an edit request button" - should I submit a request for a new template with, "This section relies..."?

Not sure what to do. The rest of the article has citations to secondary sources, so the template is only for selected sections, not the whole article. The sections in question are Rajneesh#Euthanasia and genetic selection and Rajneesh#Contradictions and `Heart to heart communion` which rely entirely on citations to primary sources. I have addressed these issues on the article talk page, Talk:Rajneesh#Multiple Issues. - thanks for your help - Epinoia (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epinoia, yes. Use {{primary sources|section}}. Eman 235/talk 17:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to use {{primary sources|section|talk=Multiple Issues}} to link to that talk page section as well. Eman 235/talk 17:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- thank you very much for your help, most appreciated - Epinoia (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you use rollback on mobile devices?

I can’t find any rollback button on mobile, does anyone know some way to use rollback on mobile? VanZa39 (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always scroll to the bottom of the page and click the Desktop view button. Then I have rollback and everything makes sense again, even if it's really tiny and hard to use. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Only show edits that are latest revisions" in reverse?

Hi, I like the checkmark on my contributions page that lets me see only latest revisions. I want to know if there is a way to do the opposite, that is, ONLY show pages that are NOT the latest revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Winowicz (talk • contribs) 21:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Winowicz: That function isn't built in to the software, but you can add it using a script. See User:Markhurd/hidetopcontrib for instructions. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is very helpful, thank you, I will read that. Mike Winowicz (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly abandoned draft

An SPA created this unsourced draft of a seemingly non-notable individual in 2014, and it hasn't been edited by any person since 2016. I guess it doesn't perfectly fit the U5 criteria, as it might be considered as a draft. It also doesn't seem to be fall under G13, as it is neither in the Draft namespace nor uses {{AFC submission}} template. But it somehow seems like a CSD candidate to me. Anyway, does it qualify for speedy deletion? If yes, then please add the relevant tag to the page. Otherwise I will take it to the WP:MFD. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk: Just use WP:PROD? -Arch dude (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: WP:PROD says "PROD is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, set indices, disambiguation pages, and files not on Commons. Books may also be proposed for deletion, using a similar process. Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), drafts, templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace." --David Biddulph (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Sorry David. I was going too fast and just used a "rule of reason" instead of the actual guidance. -Arch dude (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both Arch dude & David Biddulph for inputs. I am hardly familiar with CSD and MFD, but normally there must be very good reason for deleting any sandbox. Having said that, I guess it can be blanked, as it is an unsourced, puffery piece which is using WP as a webhost. BTW, I couldn't find even passing mentions of the subject in reliable sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked it for now. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]