Help desk
< April 28	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 29

Jeremiah Attaochu picture

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE GOOGLE... JEREMIAH ATTAOCHU NFL PLAYER WITH SANDIEGO CHARGERS AND REMOVE THE PICTURE POSTED THERE FOR HIM. THAT IS NOT MY SONS PICTURE. I NEED SOMEONE TO PLEASE MAKE CORRECTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.122.241 (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo, in which article, do you mean? The one at Jeremiah Attaochu appears to be of him, although from Georgia Tech. Also, all caps is considered SHOUTING. Please don't. Rwessel (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to be talking about an image in our article but the lead image that Google presents. In that case, we have nothing to do with it and it has everything to do with Google. Attaochu's mother/father will have to take it up with Google. Dismas|^(talk) 04:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want External link Process??

I want to Know which type of links I can add in external box, How many links I can add in per day and I am not able to understand how Wikipedia work for business please give me step by step process because I am new in Wikipedia. How to add my business details in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nauseen (talk • contribs) 06:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nauseen: Please don't try to use Wikipedia for any kind of advertising. I suggest you work through the FAQ page for businesses. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't add links to your company website on random pages, this is classed as spamlinking. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or indeed linkspamming...--ukexpat (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tonejet - out of date and inaccurate

The "Tonejet" entry on Wikipedia is out of date and inaccurate. What is the best way to change this or have the page removed? I have previously attempted to do this, however my edits were rejected because I am from the Tonejet company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.234.155 (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is to go to the article's talk page Talk:Tonejet and provide reliably published sources with reputations for editorial oversight that support the information that you think needs to be updated . Tonejet's own website might be an appropriate source for certain limited types and amounts of information that are not self promotional or otherwise not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. There is more information at WP:COI. If there is not sufficient coverage in third parties about the old or new Tonejet, there are several deletion paths, depending upon the specifics, from WP:SPEEDY to WP:PROD to WP:AFD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

footnotes

This is a subjective impression, but it seems to me as if a tendency is developing on wikipedia to move away from straight footnotes and essentially handle substantiation issues on long talk pages. See Homeric scholarship in the section entitled "Hellenistic Scholars and Their Aims". There would seem to be some serious issues with such article-writing. The writers of the article I cite seem to have some knowledge of the material, but since the writers of the article are not identified by their real names (and I do not believe that they should be) how would "civilians" know the bona fides of the writers and the solidness of their assertions? In traditional scholarship in a book the author is named and the fact that he/she is a professor in such and such a place confers authority (sometimes inaccurately but it's a system). But then in such a situation as the one I referred to with Homeric scholarship, do I have to "roll up my sleeves" and research myself to substantiate the article's assertions? There's nothing wrong with doing that and I often enjoy that but is that getting things somewhat backward?Tony (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section of the article is largely unreferenced, so largely useless. On the talk page, Talk:Homeric scholarship#More plagiarism discussed that section, said that it was largely plagiarised from a named source, and said "I will have to rewrite this section also working from independent sources." It does not appear that it has yet been rewritten, so it may be that the source mentioned is the one you would need to consider. I have taken the liberty of changing the url in your question to a wikilink. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section of the talk page was added this past December, so the editor that added it might have forgotten about the article. They are still active as of a couple days ago though, so there is hope that they could come back to it. Dismas|^(talk) 13:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a two-part question. The first is a question about a particular article. The place for the discussion of issues about article content is the talk page, in this case, Talk: Homeric scholarship. The second seems to be a more general question, and goes to the difference between article content and talk pages. "Straight footnotes" serve a different purpose than "substantiation issues on long talk pages". Footnotes are intended for the reader, to indicate what sources the article content was derived from, such as whether the article is based on traditional scholarship by a professor at a particular university. Talk page discussion is an exchange between editors, not really intended to be viewed by readers, but to viewed by editors to enable them collaboratively to improve the article. Sometimes that includes discussions about the reliability of sources, and how much weight to give to different schools of thought, et cetera. If you are viewing the article as a reader, you only need the footnotes. If you are trying to improve the article, then, of course, you should "roll up your sleeves" and take into account the assertions made by the other contributing editors. Does that answer your question? The article itself and the talk page have different purposes and different users. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tonyodysseus. You ask "how would "civilians" know the bona fides of the writers and the solidness of their assertions?" The answer is that the writers of the article are (or should be) irrelevant: no assertion should appear anywhere in any Wikipedia article which is not directly supported by a single reliable source. Anything else would be original research, which is forbidden. (Even a conclusion from comparing two different reliable sources is forbidden, unless the comparison has itself been done in a reliable source, and the article is citing that source). --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

code for a list that can do sums?

what I was looking for, was a template for a list with several columns, that can add figures to form sums... But you told me I can not do it with a template. So could you please just teach me about the code to build such a list without a template?

my special purpose is to give a possibility to draw up a list of islamist terrorist attacks that sums up, numbers of attacks, hostages taken, ransom demanded, ransom payed, dead and wounded (confirmed, alleged); moreover there should be the columns: date, site, name, perpetrators (declared, suspected), reason given, weapons used, publication-canals/links, etc. so one can get a good overview, also quantitatively... (not possible in the topical article as it stands now...) (if you have improving suggestions, please...!)

so could some techy please help me? thanx a lot! please inform me about an answer here! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HilmarHansWerner: Such a list might be interesting, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. We do not host original research, or in this case synthesis. If there is a reliable source that has already done this, we could add their conclusions to Wikipedia in the appropriate articles. Perhaps you could do this someplace else on the web. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 16:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that there was a response to your earlier question at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 April 21#list of topical templates? especially for lists... that tried to address the issue. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 16:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike: thanks for your response, but I did ask your advice only regarding list-code (didn't ask for being lectured about how to use wp in general [just to let you know: the data are there alreary in wp, but not summed up and badly categorized; may be, you want to delete them? Furthermore unfortunately more of those data will be coming in in the future... And we need to get a feeling of the order of magnitude of people killed, maimed and injured, ok?!]. You noticed I had an answer already. I mentioned this... But it was not helpful, as I mentioned too; and I changed the question [code, not templates]. So please try and help instead of chastizing me ex cathedra... Thank you! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History merge or redirect?

Dear editors: I know that when an editor pastes a whole page from a draft to a new article, a history merge is in order (which I know how to do). But what about when an editor pastes just part of a draft and then goes on from there? For example, the first two edits of Kim Cameron (musician) contain material copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kim MacGregor Cameron, but with some changes, and without attribution. Is this close enough that a histmerge is appropriate, or should it be treated as a content merge, in which case the draft could be made into a redirect with appropriate attribution templates (which I know how to do)?—Anne Delong (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wider circulation of note on talk page?

I've just posted a comment on the talk page for Spit (landform) - but since some of what I've said repeats an error already listed on the talk page, I am wondering how to raise awareness of this to an interested group of editors. Would it be appropriate to put something on the WP:Geography page directly, or is there some sort of Wiki gizmo that I should put somewhere on the Spit (landform) article or talkpage?

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography sounds appropriate to me.--ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are thinking of section headings, there are instructions at MOS:HEADINGS. Basically, the idea is to put the section heading on its own line and put equals signs ("=") on either side of it. Generally Wikipedia doesn't change font size outside of section headings, so any other use would be rare. I suggest looking at articles which are similar to the one you are working on and imitating their format. If you see something which you'd like to do in a similar way, you can see how they did it by looking at the wiki text on that page by clicking on that article's edit button. Feel free to ask more questions. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you mean your browser font zoom setting, you can increase that with CTRL++.--ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV

←I know that,CCTV means — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.45.192 (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question is probably related to this edit. Maproom (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Download Wikipedia

How do I download a snapshot of Wikipedia so I can use it offline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.117.196 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Database download. Let us know if there's anything else. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that you really do want advice

Over the years, I have observed your requests for funding, and I admit, I have been on many occasions willing to contribute.for some reason, I have always held back.

I have finally decided it is for good reason. Any time it is as difficult as it is to tell you something, as it is to tell you (that alone was troublesome), it is wasted time. Make it easy for us to find you, to tell you what we think, and what we want you to hear. When you make it dodficult, multiple clicks no selections we begin think you are dishonest. That there is something you are hiding.

I will NOT contribute to any organization that is not upfront, easy and simple to contribute to. Please beaver this in mind as you construct your site.

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.72.203 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave: I'm sorry you've found it so frustrating. If you look on the left side of any Wikipedia page, six lines from the top, there's a blue link that says "Donate to Wikipedia". A few lines below that, there's a button which says "Contact page" where there are several ways to get in touch with us.

Almost everything here is done by volunteers, so it's a little more complicated than it might be. But that also means you can become one of the volunteers. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and we'd love to have your help. Let us know if you have any other questions or ideas. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted change

Re: Robert Littell (politician) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday was my first time posting on your site. I changed Robert Littells page with a 3 sentence entry. It went up, his wife was happy. Then this afternoon it's gone. Did I violate a rule or what secret don't I know that this would occur? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlgeffken (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlgeffken: You made two edits and both were reverted by other editors. The reason appears to be that they were both original research (i.e., in this case personal knowledge), which in fact is contrary to Wikipedia's principles and policies. Any article content must come only from reliable published sources. If you can provide sources for your statements, they will stand a far higher chance of surviving, although there is still no guarantee. You can learn about Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, or you can post your statements and the sources on the article's talk page, and it's possible another editor will make the changes. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the paragraph, with a reference. Maproom (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had an entry deleted and now found it quoted in article by NJHerald. How do I have the greatest chance to get quote entered Into Robert Littells/politician page? Thank you...lost in space. )— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlgeffken (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC) (moved to this section by SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Maproom: My opinion: I admire your compassion, but an encyclopedia is necessarily a cold and heartless place. First, your source is an opinion piece, and we should use opinion pieces only sparingly, and then only with full attribution. Secondly, you added some of the OP's editorializing, which is not even present in the opinion piece. Is it appropriate to bend principles to that extent because an article is a minor one of little consequence? I don't know, but I wouldn't have made that edit even if I had been aware of that source. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss:You are right on the second point. I have rewritten (and greatly shortened) the paragraph, to bring it into line with the source cited. I am unsure about the first point. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but it is by what appeared to me to be a respected journalist, stating what he claimed as a fact.

I find it odd that on Wikipedia I am accused of compassion, civility, and unwarranted assumptions of good faith. I am not like that in real life. Maproom (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for helping navigate a maze and make a family happy. It's easier to write a 30 page grad paper at PENN than understand your process. I am truly grateful for everyone's assistance.

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 April 29

Contents