Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 December 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.

December 9

Lodewyk Van Bercken (not Berken)

To Whom it may concern, please correct the spelling of the jewelers last name which is "Bercken" not Berken.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.138.125 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources are mixed, but many more (on a quick Google search) seem to favour the article's current spelling. The Dutch, French, Bulgarian, and Ukranian Wikipedia's agree too. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleting page edits

Dear Sir / Madame, I have now 5 times made an edit to the page Lazarus syndrome and it continues to be deleted despite A) it being a valid and legitimate edit and B) no reason for the deletion being given.

Kindly reprimand the person deleting this post and review their conduct on other pages.

I wish for you to let me know what action you have taken, to include you assuring my edit will not be deleted again.

Thanks, James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.176.90.55 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

After your change has been reverted once, do not keep repeating it hoping that other editors will simply surrender and let you have your way. That is called edit warring. Instead, open a discussion on the article's talk page and attempt to reach an agreement with other editors. If you are unable to obtain a consensus for your change, you may pursue various avenues of dispute resolution, or simply move on to something else. I have removed your related Help desk discussion below, as the answer is the same as this one. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss. I don't see any discussion on the article talk page, Talk: Lazarus syndrome. Also, I suggest that you create an account. Your IP address has changed during the time that you have been engaged in this edit war. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Where to find help with creating templates?

I searched the archives and couldn't find anything about this specifically. I would like to seek help from other editors in creating a template for articles relating to the overall topic of Technical communication. I am not sure what the right venue for asking such a question is. A hypothetical project for technical communication wouldn't be necessary as those willing to help don't need to know anything about the field; they just need experience creating nice-looking templates with Wiki markup. I have never done this before. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi MezzoMezzo. Have you gone through the pages listed at Wikipedia:Templates? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You can try Wikipedia:Requested templates but it's not very active. You can also ask here but it's best if you know enough to ask relatively specific questions. If you want to make a navbox, for example with features like {{Communication studies}}, then the documentation at {{Navbox}} may get you started to at least the point of knowing what to ask. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello @NeilN and PrimeHunter: thanks for the prompt responses. I haven't tried asking anywhere else yet. If the template request page is inactive, I can open the topic there first and see if there are similarly prompt responses there. After that, I will make sure to check out the template page posted above. The navbox example above was exactly what I had in mind; I was thinking of something that could be placed at the bottom of relevant pages. There's no rush, so I'll look through the pages you guys have suggested and seek as much community input as possible. Thanks again! MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits by a blocked user

Dear editors: A page that I had been improving was further improved by an editor who was later blocked as a sock puppet of a blocked user. Now the page (Draft:Soft Star Shoes) has been tagged for db-g5. My reading of the speedy deletion and blocked user policies is that only pages created by the problematic user should be deleted. Wouldn't a revert do for this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong, the speedy criteria, "with no substantial edits by others", is invalid. I've removed the tag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like someone else already took care of this. Like every single other CSD criteria, G5 frequently gets over applied; it is designed solely as a way to tag and clean up disruption from banned users, not to create more work for editors who accidentally got caught up in some shenanigans. There's no impending need to burn with fire the edits of a banned user; when it's not more disruptive to do so we can remove their edits and delete their article creations, but when the cleanup would be more disruptive than the original "offense", we're not forced to make more work for ourselves. If a mis-applied CSD tag comes across your path in the future (be it G5 or any other) feel free to remove it and go on with your day... --Jayron32 04:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought so, but I've been known to overlook things, and after 50,000 edits this was the very first G5 I have come across... I guess I have been leading a sheltered life.... Thanks for taking the time to explain. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because useful edits were made by a sockpuppet doesn't mean that they weren't useful edits. If an editor in good standing restores them, then they should be either left back in or discussed rather than reverted again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you (Anne Delong) have led a sheltered life. I wish I could have gone that long without seeing one.Naraht (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was a nice change from the gazillion db-13s that I usually deal with.—Anne Delong (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Page Edit

Hello,

Im trying to edit the page associated with The Deanery High School, Wigan. We are having issues with pupils logging onto the page and editing the information provided. Now it seems that we need to put in an edit request each time we have to remove incorrect information, as if someone has control over the page.

Would it be possible to block users editing this page, apart from this account which is the official Deanery wiki account?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeanery (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not. You need to read about conflict of interest (which does say that you may revert unambiguous vandalism), and about ownership of a page. You also need to change your user name, as a Wikipedia account must belong to an individual, not to an organisation, see WP:CORPNAME. When a page is subjected to vandalism, it can be semi-protected to prevent editing by users who are not autoconfirmed, and your school's page is protected in that way at the moment (which stops you from being able to edit it as your account is not yet autoconfirmed). David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

From time to time, an editor requests to have an article locked in the approved version. This appears to be such a request. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. As noted, semi-protection and rollback are the usual protections against vandalism, but content disputes are not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

requesting for promote my article about k.chanakya raj

good evening sir, this is mohan who is uploading biography of k.chanakya raj. actually iam not satisfied with the Wikipedia because i tried to do lot but i couldn't succeeded. i mean to say , it is very important task for me because i need to create that biography, can you do me a favor? iam new to do this even though i tried my level best. now what can i do and how can i do that? i hope you can understand me now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohan.bogada (talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You have had copious advice on your user talk page, including numerous useful links, but it appears that you have not read the advice which you have received. (Trying to recreate the article under different article names will get you nowhere, and may get you blocked from editing). If you have specific questions after reading the advice which you have received, please ask. In particular, please read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I notice also that the file which you have uploaded at File:Biography of K.chanakya raj.jpg and to commons at File:Chanakya raj.JPG appears to be a WP:copyright violation of the picture previously published at http://www.thinkvidya.com/hyderabad/chanakya-raj-kantheti/1269768 and elsewhere. If you don't want the file deleting you need to provide evidence that you are the copyright holder. David Biddulph (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Football league

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I am trying to set up a Wikipedia page, to make my Football league more recognizable. Similar to, Super League

Any Help would be greatly appreciated,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RochdaleSuperLeague2012 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to provide promotion. If your league is already notable in terms of having received significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject, then an article could be written, and you could read WP:Your first article. Note also that your user name is not acceptable, as it implies that it belongs to an organisation rather than an individual, see WP:CORPNAME. David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hello, RochdaleSuperLeague2012. I am afraid I have some bad news for you: that is not what Wikipedia is for, and if you try you are probably going to have a frustrating and ultimately unsuccessful time. Wikipedia does not allow any kind of promotion (whether commercial or not): it contains neutrally-written articles which are almost entirely based on information previously published in reliable sources unconnected with the subject of the article. If there has been such writing about your league (eg in major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers), then there may be an article about it in Wikipedia; but even then, you are strongly discouraged from writing about it, because your conflict of interest is likely to make it difficult for you to write in a suitably neutral way. Also, I'm afraid, your user name is not acceptable, as user accounts may not suggest that they represent any organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Account confirmation

Please help me in confirmation of my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalilullahturk (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:Confirmed and WP:Autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about original research: inferences.

Disclaimer: For sure my question was already asked but i was not lucky with the search option, so i'm sorry for the redundancy.

Hello everyone, i recently asked about "if i argument/proof can be added to an article". After that some replies pointed out the "no original research" policy of wikipedia, i searched the policy and i read it a bit (and some article about policies are very nice to read, how many ideas!). Anyway i'm not sure about something related to, how can i say, consistent inferences.

If i got the policy right, making observation from sources that are not contained in the source is falling in the category "original research", but what about what i think are "consistent/subsequent" inferences? (i admit that i have only my point of view, until the others agree too)
For example in an article there are already statements, that are sourced, that say (now i will mention something obvious, but please abstract): "If A is true, B is true" , "If B is false, A is false", "If B is true, A can be false" . Then i add "Therefore we can say that between A and B there is a relation of 'implication' $A\Rightarrow B$" . Is my addition original research even if wait i say is (or should be) a consequential conclusion of statements already present in the article? Thanks in advance for the explanation.Pier4r (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds as if you need to read WP:SYNTHESIS. David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I read it but i'm not able to infer a rule about what i stated above :( , for this i asked for help. But thanks for the effort. --Pier4r (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You are making a connection between pieces of information / conclusion from two sources that no single source has made. That is not allowed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly my problem, no source has done it but it is a logical conclusion (for what i know at least). My example above shows a scenario where an article contains three statements that are equal to the definition of "logical implication" but no one has said it explicitly ( i saw this in articles that were, how can i say, "young"). So in my mind there is no original work in pointing out what is stated in just an equivalent way. But if it is, nevertheless, not allowed until this is pointed out by a source, it is ok. For me it is a bit restrictive but every community has its reasons for a policy, so i will accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier4r (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If this has to do with multiplication by 11, then this may be a case where it isn't necessary to cite a source. However, whether the added information is useful should be discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no, the "multiplication by 11" example is related but i wanted to ask in general. Anyway even yours "may be a case" for me it is not so clear. So to avoid doubt could i add an entry on the talk page, then modify the article and so in the worst case (that the edit is reverted/not accepted) the discussion about the modification can start without delay. Maybe a third action could be require a "peer review" but i don't know where to ask for, i thought that the peer review is made by whatever editor othat reads the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier4r (talk • contribs) 08:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How to change Title page of a company?

A factual change needs to be made to the Wikipedia Title Page of Sanmina Corporation. Sanmina changed its name from Sanmina-SCI Corporation to Sanmina in 2012. Despite following Wikiedia rules and asking for the change via the Talk function, there has been no response for 2 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmina-SCI_Corporation

As per Wikipedia instructions which say the only way to change the title of a page is to move the page, I have used the Talk feature to post the following:

{{subst:requested move|Sanmina Corporation|reason=As noted in the body of the post, Sanmina-SCI changed its name to Sanmina Corporation on November 14, 2012 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sanmina-sci-corporation-to-change-its-name-to-sanmina-corporation-179275821.html

How can the title of the page be changed? Please respond ASAP as Sanmina's title page is incorrect on Wikipedia (even though it's correct in the body of the article) InTheOfficeNow (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The article has been moved to Sanmina Corporation.--ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Nandita

Hi

For my introduction.. I am Celebrity Fashion Photographer from Kerala (www.senyphotography.com). The complaint is regarding the page of Actress Nandita as per the link provided in the Subject. Someone called "Truesideofyours" (User:Truesideofyou) is editing the information continuously and giving wrong informations. This artist is a close friend of mine and she is technically challenged to edit and make things proper each time. So she has asked my help to find a solution for the same. The complaint is She is born on 1993 as per records and she can provide proof for that. This unknown person is keeping on editing her DOB to 1985 and also uploads photoshoped dark image of the artist. It looks like this person is purposely doing it. Otherwise no one will do such kind of miss behaviours. Several times she has uploaded her profile pic and each time this person is replacing with the photoshoped dark image of her. The same photoshoped dark image is available in google search with proper colour.

Request you to find a solution for this. Since this is a site where anyone can edit the details what is the authentication of the data someone edits like this.

Regards

Seny P Arukattu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senyp (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is Nandita. Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Nandita. If discussion on the talk page is unsuccessful, disruptive editing can be reported at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The current version of the article does not have her year of birth, and the image has been removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

error message on reference

Just spotted that a reference comes up with an error as follows (you'll probably have to scroll right to see the relevant bit):

Shewan, Andrew (1927 reprint of 1996). The Great Days of Sail, Reminiscences of a Tea-clipper Captain. London: Conway Maritime Press Limited. ISBN 0 85177 699 X. Check date values in: |date= (help)

This appears (in edit mode - which is probably how you will have to read this) as

<ref name="Shewan">{{cite book |last=Shewan|first=Andrew |date= 1927 reprint of 1996|title=The Great Days of Sail, Reminiscences of a Tea-clipper Captain |url= |location=London |publisher=Conway Maritime Press Limited |pages= |isbn=0 85177 699 X}}</ref>{{rp|page=128}}

Clearly the problem is the way the date field is filled in. I have looked at some of the other fields in the full template, but cannot work out if any of them are intended to convey the information that a book was reprinted at a certain date, also showing the original date. I certainly can't get alternatives to work (but that might just be me - it's difficult to be persistent if you don't know whether you are barking up the wrong tree).

What do I need to do to fix this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The field date= is asking for the date or year. By adding extra text, you're breaking the template. Use the publication-date= or orig-date field as well. So:

<ref name="Shewan">{{cite book |last=Shewan|first=Andrew |date= 1927|title=The Great Days of Sail, Reminiscences of a Tea-clipper Captain |url= |location=London |publisher=Conway Maritime Press Limited |publication-date=1996 |pages= |isbn=0 85177 699 X}}</ref>

or

<ref name="Shewan">{{cite book |last=Shewan|first=Andrew |date= 1996|title=The Great Days of Sail, Reminiscences of a Tea-clipper Captain |url= |location=London |publisher=Conway Maritime Press Limited |orig-year= 1927|pages= |isbn=0 85177 699 X}}</ref>

should work for you. Give it a go. Nanonic (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it "kind of" works - in that anyone who wanted to track down the reference would probably work it out. Does anyone review the "cite book" template for changes - because a reprint of a much older book might be something that needs to be covered. I reckon it just needs one extra field called something like "reprint date". ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

the recommendation seems reasonable. You should bring it up on the template talk page, which redirects to Help talk:Citation Style 1 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: or maybe the instructions have what you need. [1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: The instructions are the key to the solution, because the field "orig-year" is not limited to just having a date in it. Hence:ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Embedded list of notables with a see also to the corresponding category

At some point over the past few years, I saw an article for a city that had a list of notables and at the top of the the list was a see also to the corresponding category for notables from that place, and I started implementing that practice in hundreds of articles. For example, the Notable people section in the article for Dumont, New Jersey has a see also link at the top of the section to Category:People from Dumont, New Jersey, and there are hundreds of other articles for places in New Jersey and the surrounding area that implement this as well. This practice serves several purposes: 1) In the exact spirit of WP:CLS, it allows the embedded list to be updated from the corresponding category and to have the category updated from the embedded list in synergistic fashion when one gets out of synch with the other, allowing links and entries to be updated from each other. 2) It serves as a marker to remind those adding notables to the embedded list to remember to add the entry to the corresponding category. 3) It allows the category to be readily carried over when the embedded list is turned into a standalone article. 4) And it provides a gateway to allow readers to use the category system to navigate across other categories for notables from the same area. I have seen this method used elsewhere, but there are editors who have raised an issue with this technique. Does this practice contravene policy? Is there any issue with doing this in articles? I've also posted this to Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Embedded list of notables with a see also to the corresponding category which is probably the best place for a centralized discussion. Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information on Pacific Regional Environment Programme

With reference to Pacific Regional Environment Programme there is information on there that states that the organisation has a declining membership and that 5 countries are no longer members. No citations or references are provided and it is unclear who the contributor is. We would appreciate this information being removed as it is totally incorrect. The SPREP annual report provides correct information and shows that all Pacific islands are members - http://www.sprep.org/publications/sprep-annual-report-2013. With thanks Seema (Communications Adviser for SPREP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.76.161 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the statement to which you objected has been removed from the article. In general, the place to request an edit would be on the article talk page, Talk:Pacific Regional Environment Programme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)