Help desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

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.

May 16

Getting rid of an error message

I keep getting "AFCH error: user not listed" when I go to my user page. How can I get rid of it. (I'm not particularly interested in being an active AfC reviewer.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the gadget must have been checked in your preferences. Go to your Preferences > Gadgets and uncheck the box for AFC. Dismas|^(talk) 00:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed notices

I put a "citation needed" notice on an article recently. I put it on to be "polite" -- in truth I do not know whether the statement I marked is valid information lacking a source OR whether it is "fantasy information" for which no reliable source exists.

It is a specialized subject. I cannot fix this myself as I would not know how to find a reliable source in the field.

I suspect the article does not get much attention from editors and that the citation needed notice could linger for a long time unnoticed and unattended to. Is there an appropriate way to raise a concern about an article to a higher level of visibility?

Thank you, CBHA (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor CBHA: One way to do this is to raise the issue on the talk page of a related WikiProject. Article talk pages often have notices stating that articles are related to certain Wikiprojects; you should start with those. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: I often put {{cn}} in articles when I add something from a source, since the source only covered what I added. I wouldn't know how to find what is supposedly unsourced and usually don't have time anyway. And if I'm at home, i won't be looking elsewhere.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make triplets in the score element?

I was experimenting with the <score>...</score> tags and suddenly came to a question: how to make triplets? It doesn't have anything on triplets at the score help page, but it did have a link to the notation documentation. Going there, it told me to use this:

\tuplet 3/2 { b4 b b }

or the like. (The specific thing I was looking at was here.) So I used this, but it just displayed an error message when I tried it. Help please? Eman235/talk 06:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Lilypond music markup but if Wikimedia has implemented it anything like LaTeX for math markup then you can expect to find only a specific subset implemented. The error message would suggest that the \tuplet command has not been recognised and is thus not implemented at all. Always possible that it is implemented under another name but one could spend forever trying to guess what it is. However, I did manage to produce a triplet by switching to ABC notation if that's any help to you.

See ABC notation for more information. Spinning Spark 08:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know music notation but [1] mentions \times. Does that do what you want:

PrimeHunter (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, the fraction needs to be the other way up:

AlexTiefling (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, everyone. Thanks. Eman235/talk 03:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: I just tried that out. It worked fine until I added a key -- go ahead, write:

<score> \key g \minor \times 2/3 { g'8 f' g' } <score>

(take out the nowiki tags of course) and it displays an error message. Eman235/talk 03:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the problem is there, it has nothing to do with the triplet, there is still an error without it. Spinning Spark 09:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the whole expression requires to be bracketed:

If you look at some of the examples on Help:Score they always bracket the entire train of notes. there are some commands that go right at the beginning before the bracket, such as \relative, and the \key command will be wrongly read as one of these "meta" commands in the absence of a bracket. Spinning Spark 09:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thaaank you! I knew I had to be doing something wrong...sorry if I've been a bother...Eman235/talk 00:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Submission and Approval

I submitted an article on wikipedia , its not approved yet. Whom should I contact, how to check on that? Its been more than 2 months .Its says it'll only take 23 weeks though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.49.54 (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to be patient, there are a lot of articles to review and they are all done by volunteer editors. However, if you provide a link to the page (or just tell us its title) we can take a look to see if the submission has been done properly (and maybe give you other advice). Spinning Spark 07:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only other edit that you made from User:14.141.49.54 is Great Online Shopping Festival. What article did you submit? -- Jreferee (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warfarin

This comment has been hidden, as Wikipedia does not provide medical advice.

Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. The following comment seeks medical advice. This is not a suitable place. Please seek a real-life medical professional. Comments from well-meaning Wikipedians may not represent best practice in the poster's country of origin, and there is a danger that best practice may be misrepresented or, at worst, deliberately distorted. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yesterday I took a second 5mg warfarin tablet three hours after forgetting I had taken one earlier, what should I do and is there any side effect as I can only find out what happens if you miss one. Regards Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.17.250 (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give medical advice here. Please contact a medical practitioner. Spinning Spark 07:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company Wikipedia Page

I have been requested to write a page about a company on behalf of them on wikipedia. It would just be a basic description of the business, when it was founded and what they do etc. Would there be any issues with this before I commit to this to ensure neither of us have an issues due to this request.

Thank you

Rachend (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple questions that you need to answer. First, is the company notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Our notability standards for companies can be found at WP:CORP. Second, are you disconnected enough from the company to be able to write a neutral article about them? You may have a conflict of interest there. See WP:COI and WP:NPOV to read about our conflict of interest and neutral point of view policies. Dismas|^(talk) 11:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely disconnected from the company no relationship to them at all. Had not even heard of them before. As for notability that is a tough one to determine. I have online news articles related to the company detailing when they were set up, why etc. and a very vague article on an award they were given. Does this make them notable enough or would more be needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachend (talk • contribs) 12:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have never heard of this company, why are they asking you to write about them? You state above that you "have been requested ... on behalf of them ", which strongly suggests that you are a writer for hire. In that case, if they are paying for your writing services, you have one of the strongest conflicts of interest possible with Wikipedia, and would be very strongly discouraged (emphasis in policy) from editing a page about the company. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the page still end up being removed even if it stayed neutral due to this? I am new to writing a page such as this so would like to know 100% what can and cannot be done. For example if I chose not to accept payment and do this anyway for them would there still be conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachend (talk • contribs) 12:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet would be to use a talk page to offer other editors appropriate sources and information about the company, and then let them do the actual writing. That's what's meant by the prohibition on paid editors 'directly editing' a page in which they have a conflict of interest. You can certainly help, but you don't get to choose how the page actually gets written. Of course, all this presumes the company is sufficiently notable in the first place. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there's a difference between articles that merely establish the existence of a company and those that establish its notability. The line between them can be fuzzy. A local newspaper talking about some new company that just started in a local industrial park doesn't establish notability. A mention in a magazine such as Wired or Forbes saying that company X exists and sells Y doesn't count towards notability. But if Wired or Forbes or something else of that caliber does an entire article on that specific company, then that helps notability. Dismas|^(talk) 15:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, it might be better to put a request and whatever information and sources you actually have up at the Paid Editor's Noticeboard. That would at least allow a starting point for discussion to see if the company in question meets notability guidelines. Silver seren^C 02:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Craig

Can anybody explain why this Image:Daniel Craig 3, 2012.jpg "presents Daniel Craig in a disparaging light"? The caption for the image in the article says "Craig at the Skyfall premiere in Sydney, November 2012", but User:Trisha Borsagi changed photo where he pictured at the Academy Awards in 2009. Cybervoron (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I and at least three other users can tell, it doesn't. There is an ongoing discussion on Trisha Borsagi's talkpage where both I and another administrator have asked her to explain her reasoning; that may well be the best place to debate the issue. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, understand Trisha Borsagi's point. Daniel Craig's eyes and mouth in that picture do not exactly make for an appealing picture. But I'm not going to get into an edit war over it. JIP | Talk 17:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. People rarely look good when they're caught in the middle of saying something. But to say it is "disparaging" is a reach. Dismas|^(talk) 17:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sertoli cell tumour

Hi I have only made small edits to Wiki in the past. However I've come across a page (Sertoli cell tumor) that is confusing and inaccurate. It needs to be heavily edited. I'm finding the help pages to be very confusing about how I should do this. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to research how to edit the page properly. I would suggest that a warning concerning the factual accuracy of the page be displayed.

On a separate note, I found the 'talk' aspect for discussing pages (which is what I tried to do first) to be completely baffling. I could not figure it out at all.

Thanks. AlanWolfe (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is confusing and inaccurate? Ruslik_Zero 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a NavBox

Dear editors: This old AfC submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hymns of the US Armed Forces seems to be a Navbox. I haven't done any work with these, but this seems fine to me, aside from maybe needing to be broken up into two lines to be less cramped. To make it active, do I just move it into the "Template" namespace? Or is there some other process? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a {{sidebar}} is more appropriate in this case. --Glaisher [talk] 12:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the five hymns are already in the songs section of Template:List of official United States national symbols which is transcluded on those four articles. That seems like too much overlap. But yes, you could just move it to template space, remove the surroundung stuff so it isn't transcluded on articles, and ensure the name parameter is the pagename of the template (this is needed to make working V T E links). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it became an accepted navbox then it should also be added to the corresponding articles with {{Hymns of the US Armed Forces}} near the bottom of each article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the technical process. It seems from this small sample of responses that it may need to be discussed first by interested parties. Which is the most appropriate Wikiproject to decide if this will be a useful addition? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USMUSIC does not appear to be very active. Perhaps the parent wikiproject of USMUSIC: WP:USA --Glaisher [talk] 12:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong -The Military history WikiProject would also be interested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong state and address

Why does The page for Newton High School in NJ...Say Mississippi??? W/that address?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.39.51 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. it doesn't say "Mississippi", and as far as I can see, it never has done - were you referring to something you saw on Google, rather than our actual article on Newton High School (New Jersey) ? - Arjayay (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several schools named Newton High School, including the one in New Jersey and a couple in Mississippi. RudolfRed (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is about a Facebook page, maybe https://www.facebook.com/pages/Newton-High-School/107994562555762. I wish people would say which page they are posting about. Some Facebook pages include content from Wikipedia but also from other sources without specifying which content is from where. The wrong state and address is not from Wikipedia. I guess Facebook copied it from a source about another school of the same name and incorrectly put it on their page about the New Jersey school. We have no control over Facebook. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Index of MS-DOS games

The article Index of MS-DOS games links to several other articles, all titled "Index of MS-DOS games (letter)", where "letter" is any letter of the alphabet. Every single one of these articles is alphabetised under its name, making it look like "Index of MS-DOS games" is an actual game title. Shouldn't they all be alphabetised under "*" or something? JIP | Talk 16:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not following you, can you give an example? "Index of MS-DOS games (E)" does not appear anywhere in the list at Index of MS-DOS games (E). Spinning Spark 17:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the category Category:DOS games, you'll see "Index of MS-DOS games (E)" listed under "I", not right at the start. JIP | Talk 17:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's because there is no sorting parameter for that category in Index of MS-DOS games (E) or its sibling lists, whereas Index of MS-DOS games is sorted to appear at the head of the category: [[Category:DOS games| ]].--ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally suggest that the sorting parameter be something that put the Index of MS-DOS games (E) at the beginning of the 'E' section so maybe [[Category:DOS games|E*]]?Naraht (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper Articles

Are newspaper articles acceptable? One editor on a page I am working on is disputing many of the sources because they are newspaper articles that were printed about a decade ago. The articles have since been archived digitally in such databases as ProQuest, but because this editor can not read the articles personally we have reached a disagreement about whether the sources are acceptable. I've always thought database material (journal articles, newspaper articles) were acceptable.Vuzor (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, references do not have to be online to be acceptable. You should use the {{cite news}} template and complete as many of the parameters as possible so that another user can find the paper in, say, a library and verify what it says.--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Vuzor is leaving out of his narrative above is that the article in question is a BLP and that there are NO other verifiable sources for the content he is starting to argue and edit war over (again). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to edit war (for crying out loud). Asking for the help desk's opinion is not edit warring; why do you approach everything with a battle mentality. Be professional. From WP:SOURCES:

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

university-level textbooks

books published by respected publishing houses

magazines

journals

mainstream newspapers.

Even editorials and blogs posted in newspapers (see: WP:NEWSBLOG) are acceptable. Academic publications, as mentioned, are the most reliable sources, and they are available only on databases or with subscription. I'd just like another confirmation from another editor that we can use newspaper articles sourced from a database.Vuzor (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a BLP. Different criteria, different rules. If it's not verifiable - especially from more than one source if the only source is unverifiable in itself - then the associated content should go. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exact page I just quoted, Wikipedia:Verifiability, defines a source as:

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)

the creator of the work (for example, the writer)

the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

All three can affect reliability.

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The same article talks about BLP articles as well, so the same criteria do in fact apply to those articles.

Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Databases are accurate and reliable. These rules apply to BLP articles as well. The newspapers themselves are very much reliable sources. One editor here has said newspaper article sourced from a database are fine, but in good faith (I'm not trying to edit war and I very sincerely want us to cooperate professionally) I am waiting for a second confirmation. If there is a misunderstanding about the rules by either of us, then it is best that it be cleared up here so we can move forward. Vuzor (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating (because you aren't grasping the concept): a BLP needs to have VERIFIABLE references. An article that isn't accessible is not freely verifiable. If what you were wanting to reference is available elsewhere, then use both the unverifiable and verifiable references. Because one reference is not verifiable, it isn't a good source FOR A BLP and the content isn't appropriate for a BLP. The content you insist on adding isn't verifiable anywhere else but the alleged source. If it's not available to be fact-checked, it shouldn't be in a BLP to begin with. And...this isn't a history, medicine, or science article, it's about a musician. That isn't even an apples/oranges comparison. More like a apples/cars comparison. You really should consider letting this one go - if you want to be professional and cooperative, that is. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear someone else's opinion before "letting this one go." Newspaper articles are reputable. In fact, this is addressed on the same page, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Quick access to the excerpt below at WP:SOURCEACCESS, and also a link to Wikipedia:Offline sources, where the template reads "This page in a nutshell: Offline sources are just as valid as online sources."

Access to sources

Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

It's written pretty clearly. I would like another person's opinion.Vuzor (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, you prove yourself unable to just say "Okay, I'll let it go and work cooperatively with someone I don't necessarily agree with". You ALWAYS want someone else's opinion when you disagree with another's opinion that's already been given. You ALWAYS run to notice boards and help boards and open RfCs rather than just editing with others and accepting that your opinion may not be the right one or the only one. This is one of the many reasons why you will never be happy in Wikipedia. It's also one of the many reasons why the complaints you file and the RfCs you open garner few to no responses. You still haven't learned from your past mistakes and the advice you've already been given.

Bottom line regarding your unverifiable source is that the following is very clear: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". An unverifiable source when it is the ONLY reference available for content in a BLP falls under the category of "poorly sourced"-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask you the exact same thing. Why don't you let it go and allow these acceptable sources to be used? The MOS itself says they can be used, as did another editor here. You create issues out of non-issues. I simply want another person's opinion. I ask for other people's opinions because you and I disagree often on what can be considered an acceptable source. That is not edit warring. That is finding a solution and reaching a conclusion when neither of us agree on something. Wikipedia has provided us with provisions to resolve issues in this way. Could you please set aside your ego this time and let someone else provide their advice. Ukexpat already gave us an answer and that could have easily concluded this discussion, but you argued. In good faith (since one answer isn't enough for you), I request another editor's comment to help us resolve this. Are newspaper articles sourced from a database acceptable? Vuzor (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, you are grossly in the wrong on this one. Print sources are perfectly acceptable, and meet WP:V, even if they are not available online. This is long-established in Wikipedia, and I'm amazed to see you asserting otherwise in blatant defiance of WP:RS and WP:AGF. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add to Orange Mike's and my previous comments.--ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agere with Orangemike. It is longstanding policy that information contained in reliable printed sources, or reliable online sources that charge for access, is verifiable and may be used anywhere information from reliable free online sources may be used. Claiming print sources are not acceptable makes Wikipedia editors look like a bunch of book burners, and is an extremely detrimental attitude. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be available online. Printed sources are perfectly acceptable and verifiable. They do not have to be easily verifiable just verifiable. An old newspaper that is only available on microfiche is still reliable and verifiable. GB fan 01:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you guys are missing my point: The alleged newspaper articles cited, are unavailable without a subscription. They are from as far back as over a couple decades have no reliable source to support them. I've done countless searches to see if there is anything out there that would be a replacement source for the content. Nothing is available. The unavailable reference is a poor source to support content that is contestable. If this weren't a BLP article, I'd be willing to let it go. It's because this is a BLP that I'm standing my ground on this. It seems my opinion is going to be shot down on this. And I'm willing to accept that and move on. What I have a real hard time accepting is that a BLP is being treated like non-BLPs when it comes to verifiability following contestation. You guys are quoting policy, but are forgetting that this is material that is allegedly supported by a source that cannot be found anywhere other than in some secret lockbox article. In fact, it is so hidden that nothing else on the entire world wide web refers to it. Anywhere. If it's only found in one place where you have to have special access to access it, how verifiable is it? How reliable is it? Why does only this one source have it? That smells like a dubious source to me, frankly. And most certainly not verifiable. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, you calling these sources "secret lockbox" articles is ridiculous. They are from ProQuest and other archival institutions which house a plethora of journal article databases and newspaper databases, including content from such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, New York Tribune, Los Angeles Times, The Globe and Mail, the properties owned by Postmedia Network (the largest newspaper publishing corporation in Canada), and many other highly-reputable publications. These sources are used in academia on a regular basis and are certainly appropriate here. It's been mentioned here many times already that newspaper articles sourced from databases are appropriate. The articles have been cited fully (date, author, title, publication, article version, etc), yet you took the liberty of removing them, labeling the content as "poorly sourced," and then putting a big "BLP sources" template at the top of the Wikipedia article. You even reverted an administrator's revision of the page, for crying out loud. You appear to be trying to match that content with information from a web search engine, which implies you've misunderstood entirely what reliable sources and unverifiable content are. The meaning of those two terms has already been explained to you on the following talk page: [2]. Vuzor (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VERIFY explicitly says that verifiability does not mean that every single reader must have instantaneous free access to all sources, it says that a verifiable source is one that is availalable to someone. Even a document that exists as a single know copy locked up in Fort Knox is acceptable source, because somebody does have a key to the vault and can be asked to check the content of the document. A hieroglyphic inscription on a ruin in Egypt is also an acceptable source, because there are people who can read it.

If a reader (such as User:Winkelvi) has a good faith reason to doubt the veracity of a cited statement in an article but the source is not accessible to him/her, then he/she should post a request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request where someone who does have a subscription to ProQuest will help to verify the questioned claim. We accept sources in any language but obviously all readers are not fluent in every single written language that has ever existed - this further reinforces the point that the modifiers "free/freely" or "easy/easily" do not belong on front of "verifiable" unless they are preceded by "not". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Roger (Dodger67). The most concise and understandable explanation yet on this issue. No insults, no berating, no condescension, AND, it includes a sensible, workable solution/suggestion. You get the "Most Helpful Award of the Day", sir. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Good Faith, No Clue, and Vandalism edits. And Also Twinkle

Just recently, I started patrolling edits in Recent Changes. I encountered vandalism edits, which I had reverted and marked it as a minor edit. But does that go for the same if I revert good faith or No Clue edits? Do I mark those as minor edits too? So far, I didn't mark them as minor edits just to be on the safe side.
I also have another question about Twinkle. Twinkle was so easy to use to revert edits. There were no complicated steps, plus it brings up the Talk Page of the editor too. But sometimes, the Twinkle toolbar, the (Rollback (AGF)--Rollback--Rollback (Vandalism)) does not show and I have to do it using the Undo button which takes a longer time. Is there a way I can make Twinkle show for every diff? Thanks,TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For question 2, several editors have reported problems with gadgets such as Twinkle in the last few hours. Be patient, and with luck someone will get the problem fixed quickly and then Twinkle will be reliable again. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheQ Editor: Please note that you are not restricted to rollback (all edits by one editor that are contiguous) or undo (just the last edit); you can also do a manual revert. Go to the history → click on the date you want to revert to → click edit → save page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit:, I know that but when reverting a good faith edit, do I choose minor edit? I know you have to do it when reverting vandalism but how about good faith or no clue edits?TheQ Editor (Talk) 22:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has answered this, TheQ Editor, so I'll give my opinion: it doesn't matter. I don't think the "minor edit" flag has much significance. It shows up against edits in watchlists and contribution lists, and you can filter on it. But unless it's done in bad faith (eg marking a significant and controversial edit as minor) I don't think anybody is going to get upset about it). --ColinFine (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ColinFine:! TheQ Editor (Talk) 01:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lowercase title help (such as iPad, eBay)

I've got what I'm sure is a stupid question. I've already made a mess of things, so I hope someone can help. I moved the page IZOMBIE (TV series) to IZombie (TV series), then tried to use {{lowercase title}} to force iZombie. For whatever reason, it did not work, but I could get it to work on the redirect I had created with the move. So I moved it back and tried again (there is something in the documentation for the template about moves/redirects) but I still can't get it right. Help? Thanks a bunch. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukexpat and I fixed it by adding {{DISPLAYTITLE:''iZombie'' (TV series)}} to the top and removing the auto-italicising provided by the infobox. /~hue sat lum/ 20:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both so much! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find a conversation

This was originally misplaced at WP:AN; I've moved it from there. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recalling a conversation that I had with another user, and I want to be able to find a DIFF for a particular comment. Is there a tool to find the comment if I remember the wording, or do I have to slog through all the posts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best you'll get is the editor interaction analyzer. Put in both of your names and look for the smallest timestamps.--v/r - T P 22:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:WIKIBLAME will do this. I've seen it mentioned like this before for finding where some info entered an article but I've never actually used it. Dismas|^(talk) 22:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was generally aware of both of those tools, but neither seem to be able to find posts, specifically posts that might have been deleted. Is there another tool that searches through page versions for keywords or phrases? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor Interaction Analyzer should really be able to find it, as it searches in all namespaces, and you can also search linearly in the WikiBlame tool. Failing that, if you remember part of the section name, you can plug it into the edit summary search tool. Graham87 09:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean by deleted, that either the edit has been revdeleted or the whole page has been deleted, then no, it can't be found except by an administrator. However, if you just mean that the text was removed from the page, then Wikiblame will find it, I use it all the time. You do have to know what page you wrote it on though. On the other hand, if the comment is still live but you can't remember which page then Special:Search with the appropriate namespaces selected is probably the best bet if you can remember some of the wording exactly. Spinning Spark 10:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2014 May 16

Contents