Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 December 16

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 16

why my page is deleted

sir i created my page Dr. Khan Abdul Haseeb but it showing deleted . please help me to bring my page again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr khan 24 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia. That page was deleted in accordance to two polices: No indication of importance (A7) and Unambiguous advertising or promotion (G11) - also see WP:SPAM. While i cannot see the deleted content, these usually apply when someone is attempting to create an article, in this case, about themselves. Most people have a problem writing an article about themselves (or someone close to them) due to a conflict of interest. Furthermore as a new user, you're unfamiliar with the manual of style and other guides as it relates to the proper format and context of a Wikipedia article. May I suggest you go over to Articles for Creation and after reading more over there, you may want to suggest an article be created for Dr. Khan Abdul Haseeb. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition to what Tiggerjay wrote above, you can ask the deleting administrator, Delldot, restore a copy of the page to Wikipedia's draft section. Our draft section is special in that it is not indexed by Google, and editors can work on articles there without immediate fear of deletion. However, if the page is too promotional, Delldot may refuse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Air Mobility Command Page

Hello I was researching historical facts and noticed the leadership listed on the Air Mobility Command page is incorrect.

Please see www.amc.af.mil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.80 (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• You can change the leadership yourself and cite it. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

private taxi.the taxi drivers r in great financial crisis due to the permission to private cars owners to use their cars as taxi.the taxi drivers had spent million of dollars on purchasing the no.plate for private taxi.i am a sr citizen residing in karach

I I request the government of Canada to very kindly look into the private taxi drivers who purchased no.plate by spending millions of dollars.now they r unable to pull on with their expenses n they r in great trouble.permitting use of private cars should be stopped to help them. thank u very much. my name is syed abbas ali Jafri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.61.207 (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Jayron32 14:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Am I allowed to ask somewhere on Wikipedia for Help?

Recently i filed a Arbcom case based on 1RR violation. However, now several editors who are for the most part are all involved to some degree reply to the case and have different opinions on content. I am aware of canvassing, but is there a way to ask for uninvolved editors to participate in this Arbcom case? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: That would likely be frowned upon. Even if you feel like its a good idea, its still canvasing. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

How do I create a "Collection" in Wikipedia? And why does the "search" box on the right not work when I am seeing others' "Collections"?

Hola. I need suggestions on the following three questions:::

1. What do these two page show on Wikipedia?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Gather/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Gather/all/public

2. Why does the "Search" box on the top right of the page not take any input when these two pages are open?

3. How do I create my own "Collection" on Wikipedia which the public can see?

Gracias. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Xender Lourdes. This is an experimental feature, which is being piloted on mobiles; but the relevant page, mw:Gather, says that the project is currently suspended. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim it's suspended is from July and appears obsolete. The feature is active at Mobile if you select Beta in Mobile settings. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine. Thank you PrimeHunter. I will try the Beta option out. I also want to know how do you leave a red notification on my talk page notification when you leave an answer for me? Xender Lourdes (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: See "Mentions" at Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events. It's possible "suspended" means the developers are not working on the Beta version of Gather but what they have is allowed to run. I don't know how well it works. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I read the link. Very helpful @PrimeHunter:. Please tell me if you got a notification on your notification link? Xender Lourdes (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: Yes I got a notification. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Rod Stewart "Biography"

Hi, Rod Stewart is appearing in your list of celebrities who have or had oral cancer. I was surprised to see him on this list because I know he had THYROID CANCER, NOT oral cancer. His write up even says this. I worked at a cancer hospital for years...oral/mouth cancer and thyroid cancer are two very different things!

You should remove Rod Stewart from the oral cancer list. Why? Because (a) it is inaccurate and (b) thyroid cancer is WAY more treatable than oral/mouth cancer. If you were going to pick a cancer to have, thyroid would be the one to pick--extremely high success rate. Oral survival is much lower, especially because 90% of the time it reoccurs with a vengeance. Thyroid cancer does not. Side note, I am ASTONISHED at ALL OF THE CELEBRITIES on the oral cancer list. Wow. But, I hope the list is ACCURATE because Rod Stewart definitely is not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.158.86.3 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As you have pointed out, our article on Rod Stewart does not mention oral cancer. So, if we have a list of celebrities who have had oral cancer, he should not appear on it. But I have been unable to find such a list. Can you give a link to it? I did find this page, which appears to be mistaken, and is nothing to do with Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've been reading up on policies like WP:RS, but is there any place where editors can check if a specific source is considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There is, Kirk. Try the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin Fine}.

reference for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Charmont

hello, i created the page Todd Charmont - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Charmont. i tried to reference Wikipedia's page from the movie SON OF SAUL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Saul) which stars Todd Charmont seen on the page as actor number 5. His position should be 4th. Can that be changed?

I am not sure why his name does not come up in red when I visit the page.

I added the reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Saul

however it was not excepted.

Is this not a good reference?

others would be

http://sonyclassics.com/sonofsaul/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1052273/

I am not sure what I am doing wrong. I have read the instructions however I seem to be doing something wrong, can you help?

Thank you

Pat Austin geeka915 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeka915 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made Son of Saul into a wikilink for you. I have also put all the film names into italics, instead of block capitals. Nothing on IMDB is regarded here as a reliable source. Maproom (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Maproom I think cast and crew and other information likely to have come from the people who made the movie is regarded as reliable, but here on Wikipedia I have seen that is recommended that you find another source even then.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Issue with Wpiands, who wrongly assume original research, though it clearly is not.

There is no user here called Wpiands. And you don't say what edit you are asking about. Can you please be more explicit? Maproom (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Joobo made two headings when posting the below.[1] Maybe "Wpiands" is an odd attempt to shorten Wikipedians. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

no i meant Wikipedians. i just made it short. yes a bit odd. it is one IP number atm, and one user called Bastun. Joobo (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator

<Hello, i need an experienced wpuser, actually an admin, regarding this issue. there is the wikipedia article called List of Islamist terrorist attacks. this list lists several reported terrorist attacks of islamist. Now somehow there is the believe that one may only add an incident if one can find a source that is really using the excact literal words of "terror" and "islamist". but this is not how this works. there can be a terrorist attack of an islamist organisation and a very detailed article about it, which obviosly is pointing out to a terror act by islamist. merely the excact words "terrorist" and "islamist" arent given. this is definetly no original research if you add this incident, since the source is very clear about what this incident was about and just used differen terms, yet with the excact same result and conclusion. however there are several wpdians who permanently try to delete every entry that, according to their point of view is original research. but actually isnt. id be very glad if there is an admin who could have a look on there andmake finally clear to anyone that there is no issue with adding sources and entries of incidents to a list as long as the, in this case two criterias "terrorist" and "islamist" are unequivocally given, even if not the literal words are in the text, but similiar ones with the same intend. thank you.>

--Joobo (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Joobo. What you have is a content dispute, for which you should follow the steps of the Dispute resolution procedure. For this purpose, an administrator is no different from any other user - you, me, or anybody else. They do not have any authority or power to rule in disputes, which are handled by consensus according to the policy. You would do well to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and an argument of the form "I am right and they are wrong and I need somebody in authority to tell them so" is not helpful. (To be clear: I am not arguing either for or against your position: I am pointing out how things work in Wikipedia) --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:ColinFine. This is a content dispute. Discuss on the article talk page. If that is not productive, request a third opinion, or request moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Administrative action is only in order if a content dispute becomes a conduct dispute due to disruptive editing or edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your responses. i wil try to talk it out on the talk page, however it really seems that there is already some kind of edit war going on on this site, perhaps also cause of many ideologies or different views involved. i just try to explain the point again, and maybe even get a moderated discussion working. we have to see. thanks so far. Joobo (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

street signs that make apology of the Franco dictatorship

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Street_signs&uselang=it#Spain I think it is unacceptable that the street signs of Spain are represented by some referring to dictator Francisco Franco (Generalísimo). Most of these street signs have been changed since 1975. Sincerely Antoni Maria Claret Palmarola i Creus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmarola (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You can see all the street signs from Spain here: commons:Category:Street signs in Spain. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know Commons policies for galleries but I guess you can just replace the images with others in commons:Category:Street signs in Spain. They were added in 2006 when there was probably far fewer images to pick from. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What you have linked to is a gallery of all images which have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and classified as "street signs". They are certainly not intended to be representative. I admit it is rather surprising that there are only five from Spain. I don't know if there are in fact more pictures of Spanish street signs there, which have not been categorised; or if it's just that only five have been uploaded, and two of those are for streets named after the late dictator. Maproom (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies – I somehow failed to see the earlier, more helpful, answers. Maproom (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You are amazing

Hello Wikipedia. You all are amazing and I appreciate so much all you do!! I had posted a page about Nancy Renfro but it was deleted and I'm not sure why. When I go to your delete page and enter "Nancy Renfro" as it was posted the query comes back that it's not found. Would you have any other suggestions for me? Many thanks!! Debbie Roberts 2602:306:3BE8:4320:9968:9274:1AAD:F434 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There has not been an article called Nancy Renfro and I can find no mention of the name anywhere at the English Wikipedia. This is the first edit by your current IP address and User:Debbie Roberts has never made an edit. Maybe you didn't save the page or posted it to another website. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

problem with jimmy carter home page

It's been hacked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7005:E300:1C6B:222D:C221:1AE4 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A used template was vandalized. It has been fixed and the user blocked. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr John Reid

Your bio of Dr John Reid omits the important distinction between a doctorate and a Dr with medical qualifications. It is well known within the NHS that when appointed Minister of Health, he insisted on being referred to as 'Dr' John Reid. Abuse of such a title is not welcome within the Health Service. Subsequently John Reid had to drop the title of 'Dr' as being totally inappropriate with anyone in the healthcare system who is not a medically qualified person. Using the title from the doctorate is, to put it mildly, 'pulling the wool over peoples'(patients') eyes' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.39.8 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the article in question John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan? (We have many articles on people named John Reid, but he is the one who was Minister of Health in the United Kingdom.) If there was a publicized controversy about his use of a questionable title of "Dr", you may discuss on the article talk page, providing a reliable source, or may edit the article, being prepared to discuss your edits on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that he had a Ph.D. in history. He was therefore entitled in the academic community to be called Dr. Reid. He was not entitled in the medical community to be called Dr. Reid. That appears to be what the original poster is saying. If such a controversy was described in reliable sources, such as The Times or The Economist or The Guardian, it can reasonably be mentioned in the article. But it has to have been mentioned in reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)