Help desk
< September 23	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 25 >

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 24

Undeletion for redirect

I want to see Wanted: Wade and Good Cat, Bad Cat restored so I can turn them into redirects to List of Garfield and Friends episodes.

For clarification, the articles were both full pages at one point, but were deleted in 2008 due to a lack of notability or possibilities, as seen here for the former and here for the latter. This sounds to me like that they both have substantial edit histories that might be useful for some purpose. The idea of turning both pages into redirects to List of Garfield and Friends episodes was proposed, but not acted on; however, given that redirects are cheap, as well as the potential target having many redirects, I want the edit histories restored. Is this the sort of discussion that belongs on WP:REFUND, on WP:DRV, or neither? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, there are a lot more of these pages that I would like restored. I'll compile a list, though, when my above question is answered. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a real reason for restoring the histories of these articles. If you're planning on making them redirects, i think you can just go ahead and do so. In the early days of Wikipedia a lot of stuff was written up in way too much detail and 2008 was in the middle period of removing large swaths of WP:CRUFTy articles as notability standards were harmonized. I've just had a look at the deleted articles and I can't see anything there worth salvaging. They were basically very in-depth descriptions of the episode with no reliable sources attached. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Thank you, and I understand what you mean. I assume they're not much more than what can be found in the edit histories of The Lasagna Zone and Arrivederci, Odie!? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what they are like. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors at Freud and Philosophy

I recently unsuccessfully nominated Freud and Philosophy at WP:GAN. Most of the discussion I had with the reviewer isn't relevant here, but one thing I would like help with is the referencing errors he pointed out. According to him, in the bibliography of Freud and Philosophy, there are "harv errors"/"harv warnings" and "40, 58, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76, 78, 100, and 103 are the footnote numbers ... with the errors". The problem is that I don't understand why these are errors or how to fix them. Can anyone help? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Freeknowledgecreator: If you click on "Ricœur 1970" at note 39, you'll find that it jumps you to the corresponding entry in the bibliography, but if you click on "Vansina 1989", nothing happens. In this case it's because the {{sfn}} template only mentions the first author, not the three authors listed by the corresponding {{cite book}}. The script User:Gadget850/HarvErrors.js is good for detecting these mismatches. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it, and I see what you mean. Thanks for drawing this to my attention. Still not quite clear how to fix it. If someone does it for me I'll know how next time. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I have the idea now. But someone else can comment on whether what I'm doing is correct. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to brick walls?

I've been getting reverted (mainly via bot) by someone claiming that material for which I provide source links is unsourced,and whose warnings on my talk page have links to his/her talk page which is edit-protected,which rather defeats the purpose of being able to reply.(The talk page also claims that the user,who appears to be rather active,is inactive).12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to contact the reverting editor, they hold an unprotected talk page at User talk:FlightTime/Alternate talk page, using {{ping|FlightTime Phone}} to get their attention.

In your case your edits were reverted for not being verifiable. I can understand your dislike of Verifiability, not truth, which you stated on it's talk page. However, the site is likely to be "more true" requiring verifiability for everything, rather than if we just took each editor's word for everything; Yes, we will lose some true information, but prevent a much larger amount of untrue information. In addition, if information isn't reported elsewhere, it probably isn't relevant anyway.

~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific edit-revert instances should be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. That way, other editors working on the topic can see what went on. I have opened a section at Talk:Courtney Cox Cole#Reversions 2019-09-24, since in that case the sources you used do appear to support the claims (disclaimer: I skimmed the sources fairly quickly). Louis, please add spaces after commas and periods when editing articles. I understand your frustration at being reverted, but please avoid phrases like "bot abuse" or implying 'abuse of tools' in edit summaries; they may be interpreted as derogatory or uncivil and are unlikely to improve your relationship with the person who is undoing your edits. —Pelagic (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of restoring your edits to Courtney Cox Cole and tidying the punctuation. Well-presented references are a service to our readers and enhance the appearance of the encyclopædia. You don't have to use the {{cite}} templates, but the citation tools built into the editing interface do make it easier than formatting manually, IMO. I formatted one: you can see the change at Special:Diff/917568924. I leave the other refs as an exercise for whomever cares to do those (hint). —Pelagic (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I remove a redirect?

Hi there,

I recently noticed that Saket Modi's page has been redirected to Lucidius by Winged Blades of Godric stating WP:NOPAGE whom I tried to reach out at the talk page and left messages with no answer (Ref. 1). I think WP:NOPAGE does not apply here as the topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and is suitable for a stand-along page per WP:SIGCOV

The topic has been covered by various leading publishers including The Economic Times, Business Standard, Businessworld, Mint (newspaper), Forbes India and clearly passes the WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.

I will be so grateful if anyone could review Draft:Saket Modi again and help with this....thanks a ton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.129.75 (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Festival (classical music)

Please fix ref number 12 - it is in red. Thanks 175.33.248.139 (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done GMG ^talk 13:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lupton family

Spelling??? Please fix up the funny spelling of this word - "establisbed" (it should be established I think) in the 20th Century section under the "Olive Middleton nee Lupton" subheading. Thanks again 175.33.248.139 (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the typo. Thanks for catching the error and reporting it here. If you encounter such errors in the future, please feel free to fix them yourself - you may find that it's actually easier than asking someone else to do it. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

How to about software — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4380:EA7C:0:0:1862:60B1 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what your question is. Perhaps you wish to find out about software, in which case you can read Software. In the unlikely event you want to find out about Wikipedia's software, that is at Wikipedia:Software. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace violence

I am not trying to create a new page. I am trying to add material to a page titled: Workplace Violence. I have a table and figure that I would like included, and I do not know how to insert references. Can someone help me or better yet, do this for me?

this is not the place for a new version

Perline and Goldschmidt [12] contend that the present definitions of workplace are descriptive and do not address the motivation of the perpetrator. [12] Understanding the motivation underlying these crimes is important in developing preventative strategies. Perline & Goldschmidt define two types of workplace violence: 1) Object-focused workplace violence is violence that occurs to obtain some object, such as money, drugs, jewelry, etc., and 2) non-object-focused violence, which is emotionally based, and mostly associated with anger. Anger generally requires frustration and perceived injustice. Mitigating anger or perceived injustice will mitigate or prevent a violent episode. People can be angry without perpetrating violence. Whether or not anger results in violence depends on the potential perpetrator's focus. Eight different types of focus that can result in WPV have been identified. (Table 1) [12]

Insert Table 1 about here

Table 1. Shows eight different types of focus associated with workplace violence. The anger-focus model: 1) characterizes WPV according to the focus of the perpetrator. (Note that the goal of a healthy focus is non-violent anger resolution); 2) allows for the gathering of separate statistics for object-focused crime and non-object-focused crime, and 3) shows that domestic violence, school shootings, terrorist activities, and violence that occurs in the workplace that is non-object related are all instances of non-object-focused violence and therefore are similarly motivated. Consequently, understanding the factors driving one type of non-object-focused violence should help us to develop strategies for mitigating the other types of non-object-focused violence. Thus, we can see that these crimes can be mitigated by reducing the frustration level of the potential perpetrator, reducing the level of the potential perpetrator's perceived injustice, or changing the focus the potential perpetrator to a healthy focus. [12] A very large percentage of non-object-focused perpetrators are either arrested, killed by police, or killed themselves after committing their violent act. If we consider suicide-by-cop, it has been suggested that somewhere between 25-50 percent of non-object-focused workplace homicides result in suicide. [13, 14]. Suicide is virtually unheard of following an object-focused crime, it just doesn't make sense. Non-object-focused workplace violence is purposeful and is seldom if ever a spontaneous event. Figure 1 shows that the probability for violence increases as the risk level approaches the potential perpetrator's violence threshold. [12]

Insert Figure 1 about here

Figure 1. Probability of violence as a function of risk level. Thirty risk factors and five stages have been identified. Fourteen risk factors are social & situational; twelve are psychological, and four are behavioral. The five stages of non-object-focused violence that have been identified are: 1) Anger 2) Focus 3) Pre-violence: a) Fantasy b) Rehearsal c) Preparation d) Victim denigration and, d) Threat; 4) Violence: a) Toward self b) Toward others c) Toward self & others d) Toward environment; and 5) Post-violence: a) Resolution & consequences. [12] References 12. Perline, I. H. & Goldschmidt, J. (2004). The psychology and law of workplace violence: A handbook for mental health professional and employers. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. 500 pp. O.K. Matzerath (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 13. White, T. W. (1996) Research, practice, and legal issues regarding workplace violence: A note of caution. In G. R. VandenBos and E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job:Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 87-99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 14. Fessenden, F. (2000, April 9). They threaten, seethe and unhinge, then kill in quantity. New York Times, pp. 1, 20-21.

O.K. Matzerath (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the section heading more readable, and moved your signature to the foot of the message where it belongs. The article in question is Workplace violence, not Workplace Violence; note that case is significant in article titles.

If you are not capable of making an edit yourself, the place to suggest changes is not here (so I have collapsed the display of the misplaced text) but on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Workplace violence. You do need to learn how to include references, and you'll find how to do that at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed errors introduced to the Workplace violence article by O.K. Matzerath, in response to a new help request posted ~~below~~ after this question. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing error warning documentation (done)

When I recently added a clean-up section note, the follwing message appeared (as I hadn't added a reason yet): You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template - replace it with {{Cleanup|section|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template. (The same goes for the main Template:Clean-up.) — Now, how or rather where can I improve this error warning by replacing the – typographically incorrect – hyphen between "template" and "replace" with a – typographically correct – dash within the message documentation?--Hildeoc (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it says at Template:Clean-up section, that template is a wrapper for Template:Cleanup. That template is protected, so if you want to suggest changes the place to do so is Template talk:Cleanup. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Thank you very much. I have now added a pertaining edit request. Regards--Hildeoc (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now done.--Hildeoc (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Jamil Jivani's page

How is it fair that Volunteer Admins can remove your edits if they view them as "not constructive"? I worked on Edits for Jamil Jivani in June and I've only found out now that the changes were undone. Even though Jamil Jivani provided them himself. Why is it okay for admin to just delete your work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youronto (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can delete anybody else's edits, especially if "Jamil Jivani provided them himself". That's a big WP:conflict of interest. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in what Jamil Jivani wants to say about himself (though if you find inaccuracies, then please discuss them on the talk page of the article). Wikipedia just reports what has already been written about Jamil Jivani in WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 20:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit button

I don't see the edit button. Where can I find so I can enter a new article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlenormancosmetics (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you need to do is to register a user name (not necessarily your real name) that is for you as an individual rather than for your company (see WP:CORPNAME). Then you need to make the mandatory declaration re paid editing, after which you can read the guidance on conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New MLB TV Contract With ESPN in 2022

What No MLB TV Contract with ESPN in 2022. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a question in there somewhere? GMG ^talk 19:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Will They announce New MLB TV Contracts with ESPN And TBS. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

I have been editing the given information about the Lepcha who may I contact for reporting offensive content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelmitnl (talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though you have already removed referenced information. When you do this, it is always better to replace it with a referenced alternative. If your edit is challemged, then you should discuss the changes on the talk page of the article, explaining why you think the content is offensive. Wikipedia just reports what is written in WP:Reliable sources. If you think all the sources are wrong, then you need to get your theories published elsewhere so that Wikipedia can use them. Dbfirs 20:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly removed content from Lepcha people, some of it referenced, stating your claim that it is offensive. Please explain your reasons on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get where you are coming from, the Lepcha say they have always been where they are, but others believe there is evidence of migration. I could see how you might find that offensive, but we don't remove properly sourced material just because someone might find it offensive. Wikipedia is not here to take a side int his debate but rather to report on it, so ignoring one side of it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rachelmitnl: The above is excellent advice; adding links to relevant policies for reference: WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:OR; and an essay on the role of Wikipedia: WP:ABIAS (WP:NPOV for the official policy). —Paleo Neonate – 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring clean version of an article Talk page

Hi, there are a couple of sections of an article Talk page that are a mess - the sections have been edited by an editor who redacted many of their own posts, deleted some posts, reordered the posts, improperly redacted and edited another editor's posts - I want to restore the article to the last clean version to restore the deleted and edited posts - the problem is that the editor has redacted text and added new comments since that last clean version, so if I restore it, the edits will be lost, which is contrary to WP:TPO: "The basic rule...is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." - is there a way to revert to a clean version and preserve later additions? - I reverted to a clean version once before and manually reinstated the edits lost in the reversion - but now the history is so involved with deletions and redactions and additions that I don't know how to proceed - I would contact the editor and ask permission, but past interaction has shown they are not receptive to suggestions (I have made multiple suggestions which have been ignored and another editor posted warnings on their user talk page which were ignored and subsequently removed) - any advice on how to handle this would be welcome - all I really want is to get the article Talk page back to a reasonable form and preserve the discussion history as consensus on the issues has not yet been reached - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems odd. As I understand it, only admins have the power to redact; and any admin ought to know better than to re-order posts or to edit another editor's posts. Can you tell us which talk page this is about? Maproom (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- sections Talk:Epistle to the Romans#Romans 1.18-32 and Talk:Epistle to the Romans#The judgment of God (1:18–32) - by redact I meant using <del>...</del> to strike out text per WP:REDACT and WP:TPO - Epinoia (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that shortcut should be called RETRACT rather than REDACT. True redaction would be where you remove unacceptable content and leave a placeholder. Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the word? Pelagic (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, that page is a sight to behold. When somebody strikes their own comments I'd expect them to explain why. Glancing at the history, I don't think that asking him/her to explain themselves would be productive. If you try to rectify the TP then that may just inflame the situation. If the deleted talk-page material is important, maybe just note it with diffs and move on. Can't tell whether striking all their comments at Epistle to the Romans and undeleting a little recent material on their own talk page is meant to signify that Metanoia is putting down the stick? Or just another cycle of instability? Their choice of username after interacting with you as an IP seems a bit creepy (Metanoia ←→ Epinoia). After M. settles down or gets blocked, you could ask an uninvolved editor to summarise and collapse the sections. Hope that helps, Pelagic (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]