Help desk
< April 23	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 24

About hotel Prag Continental which is in guwahati ,Assam,India.

hi! <<apparent advertising removed>>
GOD Bless,Devilata Basumatary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.70.30 (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? Your post here seemed to be an advert, and Wikipedia does not allow advertising. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date format error didn't show up for 2½ years

In this edit, September 2009, I accidentally added a malformed {{dts}} template, which caused it to have one of those big red display warnings (my coding made the template think something happened on the 9th day of the 16th month of the year and the 9th day of the 20th month of the year), but I just now noticed and fixed the template. Can you imagine why this error didn't put the article into a parser error category, comparable to what I get if I remove the {{reflist}} from a page with references? Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The missing reflist error is generated by Cite software extension. It uses MediaWiki interface pages to call the errors. We have modified those interface pages to add categories and links to help pages. {{dts}} uses the #time parser function and no one has updated the interface pages to add an error category. Have to figure out the interface for this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it at MediaWiki:Pfunc time error, also two other error messages. Let me look at this a bit, as we might want to extend this to other parser errors. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article versions comparison gone bad ??

The "new" design for article version comparison makes it way harder to see what has really changed. How does one get the old style back? Electron9 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In "My preferences", "Gadgets", you have the option of ticking off the old colour scheme for difs. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New "diff" view is horrible and illegible. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found an now removed answer: NOTE: There is now an "old style diffs" gadget: Go to My preferences > Gadgets > Appearance > (X)Display diffs with the old yellow/green colors and design. (from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)) Electron9 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vanden Brook#Wikipedia entry

Tom Vanden Brook#Wikipedia entry says:

"According to USA Today, a new user to Wikipedia created a page on Vanden Brook on February 8, 2012. The entry alleged that Vanden Brook "'gained worldwide notoriety' for his 'misreporting' of the 2006 Sago Mine disaster in West Virginia." Wikipedia editors removed the page and banned the user."

This log entry indicates that the deletion occurred on the same day.

Question one: Would it by WP:OR to change the above to "Wikipedia editors removed the page on the same day and banned the user"? If the suggested change is allowed, do I just cite the log entry?

Question two: Assuming that the above is allowable, could I instead write "Wikipedia editors removed the page within X minutes and banned the user"? If so, what do I cite to establish the number of minutes? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was done within less than two hours; but that information is accessible only to admins. The editor was indefinitely blocked (not "banned") because the username was that of a business (Atlantic Press) rather than for the creation of attack pages. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. The wording does seem awkward to me, but do you wish to change the wording of a quote from USA Today?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The phrase "Wikipedia editors removed the page and banned the user" comes after the direct USA Today quote. I can change it, but I need to provide a citation to a reliable source. Likewise, I could change "banned" to "blocked", but not without a source. The current source says he was banned and clearly implies that this was because of the attack page.

I also think that how long it was up is important. Vandalism that gets reverted within a couple of minutes (I often see it happening in less than a minute) isn't as serious as vandalism that sits there undiscovered for months. I think it would help the reader to better understand the issue if we said how quickly the page was removed. (How long was the page up?)

On the other hand, if the editor was blocked because the username was that of a business, then Tom Vanden Brook#Wikipedia entry -- and the source used to back up that statement -- is misleading. Be that as it may, no way am I going to try to fix it without a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're trying to use Wikipedia (in the form of a link to the logs) as a Self-Published Source on itself. This is generally allowed as long as it's not unduly self-serving. Wikipedia tends to try to minimize charges of inaccuracy created by vandalism by pointing out that most obvious vandalism is quickly removed. So pointing out how quickly the vandalism was removed is self-serving to a degree. Whether or not it is unduly self-serving is a content question and should best be discussed at the article's talk page. If you want to discuss the use of Wikipedia as a source on itself, I'd recommend WP:RS/N. They are usually pretty responsive to specific cases like this. -Thibbs (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: I think you can cite those portions of the log only visible to admins since ease of verifiability is not a concern for Wikipedia. As long as the information is accurate and capable of verification, and as long as Wikipedia can be cited as a SPS on itself in this case then I think it should be OK to use such a cite. -Thibbs (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's what I wanted to know; whether it is even possible to do what I have in mind. Now that I know I can, I will go back to the article talk page to discuss whether I should. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

entries on wikipedia

How can I place my company and work profile on wikipedia for purpose o research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frangipani & Dolphin (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policy on notability and conflict of interest. After you understand those, and still feel you can create an article on your company, then WP:YFA will tell you how to create the article. RudolfRed (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist changes

I've long been entirely happy with the blue triangle that used to appear on my watchlist to the left of articles/talk pages when an article/talk page had had more than one edit on a particular day. I could click it to show which edits had been made by which users and I could hover the cursor over any of the edits to see what had been altered. Yesterday, the blue triangle disappeared and instead there are brackets saying "(n changes|hist)". Now, hovering the cursor over the changes frequently produces either nothing or "diff truncated". Clicking anything takes me out of my watchlist - OK, I can check changes, but, for a couple of months or more, the watchlist has taken around two minutes to reload, which is a pain. Previously, I could open another iteration of Wikipedia and deal with changes while leaving my watchlist intact and easy to use without disturbing it. Why has the blue triangle disappeared? (And why is my watchlist slow to load? It's had c3,000 items on it for a year or so and was just fine for several years.) --GuillaumeTell 16:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be due to the new version that was recently rolled out. Try raising your issue at the Village Pump, where the other issues are also being discussed. WP:VPT RudolfRed (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm outnumbered by ignorant people on an article. What should my next move be?

I made a recent addition clarifying that the term "African American" does not refer to a race, it merely refers to a person being at least partially descended from native sub-Saharan Africans. I included some true, verifiable statistics regarding the genetic makeup of African Americans (evidence shows that, for example, they are on average 5% Native American, 18% White European, and I would imagine highly mixed with East Asian also).

However, I was constantly reverted. The reasons given were ridiculous - WP:RS, even though the sources obviously met the criteria of the article. I feel like it's a case of the truth being crammed out. I feel like such an addition is highly important to clarify in the African-American article, and it is highly frustrating to me that such a fundamental and important point to make about African-Americans is missing from the article entirely.

Thoughts? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See the guidance given at WP:DR RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick review, you will need sources that are much more reliable than the ones you have cited.--ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For which statement? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't refer to your fellow editors as "ignorant". It's impolite and it likely to piss off the very people you want to convince. See WP:CIVIL.

Second: Follow WP:BRD. You're free to make WP:BOLD edits, but once you've been reverted, take it to the talk page. Don't edit-war. Again, this is likely to alienate the editors you are trying to convince.

Third: Gain WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page. If you can't convince them, then you should concede the point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If you can't convince them, then you should concede the point." so if an editor is simply outnumbered on a highly important point, they should concede it? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the way WP:BRD should work:

You make a bold edit.
You get reverted.
You start a discussion on the article talk page explaining why you think your edit makes the article better. At the end of this discussion, there are one of two outcomes:

You have successfully changed the other editors minds' and your edit is accepted.
You have failed to change the other editors minds' and you concede that consensus has not gone your way.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're placing far too much emphasis on WP:BRD. I will engage in formal dispute resolution if "consensus does not go my way". I'm simply here asking for advice from experienced Wikipedians before I do so, to see how else this may be resolved, or if other Wikipedians can make the correct change. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this experienced Wikipedian is advising you to follow BRD. You're free to ignore my advice, of course. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are seldom if ever reliable sources for anything; and weyanoke.org is an advocacy group, not a source of serious scientific information. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To which statement are you referring? (i.e. which statement do you believe to be poorly sourced) Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be explicitly stated, in the lead, that "African Americans are composed of many different races and ancestries", as it is such a fundamental and crucial point to make regarding African-Americans. The mention of "at least partial ancestry" does not make the point. Any help getting this important information in the lead of the article is appreciated. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want help, I suggest that you start by indicating that you have read and understood the advice given above, and that you are now willing to follow Wikipedia's policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. That is a necessary starting point. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was hoping for more pragmatic advice. Anyone? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To start off with I have a couple of questions. Why does it need to be explicitly stated? If it is such a fundamental and crucial point wouldn't multiple reliable sources discuss that point and therefore wouldn't it be easy to find these sources? I think you have gotten some good advice above, Bold Revert Discuss and if you can't get consensus that way dispute resolution. The one thing that won't help your case in anyway is to be uncivil to other editors like you started out this topic. Just because other editors do not agree with you that does not make them ignorant. GB fan 21:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you're trying to impose "factual" standards on an article which, like the term African American itself, only exists becasue of strong emotional issues. The words nigger and negro became politically unacceptable in polite society (nothing to do with facts), so a new term was needed. Maybe you could go back to that derivation. Debate the real meanings of nigger and negro, rather than individual parts of a compromise neologism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I learn if changes/updates are enough to eliminate the "problems with this article" box? article is Eva Feldman

I'm trying to edit/augment the biographical article about Eva Feldman, an American neurologist. It has been flagged for poor citations, etc. -- I'm trying to learn how to add them, but at what point will the article be reviewed and the red-flag boxed elminated? We are extremely anxious to get this resolved. Thank you for any help or advice. Mapreddy (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any official review process to remove a tag. We're a community of volunteers. Usually, such tags are removed when someone else has stumbled upon the article and decides to remove it. What I recommend is that you go ahead and start adding references to the article. See reliable sources to see our policy on what counts as a good source and what doesn't. After you feel that you've fixed the problem, what you can do is post another request on the help desk asking someone to look over the article and remove the tag if they agree that the problem has been fixed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper archives online page deleted (!)

Hello, The useful reference page "Newspaper archives online" was deleted by "Discospincer" on April 22 (2012) with a deletion code of "G8." This is an extremely useful reference page to locate digital images of newspaper in archives throughout the world. Please reinstate and protect this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.76.144 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper archives online was moved to List of online newspaper archives, which was moved to Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives. Goodvac (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the move have created a redirect automatically? Is there some reason why it shouldn't redirect?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point 6 at Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting: "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's unrelated to the reason for deletion. The page got moved three times a few days ago; a bot fixed the double redirect from the old title to the first new title, but when it was moved a second time, the administrator who did it chose to move without creating a redirect. As a result, the redirect went to a nonexistent page, and thus it qualified for G8 speedy deletion, which includes redirects to nonexistent pages. Of course, it would have helped if someone had checked the history to see that the original title still existed, but that's not a huge deal. You'll note that someone has recreated it. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my comments applied to List of online newspaper archives. Most all of this is true for Newspaper archives online, and since the reason for deletion can easily be fixed, I've restore it. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need help regarding moving a page

I am working on a draft for a new article which was in my sandbox. I then moved it to become an article, but now think my decision was premature. I attempted to move the page again, hoping to return it to my sandbox. However, that was not an option, so I chose User, thinking that would return it to my Userpage. it looks to me as if all that move has done is rename the page by placing the word User in front of the title. I think it's still appearing as a live Article. Can anyone please advise me how I ensure it is not live for the time being? Kim Traynor (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up after your moves by deleting Mapa Scotland, Talk:Mapa Scotland, User:Mapa Scotland and User talk:Mapa Scotland. Note that the move form has two fields at "To new title". You should have changed both fields to move back to your sandbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 April 24

Contents