Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 June 29

Help desk
< June 28	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 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.

June 29

What's gone wrong?

All of a sudden my interface has turned into dung: some bizarre mixture of old and new templates, with things that should run along the top of the page suddenly running down the bottom left margin! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that. If the problem persists, you should ask at the Village Pump RudolfRed (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike, you may want to try clearing your cache. Or maybe you forgot that you ordered the Dung Special. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Mine does this, especially when my internet is slow - links load in the wrong places or fail to load at all, and sometimes I end up with the entire content of wikipedia on a blank page in a single column. Usually I fix it just by resetting my router, clearing my cache and then refreshing the page. --TKK ^{bark !} 11:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the various bits of advice. This is the first time I've logged on since, and at least on my Macbook, the problem has not replicated itself. I was afraid that I was seeing the much-vaunted Visual Editor in action. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can Deleted Article Be Moved to User Space

Can a deleted article be moved to user space for possible expansion? (The article in this case was Carr Collins, Jr..) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Provided there are no BLP or copyright issues, yes it can be moved to userspace. You can ask someone listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles, or post it at WP:REFUND. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will deal with this tomorrow. It was deleted for notability issues, and I think that I will eventually be able to deal with them, but that is that. However, I am not requesting the article as it was nominated, but the article as it was when I had edited it. The original article has been copied to my userspace, but my expanded version has not been. Do I have to go through a bureaucratic process of requesting restoration to my space? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Also may be worth reading up on WP:USERFICATION Technical 13 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

How to resist the attacks in discussion for an article marked for deletion?

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. However, I proposed and created a record for a very special woman who has a tremendous influence in publishing industry and in general, through her hard work, talent, and accomplishments that touched many people's lives. My article has been attacked by some editors who insult the person for whom the article has been created. These editors are rude and use words like "this kind of crap", etc. The article is marked for a deletion, and, ironically, these couple of editors can actually delete the article. What can I do to resist it and can you help me and guide me in terms of what can I do to emphasize on the importance of this record - the Bio of a Living Woman with huge positive influence around the world, reflected in her actions, professionalism, accomplishments and tremendous philanthropy actions. What is the value of Wikipedia if it gives the power of decision to people who are rude, who base their opinion on quick observation and guessing, and only see the surface of the problem? Can anybody advise new editors such as myself on how to keep a good data included in Wikipedia? Agringaus— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agringaus (talk • contribs) 03:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can you indicate where the phrase "this kind of crap" or other rudeness was used? I see nothing like that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fran Hauser. I'd like to help you with your problem, but I can't locate it. --Jayron32 03:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• That seems to refer to this comment on the user's talk page, referring not to the article or the article's subject, but to the fact that the user apparently wrote it with a conflict of interest and for promotional purposes. It is still not a constructive way to address a new user editing in good faith; as we know, many people are not aware of the fact that they can't use Wikipedia for promotion. --bonadea contributions talk 05:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for your kind attention and guidance. I'll learn. However, calling my work (even if this is not 100% because I haven't done it before) a crap, is not constructive, and doesn't encourage me to be here if I will be insulted. I am a newbie, but did my homework. Dear Orangemike, thank you for your help and criticism. Please see:

I'm so sorry that your experience so far has been a bad one with Wikipedia. I'll try to offer as good of an explanation I can :)

• First, when someone says "this kind of crap" they aren't referring to the person at all, but the article. I agree it's a very blunt statement, but sometimes it's needed. This time, it looks like calling it "crap" was too far. We get a lot of actual crap (which is very speedily deleted), but this is not crap. I actually don't even see where the word "crap" is used, so I'm not sure where you're talking about.
• Second, the reason given for the AfD nomination is that "despite having 20 sources, the sources did not support the article's contents, did not even mention the article-subject or only briefly mentioned her in passing". This means that although there's 20 sources, some of them may not mention her at all (remove those outright), some don't support what they're used to cite (fix those to cite things they support), and some mention her only in passing (still okay the way they are most likely). The problem is not the references, but the fact that most either didn't mention her or "briefly mentioned her in passing". Wikipedia requires that articles have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be notable. This means, most often, newspaper, major magazine, or academic journal articles (not interviews or press releases) that write at least a paragraph, preferably a lot more, on her, or widely published books about her. If you can show that, then the notability argument isn't valid anymore.
• Third, neither of the editors who've commented in the AfD have the technical power to delete the article. What's going on now is not a guarantee at deletion, it's a discussion among editors as to whether this article meets all policies, merits inclusion, or needs to be deleted.
• Fourth, I see no rudeness in the AfD, only information about the lack of sources for notability and the promotional tone. It looks like both of them dove deep into the 20 sources before making judgement on what they include, and that certainly means they're not on the surface of the problem.
• Lastly, one of the editors brings up a good point in their statement at the AfD - the way you are talking about this subject makes it seem like you are personally connected to her. This could be that you're actually her, or just a friend, relative, co-worker, etc. If you are, please read our guidelines on conflict of interest, as they'll help you. A word of advice not in that page - don't talk about how much you admire her, how good you think she is, etc. Stick to discussing how she and her article meets Wikipedia policy, and you'll get a lot further.

If you have any further questions, feel free to reply here, or on my talkpage and I'll reply as soon as I can. Thanks, Charmlet (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Charmlet, it's getting warmer. Wow, thank you so very hugely for the clarification on a lot of things! Btw, here is the comment that has a "crap" language. [[1]]. No worries, Orangemike seems very experienced, and I might benefit from all of you including him, so I'll tolerate this for a bit. Second, I do not work neither for Fran Hauser, nor for Time Inc. starting February 12. When I started the article, I didn't belong there. So, oops, wrong. I was laid off from Time Inc. in February, and for those of you who still want the proof, Time Inc. is a huge company. My working under the same roof with Fran doesn't mean that I have a personal interest. I am well and registered my own consulting L.L.C. It'd be nice if people do due diligence before jumping into conclusions. My LinkedIn has been updated, but not my homepage. Agringaus talkpage

According to the user's home page, they work for the same company (Time Inc.) as the subject. Dismas|^(talk) 04:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

So, what's my interest here. Because I know of Fran, and I do know Fran, and I am only one of tens of thousands of people who benefit from her hard work, and great talent. I wanted everyone to know about GlobalGiving and Half The Sky Movement and other projects.

Dear Wikipedians, including User:CorporateM, thank you so much for the amazingly useful lesson. What I know now vs. what I knew before User:CorporateM marked it for a deletion, is a huge difference. I am willing to work on the article until I get most things in. Please do not delete it and give me the chance to improve it. Thanks again! --Agringaus

I am pleased to see that the original poster has agreed to be more collaborative. I would also ask the original poster to be sure to sign his or her posts. Also, please do not use the Articles for Deletion page to argue with other editors. (Those arguments are especially confusing because they are unsigned, and apparently Articles for Deletion does not use Sinebot.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that before you created the article which started "Jess Cagle is Editor of Time Inc.’s Entertainment Weekly..." you were no longer working for Time Inc.; and that it is mere happenstance that you've never done anything in Wikipedia but create articles about Time Inc. execs? Had you only written about Hauser, whom you appear to idealize, I would be less cynical about your edit history. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I will add that I definitely do consider language like "change agent", "spearheads digital cluster of categories... through innovation and disruption", "Fran tackles global issues through addressing charitable causes", and "stepped into leadership roles" to be the kind of crap used in press releases, promotional brochures and gossip magazines such as Entertainment Weekly. It has no place in an encyclopedia. (I'll give you a pass on the first-naming [it's one of our house style rules] and the confusion between "affect" and "effect" [my Ukrainian is not merely poor but non-existent].) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Size of India's economy

INDIA IS NINTH LARGEST ECONOMY OR TENTH LARGEST? {Reform of the United Nations Security Council#India} IN THIS PAGE,IT IS WRITTEN THAT INDIA IS THE TENTH LARGEST ECONOMY AND IN THIS PAGE {India and the United Nations} IT IS WRITTEN THAT INDIA IS THE NINTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN TERMS OF GDP.

PLZ TELL ME WHICH ONE IS CORRECT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.28.162 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't SHOUT. It doesn't get you more noticed, or get a better response, it just upsets those people who would otherwise like to help you. I don't have a direct answer for you, except to say that it probably depends on exactly what metric you are using to measure the size of an economy. There are many different measurements, and it probably depends on exactly what measurement (and the exact date of the measurement) as to what any country's exact rank is. --Jayron32 04:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! According to List of countries by GDP (nominal), some sources put Indian in 9th place and others in 10th place. Bye! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Article comments

While looking for something else, I came upon the article about "Shooting of Trayvon Martin". I do not know why Wikipedia allows racists to create or "edit" articles. It is amazing the amount of racism that is allowed in an article. I am curious why there are no pictures in the article showing the blatant outward signs of being a gang-bang thug. If it was good enough to him to look like that, then racists out there do their best to hide all the signs of it. The people that did the article would have tremendous feelings of shame and disgust if they were capable of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.59.91 (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a header to your question. If you have suggestions for improving the article, you can leave a note at Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. You should be more specific than "it's racist". RudolfRed (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Best of the Best

I have noticed about the description of this movie "Best of the Best", that they say "taekwondoins", when it would soudn so much better if it said "taekwondo martial artists". The reason for this, is because it "taekwondoins" sounds unappealing.

If this could be corrected sometime in the near future, it would be much appreciated.

Thank you and have a wonderful day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.114.58 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The word used in the article is not "taekwondoins", but "taekwondoin", which I assume means "taekwondo martial artists". Maproom (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding editing of articles

Hello,

I had made changes to the following article. Cow protection movement But all the changes made by me they were deleted without assiging any reason for this.

Please tell how can I take up my case forward.Ntu129 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You could ask the editor that reverted your changes, User:Mean as custard. I can probably sum up a few of their reasons though. First, you entitled a section called "News". Wikipedia is not a news site. We don't do headlines and such. Second, your references were not put in correctly at all. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Third, we don't just copy and paste large pieces of legislature. And finally, we can't just copy things from other places and paste them in. Even if we give a source, it's still not done. You should be summarizing in your own words and providing the source. Small quotes, if necessary, are fine but not large sections of text. Hope this helps, Dismas|^(talk) 10:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Dismas, i will do the necessary changes. Thank you for the information.Ntu129 (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Old comments

I saw a new user on Talk:Super Mario Bros. replying to a nine-month old comment. I was wondering, is that fine, frowned upon, or not allowed? I've got a tab on his/her talk page, and would like to do it myself, by the way. On other wikis I read, it's not allowed, I was wondering is that the case here. Darrman (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? I'll just do it myself if I don't get an answer in five minutes. Darrman (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy against someone restarting a conversation that has been dormant for 9 months or 5 years. If you are asking about this, the user is not new and has discussed this same thing before. I am not sure what you would like to do. GB fan 11:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Also giving a 5 minute deadline is not appropriate, it might take a few hours for someone who wants to comment to show up on this page. GB fan 11:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I'm a bit impatient, and it's perfectly fine to restart old conversations? Ok. I thought he/she was new due to lack of a talk page. Darrman (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

As someone who occasionally replies to even older talk page comments, I'll note that can be helpful to other editors to know the "rest of the story". So if someone has posted "X is wrong - see [link] - would someone fix it?", for example, it could be helpful to say "Thanks; article has been changed" or "Article has not been changed because of [whatever]."

More generally, I think that seeing unanswered talk page questions can discourage potential editors from adding their own comments or questions, so answering an old question can be seen as making the encyclopedia more inviting. (Having said that, I don't encourage anyone to spend much time surfing through article talk pages, responding to old posts; there are more productive ways to spend one's time.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I do anything about an effective censorship of wikipedia policed by another user?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is about a single user (not an admin) who in one day removed nearly all the things I ever wrote on a particular set of topics in the WikiMars Project. What is more it also means that those topics are no longer covered in wikipedia at all, or almost not mentioned. In my view it amounts to censorship of wikipedia on these particular topics.

He has also said that if I write anything on these topics again he will remove it. This happened shortly after he won an AfD on an article that I wrote on one of these topics.

I have not been banned. Also no policy decision has been made to remove all this content. It is simply his unilateral personal decision to do this.

Basically it is a case of removing anything that suggests that contamination of Mars is a serious issue for human colonization of the surface, or that contamination of Earth by micro-organisms returned from Mars is a serious issue. Enthusiastic Mars colonization advocates tend to think these issues can be ignored but all the official studies by NASA, the ESA and the Planetary Protection Office say they can't be ignored.

See here: User_talk:Robertinventor#The_wikipedia_editors_and_admins_for_WikiProject_Mars_clearly_approve_this_censorship

I tried raising it on the project talk pages but no success there. The other editors on the project seem to approve his actions, so tacitly accepting this ban.

I know this isn't the place to ask if those topics should be removed from wikipedia or not. It is more about how it happened.

Dispute resolution is impossible. He makes token statements - but obviously doesn't mean it (lots of insults and requests that if he wins I must never edit wikipedia topics on Mars again).

I do not wish to go against wikipedia policy and engage in an edit war, and so apart from a single token undo of the largest of his bold removals of my content in protest, have only protested on the talk pages, which gets nowhere.

Asking for comments, and help in a general way. From my experience so far, I doubt if there is anything that can be done, but you never find out if you never ask. Robert Walker (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I haven't researched the issue, but, if what you are saying is correct, the tone of your post does not help your request. If you have already decided that dispute resolution does not work, then you are correct that dispute resolution does not work, because you won't work with it. Even if there is being censorship, it doesn't help to accuse censorship. Your post is not a personal attack, but is confrontational. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That being said, I haven't researched the history, but if multiple articles that you wrote were deleted based on one Articles For Deletion abuse, that is contrary to deletion policy and is improper. Read the dispute resolution policy in detail before saying that it is impossible. Until I research the issue further, I don't know whether to recommend WP:ANI for improper deletion and for personal attacks or ana user conduct Request for Comments or mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is correct, there is a problem. You may be taking the same tone as the other project members, but the tone of your post doesn't help. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

After researching the issues for about fifteen minutes, which is not a long time, I can see that you, Robert Walker, haven't presented your case effectively. Your user talk page is a wall of text, and {Talk:Manned mission to Mars]] is a wall of text. You have been cautioned that the length of your posts makes it difficult for other editors to consider. You say that there have been insults and statements that you must never edit articles on Mars again. If that is true, that is a serious personal attack, but you didn't provide diffs and the only clear insult that I saw was a quote that you copied where you were accusing of spamming. Also, it now appears that what was deleted is not articles (except for one), but sections of articles. I'd like to try to help achieve consensus, but the length of your posts makes it hard to see what you want. I also don't see what the other side wants (except for you to go away), partly because the length of your posts eclipses their posts. Please try to summarize what you are saying.

Also, your allegation of censorship misses the point. What is happening is a content dispute, complicated by conduct issues. The removal of non-consensus views is not censorship. There is an issue about the weight to be given to back-contamination concerns. Giving proper rather than undue weight to concerns is not censorship.

It does appear that there are conduct issues by your opponents. However, your own conduct, especially your filibustering on talk pages, make it hard to identify other conduct disputes. Please try to be brief. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay well that is what I posted about here for to hear from disinterested wikipedians nothing to do with Mars Project, thanks for taking the time to look at it. I'll do my best to be brief

This is the thing about never editing WP:MARS what he said when I commented to another editor that there was no chance of dispute resolution:

Bring it on sir. I'm all for it. Only one condition though: if it goes against you, you promise to go away from the WP:MARS project and never come back, OK?

- but he only said it to discourage me from taking part in any dispute resolution process, he surely can't have expected me to take him up on it.

He removed sections from multiple articles, and didn't say it was based on the dispute resolution. This is the reason he gave for his actions:

Your days of spamming Wikipedia with your contamination hysteria are over. I see you've spammed your propaganda in practically every article on Mars in the Wikipedia. Those "contributions" will be redacted.

The AfD with him was one of the most stressful episodes I've had to go through for years and if a dispute resolution was anything like that I couldn't take it. It brought on an attack of gout which can be stress induced, and need to calm down - it is not yet completely over.

Not saying that for sympathy but just to say why I probably have to walk away from this, but was posting here just in case there was anything I could do, and also just to get some feedback on it all.

You've read my page so I suppose to someone not invovled it just seems a matter of due weight, to me it seems that entire subjects are no longer permitted to be mentioned - such as any mention that the official POV of NASA etc recognize a possibility of environmental disruption, or that the surface of Mars is thought by many researchers to be habitable for life, or that contamination of the surface of Mars is a major issue for humans if they ever land on the planet. To me those seem big topic areas especially after so much time writing about them, but I suppose they aren't so much in the larger scheme of things :) Robert Walker (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You have copied quotes that appear to be blatant personal attacks, but you don't provide diffs or even links, so that I can't see who made them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay will do Robert Walker (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Well he has just this minute archived the entire talk page presumably to hide my comments there. Would be hard to find with a diff, so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manned_mission_to_Mars/Archive_1#Contamination_Concerns_section_-_size_and_balance

You need to expand the section - he collapsed my first comment in this section - and then they did another collapse on top of that But you should find this quote there:

Bring it on sir. I'm all for it. Only one condition though: if it goes against you, you promise to go away from the WP:MARS project and never come back, OK?

This is the other one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mars_sample_return_mission#Bias_of_section_on_back_contamination

Your strategic displays of incompetence aren't going to fly this time; I am not going to give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk up your comment to your ignorance. You are intentionally spreading disinformation on the Wikipedia. You will not be allowed to continue.

But - he has been engaging in personal attacks of this nature every day, many times every day for weeks now. I have never once attacked him back.

When I said it is censorship in this section title just meant it as a statement of fact (which you corrected) not a personal attack just want to make that clear. Robert Walker (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I could find dozens of these attacks if you really want, though prefer to forget about them actually :). Robert Walker (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually on reflection I don't think it is too helpful to attemmpt to do something about the personal attacks. As far as I can tell it is just me he attacks in this way on wikipedia and with me no longer editing the topics the problem probably will go away.

It is the removal of the content rather than the attacks that really bother me. I mean the attacks because they make it impossible to reason in a calm collected way, main thing about those, and greatly add to the stress, which is why I can't take it any more just now, but I think there is absolutely 0 chance he would stop doing them at this stage.

Dispute resolution seems unlikely to succeed if he did enter into the process, and anyway, I can't face it not with him just now.

So - I think there is probably nothing that can be done and will just walk away from it. But if anyone does have any other thoughts do say :)

Thanks for giving your time to my little problem :) Robert Walker (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A very sarcastic thanks. You have wasted the time of the Help Desk by using to vent about a problem that apparently has you too angry and frustrated to be willing to follow up. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon, but what makes you think his "thanks" was sarcastic? I took a moment to look this over and while it's true that Robertinventor is a little green and too personally invested here, he's made high-quality edits in good faith and has been treated like crap, top to bottom. With the persistent decline of participation in this encyclopedia now beyond doubt, I had hoped this unfortunate aspect of its culture might be on the mend. beefman (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean that his thanks was sarcastic. Mine was. If indeed he says that nothing can be done and that he will just walk away, then he wasted our time. I agree with your assessment that he has made some high-quality edits and has been treated like crap. I agree that he appears to be too personally invested, but that other editors have behaved far worse. I was willing to work with him, but if he says that he is just walking away because he is too angry and frustrated, then he wasted our time. If he will take a short break and get over his stress and come back, then progress can and will be made. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant it genuinely. I came here to see if anyone had any ideas, but after what you said and thinking it through - the thing is after talking to a friend on facebook after your suggestion, I realised that there is absolutely no future in complaining about his personal attacks, that's not going to get anywhere productive. I see zero chance of that happening. So what's the point. So I don't want to waste your time following that up any further.

I can't see a dispute resolution working. There is a lot of history behind that, I am just sure it wouldn't work but just be a case of enduring hundreds of more insults and allegations of incompetence and probably end up being banned from MarsProject just because I don't answer back. It is because of his insults that have continued in this unrelenting way for so many weeks and I can't see those stopping and with those continuing through the dispute resolution it just couldn't possibly work. So, my decision to walk away from it remains the only thing to do at this time.

I will continue editing parts of wikipedia where I am welcomed, and also other projects outside of wikipedia where I am welcomed and valued. But there comes a point when you realise you simply are not welcome here any more, and not valued in a particular place, and sometimes the best thing you can do is to just go away. I have most certainly not used wikipedia for spamming and haven't done any inappropriate edits and have never and would never use wikiedia for advocacy, and indeed am not even a member of the organization he often accuses me of being an advocate for, and have followed all the guidelines to the best of my ability throughout as a responsible wikipedian editor. All those allegations are also another reason why I feel the only thing I can do is go away because - for some reason - he seems to be believed when he says those things no matter what I do and no matter how untrue they all are Robert Walker (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Mr. McClenon: Be aware there are two sides to this story. The deletions were the result of the community consensus. Everyone except Robert agreed that his "contributions" were WAY too long. Moreover, they tended to be rambling, often with word-for-word duplication in the same article, contained numerous factual inaccuracies, cherry picked quotes blatantly taken out of context, leading questions, editorial comments, etc., etc. And I am certainly not the only one who has deleted his contributions.

The idea that Mars exploration represents an existential risk to Planet Earth is shared only by one notable organization, the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return a group populated by scientists mainly notable for their fringe scientific theories. There is already an article on ICAMSR; we do not need extensive sections dealing with overblown "concerns" about phantom existential risks in practically every other article on Mars.Warren Platts (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that there are two sides to this story. It appears that there have been too many personal attacks and that the articles have been subject to the battleground mentality. I still would like to see the diffs of the two quoted personal attacks. I can see that one article was deleted based on the standard consensus process. As to whether to delete sections from articles, has anyone considered using an article content Request for Comments? The allegation of spamming appears to be based on off-wiki content and inappropriate, unless it can be substantiated. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's take this to a talk page. Which one? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the WP:MARS project talk page, since Robert Walker's disruptive editing spans over several articles on Mars, including at least Life on Mars, Water on Mars, Mars sample return mission, Manned mission to Mars, not to mention the now defunct Concerns for an early Mars sample return Warren Platts (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Basically he won an AfD and took that as license to remove all content I wrote on contamination issues on Mars - not even just my content on back contamination, but my content on forward contamination issues too which was not even a subject of the AfD and in any case an AfD is only for that article and doesnt' give license even to remove all content on the topic of the AfD throughout wikipedia never mind content that is only related to the extent that it is also about contamination issues. Just thought I'd correct this before I go.

2. If it was due process I might have been a bit miffed, but would have accepted it as the same rules that apply to everyone here. It is removing all this without disucssion. As a minor protest, I reverted his biggest deletion on the Manned mission to Mars. He just reverted my revert and I know from experience he doesn't engage in BRD with me. So there was nothing I could do but it wasn't even a ban just a single user and not even an admin - you can understand perhaps why I felt so frustrated - but realise it is a hopeless cause because the only way through it is through dispute resolution - and that I am sure will never work IMO because of the insults.

3. In his list of disruptive edits he just gave now, he also includes my material on the present day habitability of Mars - a separate subject, topic of many research papers and a major conference earlier this year - which BatteryIncluded removed. Warren Platts and BatteryIncluded both have the same pattern of OTT insults, personally directed at me, which I have never experienced from anyone else in all my years of editing wikiedia. They have supported each other in this throughout. In the AfD it was because the two of them were so strongly opposed with just the one of me plus a weak keep from another editor - so then with a few others coming in on their side on the last day - that was why the AfD was won so conclusively. Robert Walker (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

1. This is a lie. The AfD is irrelevant. Spam is spam, and needs to be deleted wherever and whenever it is encountered. Robert is on a mission to save the planet. He believes that Mars exploration represents a possible existential risk for Planet Earth. His goal is to put the brakes on Mars exploration--as if it were on the fast track. Now he wants to use Wikipedia to help him do it. Cf. but one of Robert's published opinion pieces here: link

2. The problem of Robert's wall of text on contamination "concerns" in the Manned mission to Mars article was discussed in the talk section. There was universal agreement that it was too long. I merely executed the consensus desire.

3. The AfD discussion may be found here: WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 16#Concerns for an early Mars sample return. It speaks for itself. Warren Platts (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not-quite-blank articles

An editor has created numerous pages that lack any texual content besides a single external link and an infobox. I speedied them as no content because, well, there's no content, but another editor took my speedies down with the reasoning that "infoboxes are content". That's not my issue because I think he was in the right and I need to work on my reading comprehension. My question is, is there a policy in place for dealing with or tagging not-quite-blank articles like these? --TKK ^{bark !} 11:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Which articles is this about? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that infoboxes are content, but the creator of the articles appears to be someone who likes infoboxes and doesn't like to write articles. You can tag them as Proposed For Deletion (non-controversial but non-speedy deletion) or for consensus at Articles For Deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this is about The Kiss (1999 film), Love $ Greed, Clair Obscur (1988 film) and others. KTT, it would be good if you carefully went over the criteria for speedy deletion so you know whether your tagging will be correct. If these are the article you're talking about, you did not tag them as having no content (CSD A3), but as lacking context (CSD A1) (point of terminology: they were not "speedied" by you, but tagged for speedy deletion by you, speedy/speedied refers to the deletion itself). Regardless of whether A1 or A3, yeah, neither fit. You can use proposed deletion (PROD), as noted above, but don't take these to article for deletion (AfD) unless you think the topic, rather than what was written about the topic, is the problem. AfD generally considers the merits of the subject, deciding whether an article on it is warranted, and not whether the contents of the article we have is good enough. Note also WP:BEFORE. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not linking them, I didn't want to be specific since this is a relatively high-flow page and I was afraid something would happen. (What? I don't know.) Also sorry about my failure at language hahah. The problem isn't that I necessarily want them deleted - I'm not trying to throw them in the trash, I just want to know how things are managed with nearly-blank articles - is there a 'this article has no content besides an infobox' tag or ... ? --TKK ^{bark !} 20:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The ones that contain only an IMDB link are within A7 range, since they have no assertion of importance. The few that contain a link to a credible review contain enough to clear A7.—Kww(talk) 17:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I take that back. Creative works have been specifically removed from A7.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding citing a organization profile

Hi, The main intent in any article at wikipedia is that it must be verifiable. If there is a organization whose works and activities are :-

• -Largely offline.
• -Restricted to certain regions/national influence.
• How can citation in references be done for such organization ?

Even if some news about such orgnzation is there can it quouted in references ?

Ntu129 (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they are reliable and aren't self published. There are a lot of articles whose primary sourcing might be said to be offline. If there is news online, you can quote it, as long as you use " "'s and include a citation after the quote so we know where you took it from.--TKK ^{bark !} 12:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Help me

Hi i want you to delete my pictures, can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.93.215.126 (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you'd explain what you mean by "my pictures". Dismas|^(talk) 12:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If they are lame images of you then we can probably delete them if we have better ones. See: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people If they are stored at commons then leave a note at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump. If you wish to keep your name and the image issue low key then you could email the foundation or a user to quietly ask for a deletion review. In order to email a user you would need to create an account and then use: Wikipedia:Emailing users In this case they would need to be images that don't meet our policies and guidelines to continue hosting here. We do usually delete images that are 'out of scope'. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Summary#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose .--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Password Reset/ Email registration problem

Hi

My account - which was set up by someone else & never had an email address registered to it - is now totally inaccessible, since I cannot use the Password reset funstion without an email address to send it to. Obviously, nor can I log in to my account to register an email address. Is there any alternative to setting up a new account altogether, since I really don't want to change my login/ wiki ID?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.40.44 (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Create a new account. If the old account has no significant edits then you may be able to usurp the username. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Uploading an image

Sorry for the dumb question, I've been around for a while but I don't do much with images and can't find the answer to this. How do I upload an updated version of an image, without adding it again with another name? Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Which image? If it's hosted at the English Wikipedia then click "Upload a new version of this file". If it's hosted at Commons then go there first. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Its on Wikipedia but I don't have an option for that. Is that an extra script or setting I need? All I have is the standard Upload image. Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Which image? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Awb view menu.PNG but I don't have that option for any image. Kumioko (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It is actually at commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Awb_view_menu.PNG Below the file history thumbnails is the "Upload a new version of this file" option.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I got it now thanks. Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome.

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Rogue Skype icon in infobox

OK - I am baffled by this. Does anyone have any idea why I am seeing a Skype icon popping up in the infobox for Jean-Louis Scherrer? Edit summary looks normal. Is it a problem with my browser, possibly? (I am using Firefox).

Mabalu (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You apparently have a Skype browser extension which interprets certain integers as phone numbers. See Wikipedia:Browser notes#Skype. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much - that helped. Much appreciated. 14:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice image. Should we move it to commons and add it to the browser/Skype section linked above?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A picture paints a thousand words. - X201 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you, Canoe1967. I was going to request the file deleted, but if you think it would be useful, then please by all means feel free to use it. Mabalu (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I don't know the easiest way to move it to commons. For now I will add it to the Skype section above. If it is reverted then the next step would be discussion on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates has over 165k files in it. Are these moved by bots or humans? Also Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons doesn't mention Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. Should adding the move template to files be in the 'how to move' section?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Maps of Kent

Hi All! I was looking at a page that I thought could do with an external link to a map site (The page was Kent: Kent), although I noticed that there was a message in the edit about being cautious adding external links.

I thought it would be relevant to link to the site (http://www.mapofkent.co.uk) as it had a collection of Kent related maps.

So, what do I do?! Is it relevant enough to be included under the external links?

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.42.243 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically it's the same style of map you have attempted to place on the Dorset and Devon articles. These maps and their content are mainly advertising pages and Wikipedia does not accept advertising/spam. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Compare selected revisions

I use Chrome, if that matters. I used to be able to select a particular diff, you know, with a dot from the left column and a dot from the right column, and then ctrl-click the "Compare selected revisions" bar to open that diff in a new browser tab. But for the past year or more, ctrl-click does the same as normal click, the current browser tab goes to that page. Help please? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tried in both Firefox and Chrome on Win7 and neither one of them offers to put the differences in a new tab when I right click. Nor do I get the difference comparison in the current tab. I get a contextual menu in both programs. Dismas|^(talk) 23:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have it all fixed now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mind telling me what you did? Dismas|^(talk) 00:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A kind editor did this for me. I am very pleased. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User category

Page User:-Midorihana-/Userboxes is at the top of Category:Wikipedians who have adopted in Adopt-a-user. There are a few templates on the page that mention the program. Should this page be normally included in the cat or is there an error in one of the templates? The user has had no edits since early 2010 so they should be on a missing or retired list as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

{{adopter}} adds users to that category. RudolfRed (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

State shading

Is there a map of the United States for which it is possible to shade in individual states. For example, I want to shade in New Hampshire and Texas on this map. How can I do this without manually uploading images?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_United_States may have what you need already or you could try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop to see the best way to go about it. Someone should actually write software that knows territorial lines. Then you could just say colour territory X with colour Y.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing Jeff Powell (American football)

I have made significant edits, but cannot save them. Please help!Doss002 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I had no problem editing it. It is not protected. What goes wrong when you try to edit the article? Maproom (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I added information and when I pressed the green "save page" button, the error message reads, "Error saving data to server: Failed request: error." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doss002 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If it happens again, save the exact error message you see, and post it on the Village Pump. RudolfRed (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)