Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 October 9

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.

October 9

Readable prose for Fluorine please

Readable prose for Fluorine please.108.162.44.194 (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This was already requested earlier by a different IP. See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013_October_5#Please_report_readable_prose_for_Fluorine for the results. If you need to run the report often, please create an account as suggested. RudolfRed (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The best place to post this request is the talk page of the fluorine article. It will help if you specify what in the article you find unreadable. To me, it seems it is well written. Maproom (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've changed Rudolph's reply to point to the relevant archive. This seems to be at least the 6th similar request. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Maproom: "Readable prose" in a particular stats report Wikipedia can generate on an article, refers to the number of bytes of article content that form ordinary prose (not tables, headings, contents of ref tags, html comments, or the like). The term is perhaps confusing. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Maproom (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Attracting outside input

What would be the best way to attract outside input to this discussion?

(In short: It started as a minor dispute between an IP editor and myself over whether or not Nuclear War#Survival should have a {{See also}}, but has since degraded into a general discussion on the sections' content, as well as user conduct (on both my and the IP's parts) and whether my edits can rightfully be called vandalism.)

Can't use WP:3O; I don't think it merits an RfC (I have no idea how one for this could be phrased, anyway); it's not just about content, so no WP:DRN; etc. The discussion is a mess; what it needs is an experienced editor (or a few) to explain the relevant guidelines and asses the situation as a whole. I momentarily considered WP:AN/I, but I don't think this necessarily requires any 'administrative action'. What else is there? ʍw 01:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that a post at the Help desk is a good way to attract outside input to such discussions. Thanks all. ʍw 16:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Essay

write an essay using the tittle and 3 points you have written for itell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.142.139 (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

bob grant.actor

Question relating to your article on the date in which on the Busses actor robert grant."bob grant" passed away.the year I'm sure is wrong.I think he died from carbon minoxide poisioning in 2007.not 2003.can you check this and edit if I'm right.I have no idea how to do it myself.thankyou.m.kennedy.122.56.234.49 (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bob Grant died in 2003. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

drive-by POV tag search

I've been an on-and-off editor for years but I'm still fairly new at using maintenance tools. One things that I feel I contribute by doing is removing POV templates that have aged or were never really substantiated. Drive-by tagging is potentially useful, but I notice a good number of articles with POV tags that date back years with no accompanying reasons for them on the article's talk page. What I'd really like to be able to do is to search for POV tags placed by an IP editor where there is nothing on the talk page. That might be a bit much, but if I could even find a page that lists all POV tags by date placed oldest first, that might help. I've tried the NPOV disputes page, and that's not really what I'm looking for. Those pages have actual disputes, not the non-dispute drive-by tagging I'm looking to remove. RIght now, I'm sort of doing it by random finds, which is hardly efficient. Eggishorn (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

At the top right of Category:NPOV disputes is a box marked "Subtotals [show]". If you expand that you will see links to the monthly categories, oldest first. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. My problem with the category page is that the pages listed are usually there because there is a "real" dispute and there are discussions that have no easy consensus. Maybe on one level I should be trying to help bring consensus to these pages, but I was really looking for pages where there is a POV tag but no POV dispute. Nothing on the talk page or such. For example, the article Show trial was tagged last year without a reason, and I talked with the original tag placer and then went and removed it. That's what I'd like to do more generally.Eggishorn (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my reply only answered the part of your post "a page that lists all POV tags by date placed oldest first". I can't think of any good way to search for POV tags placed by IPs and/or POV tags lacking talk page discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for clarifying. That may indeed be the best tool available.Eggishorn (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney Concert Hall

I belive someone has done some malicious editing on the page for the Walt Disney Concert Hall. The Title heading over this famous building says "Walt Disney Fucking Hall"

Please correct this error. Thanks.

Walt Disney Concert Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you for reporting this; the article has been fixed. If you are still seeing the bad version then you may need to bypass your browser cache. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

please dont delete as i elections are coming and i have also updated references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_chaudary please chk references.

he is former health minister of rajasthan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhjaglan (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The reference to The Hindu confirms that he has been Rajasthan's state health minister, so he passes the notability test for politicians. The article is unlikely to be deleted now, but it's not in good condition. I can't do it now, but will look at cleaning it up later if nobody else gets there in the meantime. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia isn't a publicity platform for any individual or party, and the election date isn't relevant to whether or not the article is kept. - Karenjc (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the PROD and moved the page to fix the typo in the title - it is now at Rajendra Chaudary -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have done a little to clean up the article. It is still far below an acceptable standard, and has no real references. Maproom (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Grand Theft Auto V characters

Please: Could someone clean up the References section? Thanks --Frze ^{> talk} 07:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)  Done --Frze ^{> talk} 07:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

correction for Minneapoli , MN Chief of police

1934 their was a Minneapolis Police Chief named Joseph Lehmeyer that you do not show. MINNEAPOLIS CITY PAGES WHEN YOU ADD HIS NAME IT SHOWS> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.207.127 (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is about Minneapolis Police Department. I can't guess which article it is about. Maproom (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Lehmeyer was chief of police during the early 1930s but the article does not contain a comprehensive list of chiefs. Hack (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

... and is not intended to. Lists of that kind normally only contain people who have, or could have, Wikipedia articles about them. Not every police chief has been written about widely enough to attain the level of notability required. --ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

article re: Social Botany

My submission on "Social Botany" was rejected as it was deemed to be neologism [(Submission declined on 8 October 2013 by Aggie80 (talk)].

I beg to differ as it is not neologism; both words do exist. It is simply a new concept. Nonetheless, all concepts start anew.

I request that you reconsider and accept the article on SOCIAL BOTANY.

Thank you for your time.

Yours Eva Evangelakou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva Evangelakou (talk • contribs) 08:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cover "new concepts", or "original research". Wikipedia requires the subject of any article to meet their notability criteria, which includes having been covered (at length, not just in passing), in several reliable sources.
Arjayay (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A coined phrase consisting of two common words not normally used together can be, and in this case, is, a neologism. As Arjayay says, we do not cover "new concepts" until they have been discussed by reliable sources.

How to locate in Wikipedia Material I Published.

Not to Change any Article, but to enjoy reading what I write. Rereading helps me think. Please plase a location button for reviewing SELF. ty n i c u but u r good. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.174.40.183 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you looking for a list of your own contributions? Maproom (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Canada

You have placed a flag The Duality Flag is an insult to Canadians and should be removed. It is one person who believes in this and is pushing for it . Allowing this to be in has no bearing on the flag and how it was produced and what it stands for. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.2.178 (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think is is talking about Canadian Duality Flag (Image at File:Canadian_Duality_Flag.svg). I'm not sure which article the original poster is complaining about it. It is present on Canadian Duality Flag, Flag of Canada, and List of Canadian flags. The entry on List of Canadian Flags is in the Others/Non-official which seems OK, the entry in Flag of Canada is referenced with two secondary refs. The actual article on Canadian Duality Flag has only a Flags of the World and a primary ref, so the secondary refs should probably be added to that article. I haven't seen any use of the flag that I'd consider vandalism.Naraht (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've changed to just a link to the image, rather than us needing to see the image itself. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, @207.134.2.178:, it sounds to me that you are asking Wikipedia to censor itself to protect your feelings. Wikipedia typically does not respond favorably to such requests, as Wikipedia is not censored. As long as the subject is notable and there is coverage from reliable sources to establish its significance, it can be included. However, if the Duality Flag is being used in an inappropriate way, (e.g., being presented as the OFFICIAL flag of Canada), that's another story, and you are encouraged to provide us with more information so we can look into your specific objection. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Idea for Wikipedia to Synergize with Open Source Software: Requirements Pages for Articles which are about Sciences, Technologies or Processes.

Wikipedia was born of Open Source.

I'm an Open Source application writer like the thousands of others out there. I have been writing software since 1982 professionally. Lots of years of experience - and for areas I am familiar with I can develop excellent applications, like many other Open Source programmers.

PROBLEM: Thousands of Open Source programmers out there (like me) have little Idea of what Requirements would be for applications out of our field. My field is Engineering Tools; I would like to write other software like Dentist Office applications or Medical Applications, but I have never been exposed to the requirements in those areas. I really don't have an idea of what data is kept, how it is displayed, what form fields are used and what functions are involved. But people in the Wikipedia community DO. There are Dentists and Doctors writing Wikipedia articles. An these people already use software applications in their fields on a daily basis. I'm sure they've wished they could change this or that about the software they use but the software companies don't listen.

Current events exemplify this issue: The Affordable Care Act websites. Lots of issues. The article I read yesterday said that the problem was talented software people aren't talented U.S. Government Contract writers. So the mediocre people who excel at filling out U.S. Government Contract applications win the work.

I believe Wikipedia is in a unique position to do something about this. The reason why you don't see more business specific open source software is because of limited exposure of software writers.

PROPOSAL: If all the talented upper ranks of Wikipedia could devise additional pages about Science, Technology, and Process pages that would essentially be Requirements for Software Applications. Then Open Source software people could have something to work from.

The reason I think Wikipedia is the perfect home for this is for what it already is; a collaborative encyclopedia. You already work to make an article have the right content without extraneous or superfluous prose. What Wikipedia people could do is to describe the "content" of a software application, the form fields, the data relationships, the features. And just like with Wikipedia articles, you would have people throwing in the kitchen sink, but in the long run it would stabilize into a set of valid software requirements that open source people could use.

An Example Challenge: The Affordable Care Act Website Software. No doubt that the Wikipedia Community will document all facts about the ACA, including how it works what is required, where to go, what you need to sign up and what you get as a result. However these descriptions will be written as encyclopedia entries. My proposal would be to create additional wiki pages with detailed information of all forms, all form fields, data relationships, etc. -- Requirements for software.

I know this may seem to some as an intimidating idea - but in the end, YOU, know more about the requirements of these topics than WE (Software developers). Unless there is a place where this knowledge can come to roost, Open Source software developers are intellectually locked out.

Please consider this, Wikipedia Community.

Thank you for reading this. Wikiwerks (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it's difficult for me to glean exactly what you are getting at, because programming ain't my bailiwick, but it sounds like you are suggesting that the framework for various open source software be documented on Wikipedia. My sense is that (a perhaps more succinct version of) your proposal would be best be introduced either at WikiProject Software where like-minded folk could weigh in on your ideas, or possibly at one of the Village Pump pages, such as Village pump (idea lab). My instinct is that the former might be the best place to float the question. Sorry if I am not of any help. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What you're asking might be sensible and useful (though I have my doubts whether it would work in practice), but Wikipedia is absolutely not the right place for it. Wikipedia will probably not (and should not) document "how it works ... []or] what you need to sign up" - see WP:NOT; and a fortiori should not contain your suggestion. I suspect that one of the other Wikimedia projects might be a better fit: Wikisource, or perhaps Wikiversity. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization question

Should Ph As in Phony (an Issac Asimov Short story) be moved to Ph as in Phony?Naraht (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --erachima talk 14:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A reference to support erachima's reply: MOS:CT, --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Searching within an article..

I just read the article about Rocky Marciano and there was a nice "slang term" the author used for his left hook punch, but the ways that I know how to search don't work. For example I tried "Ctrl s" and no search boxes opened up for me to use. There are also no "search" buttons I can click on.

I'm sure there's an answer and its staring me right in the face, but I don't know at all how I perform a search within any one of your thousands of helpful articles.

Can you tell me how to search words/several word searches within an artical on Wikipedia?

Regards, Rick Ploth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rploth (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a search box at the upper right (in the default skin) but that searches all of Wikipedia, not just the current article. To search for text in the article I suggest using your browser's built in search function. The access key for this varies by browser. In firefox/windows it is control-F (for find) and the box appears at the bottom of the window. I think that recent versions of IE also use Ctrl-F. DES ^(talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes "Control f" on IE10 puts the find box top left-hand corner. This works on any page, not just Wikipedia. Arjayay (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you come back here before you are able to find the search box, the slang term you are looking for is "Suzie Q." uhhlive (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Paradoxically, in order for him to find his comment, he will need to use CTRL-F! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Viewing own deleted userpages

I remember requesting one of my own userpages for deletion, but I would like to be able to view the content just for my own personal reference, as I am not sure if I copied the content and still have it. I am pretty sure this is too much to ask, but is there a way to do that? Finalius (gibberings) 16:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Many admins, including myself, will generally do this if the content was not a copyright violation or an attack page. See User:DESiegel#Recovery of deleted articles for my personal take on this. DES ^(talk) 17:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a bot/script to remove ELs?

David Tukhmanov has well over 200 YouTube links embedded in the body-text. I'm probably just being lazy, but is there a bot or script that can remove these automatically, retaining the relevant text which is included in each link? Arjayay (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

AWB could probably be used for this, but since it is in the text of a single article, it might be easier to copy the wikitext to a programmer's editor which has regexp or other advanced find/replace capacity, make the change there, and then paste the edited text back. I would use {{inuse}} to avoid edit conflicts. DES ^(talk) 17:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Arjayay: If you're not up to regular expressions, here's a trick: User:John of Reading/X1 is, at least for now, a template that echoes its second parameter and ignores any other parameters. If you do an ordinary search-and-replace for {{YouTube| and replace that with {{subst:User:John of Reading/X1|, and then preview and save, you will find that all the YouTube links have been replaced with just their descriptive text. Or would you like me to make the edit? -- John of Reading (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for preparing that. However, as search and replace hasn't worked on IE for some time, I'll have to take you up on your offer to make the edit. Thanks again. Arjayay (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Done! I copied the Wikitext into Notepad++ to do the search and replace. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll explore Notepad++ if that gets around the IE problem. Arjayay (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing the entry Quantum Healing

Dear People: Thank you for maintaining this site. I often use wikipedia for my personal use. I appreciate your large task.... I'm writing you because I recently noticed that I am referenced in the entry "Quantum Healing" as the primary citation. I decided to join the conversation and update the entry since the description offered of Quantum Healing is sophomoric at best.

I offered this contribution, see below, but it appears to be automatically deleted each time I refresh the browser. In my quick research of the site, I see that there are "editorial controls" that automatically revert "vandalism" and other "large edits." But, how can I actually contribute if my edits are automatically deleted -- and with no explanation? This seems completely contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. But, perhaps I am misunderstanding the real "openness" of the site.

And, yes, I am also in the field of Quantum Healing; so the terms of use indicate that it might be a conflict of interest for me to edit an explanation of Quantum Healing. But, I suggest that an expert on the topic be allowed to weigh in and offer, at the very least, a perspective of someone who actually practices this modality.

Here is what I have repeatedly attempted to contribute (luckily I thought to copy and paste my entry into a Word document to save it; otherwise my editing work would have been deleted altogether):

Quantum Healing is a term used to describe beneficial therapeutic results accruing in a person at a quantum, i.e. energetic level of reality. The terminology is borrowed from quantum mechanics, psychology, philosophy, and neurophysiology, but the philosophy and practice are more akin to indigenous shamanic healing approaches. The primary assertion of quantum healing, as in a shamanic worldview, is that we are all energy forms interconnected energetically in a field of energy. In this view, imbalance and disease occur when the rational mindset attempts to forcibly materialize all energy forms into a Newtonian framework of material cause and effect. This viewpoint is, needless to say, exactly contrary to the conventional Western, allopathic approach to medicine, which still operates inside of the outmoded Newtonian paradigm. Thus, although quantum healing actually draws upon the more contemporary scientific insights of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory, it is often ironically and deliberately misrepresented with the pejorative label of "pseudoscience." Quantum healing bears close theoretical resemblance to Chinese medicine. There are a number of different versions of Quantum Healing, which draw on various quantum ideas including wave particle duality and virtual particles, and more generally energy and vibrations. Quantum healing is a form of alternative medicine.

Please advise on how I may actually contribute to the public conversation on this important topic.

with love, Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderDunlop (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 October 2013‎ (UTC)

You are making major changes to the article, which were changed back by another user. Major changes e.g. removal of the term pseudo science may need to be discussed first on the article talk page.Martin451 17:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Phrases like "outmoded Newtonian paradigm" are opinion, which has no place in this encyclopaedia unless as a direct or indirect quotation clearly attributed to a source and supported with a citation. Karenjc (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Permission to use photo from Wikipedia

Dear Wikihelpdesk person: I am writing a book on aerodynamics. I would like to use a picture from the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Isaakszoon_van_Ruisdael I do not see where I can find out if this is a public image or if it is copyrighted to someone? Can you help? I will have other needs for pictures or even pieces of articles such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrieus_wind_turbine I don't want to bother you every time. How do I find the owner of the copyright? Thank you very much. JJC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattot (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to find the copyright information for an image, just click on it, and scroll down past the image to the copyright information below it. For example, clicking on the image of the mill in van Ruisdael's page takes you to this page, where under the "Licensing" section you can see that the image is public domain. Hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

purchased an image from Getty Images

Hello,

I work with Thomas Lennon and we recently purchased an image from Getty Images for his Wikipedia page. We have uploaded it twice and both times it has been removed by an editor because it is specified as a "non-free file" even though when I uploaded it I made clear that it we purchased it with the specific intent of using it for his Wikipedia page. Do you have any suggestions of how we can stop this from happening? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I have already emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the e-mail template that is provided. I have a license agreement from Getty Images as well.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpokenReasonsFF (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Getty Images licensing does not extend nearly widely enough to allow use in Wikipedia, since we require that images be available for re-use (including commercial re-use and modification). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Signature gallery

Is there any gallery of users signatures? So i can use some of those? --Anastan (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. Fancy signatures are obnoxious and discouraged anyway. --erachima talk 20:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The signature guidelines stipulate that users shouldn't emulate each other's signatures. This helps keep individual users identifiable. If you want a more personalised signature, take cues from other people's, but ultimately make it your own. Some users may be able to make you a signature if you ask them nicely if you aren't too keen on learning HTML and/or CSS.  drewmunn  talk  20:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That depends on your definition of fancy. Is mine fancy? I like the look of it but it's not intentionally hard to read.

Anastan, I'd suggest just going to talk pages and such with heavy traffic and seeing what's out there. Browse here at the Help Desk, the Reference Desk, the Tea House, and various pages of Articles for Discussion. You'll see a lot of plain sigs but you'll also see some more interesting ones that don't go overboard. Dismas|^(talk) 20:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

But i have found! Just searched User signatures and found this User:Athaenara/Gallery This is soooo coooooolllll!!!!!!! Anastan 20:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastan (talk • contribs)

Be careful with those, though, because many don't obey the latest rules on signatures. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, i did it, and it is ok, i hope? Must i add contributions link in my signature, or not? --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement to include a contributions link or even a talk page link, some use only a link to user page. However, I for one prefer plainer and clearer signatures, and I much prefer the sig you used at the top of the page to your current one. DES ^(talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems with use of <math> tag

There were some edits made to the article Roche limit which changed equations using the <math> tag. While the edits looked valid the rendered page had the error

Failed to parse(unknown error): d = 1.26\; R_M\left( \frac {\rho_M} {\rho_m} \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}

The first time I assumed it was an editor's mistake and reverted, but now I'm wondering if there is a problem with the way MediaWiki is invoking the equation rendering library. Any ideas? —dgies^t_c 22:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision history "thank"

I think it was yesterday that "thank" popped into revision history as a link (like sum, undo, etc.). How do I get rid of it?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks#How to turn off this feature. Scarce2 (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It's been around for awhile. You can turn it off using CSS. See Wikipedia:VPT#Getting_rid_of_.22thank.22. RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

According to that rather amusing and chaotic discussion, it was around before and has now come back to haunt us. If I understand the discussion properly, I can't remove it using CSS - it still leaves parens and a vertical bar. I remember the same thing happening with the tag for visual editor and someone gave me a fix that left in the parens. It worked initially (I put up with the parens), but then it did something else in addition to leaving in the parens (can't remember what), so I gave up and removed the CSS entry. I could really live without these "improvements" or at least allowing us to customize our preferences more so those of us who like a change can keep it and those who don't can remove it. Next thing you know they'll add another link entitled "thank you very much" so we can distinguish between those editors who are helpful and those who are very helpful. End of rant.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing bias articles

I recently released an employee who then created a Wikipedia page with nothing but negative bias views about the company. I tried to edit the site and simply add some clarification and links to actual documented facts, but the 'owner' of the page ( a former employee) simply dismissed my edits and disallowed them. So the questions is; if you can't get something removed administratively then how does one edit a page without the owner being able to remove your edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.17.104 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No Wikipedia page has an owner. Any editor can edit, and any editor can revert edits (except in special cases). If you think an editor is behaving improperly, first discuss it with that editor. Then discuss with an experienced editor or two. Try third opinion. Try other forms of dispute resolution. Without knowing what article you are writing about here, i can't help much. You seem to have made any edits to it under a different IP or account. You might well advised to mention the article here. DES ^(talk) 00:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It would also be useful (although it is not require) to register an account in order to have an editing history. That will facilitate any sort of dispute resolution by having it be clear which edits are yours and which edits are those of the fired employee. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you let us know what the article is, we could determine if it even belongs here to begin with or if the whole thing just needs to be deleted. Dismas|^(talk) 00:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)