Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 June 25

Help desk
< June 24	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 26 >

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.

June 25

Invisible block???

User:Venustar84's IP address has been blocked until August of 2019 (according to her communications using a another IP). However, I can't find any evidence of the block anywhere, and as far as I can tell, no one notified her of this block. Is it possible that there was a mistake, or am I missing something? Venustar84 has been warned before for disruptive editing. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like they are experiencing an Autoblock. The account gets autoblocked if it uses an IP address of a recently used blocked account. It usually lasts for 24 hours, I think. They can edit normally after autoblock expires. Supdiop (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Anastasia [Missionedit], this makes no sense. Venustar84 is not autoblocked and she just posted to your page. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

NeilN I think Venustar84 got autoblocked before 8th June. They thought it was ban when it was actually a simple autoblock. See here Supdiop (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Anastasia [Missionedit], is she all right now or is there still an issue? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is still an issue. According to Venustar84, she is posting to my talkpage using a different IP to get around the block. She has been communicating with me over the past couple of days about it, and there still seems to be a problem. Unless, of course, she just hasn't checked if she is still blocked in the past day or so. But she says that the notification that pops up when she tries to edit says the block won't expire until August 2019 [2]. Again, I'm relying on Venustar84 for this information, and I'm having a hard time getting any more out of her. I just see no evidence of this block, and have no way of helping her situation. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Missionedit:An auto-block wont effect a non-blocked editor for more than 2 days, unless the original blocked editor that triggered the auto-block tries to edit again. There is also a clear message delivered that tells you if your autoblocked, and the account would be unable to edit from other IPs for a time after being autoblocked, which is not happening here. Instead, it sounds like the IP in question has been WP:HARDBLOCKED, which blocks "logged-in users from editing from this IP address". There will be nothing showing on the account that attempts to edit from the blocked IP, so the editor would need to provide the IP they are having a problem editing from for someone to check (or check it themselves). Monty₈₄₅ 04:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I also checked a database report last run June 8th, after the first message, for any Hardblocks expiring in August 2019, and there are none. However the report excludes blocked proxies, which are exactly what is most likely to be hardblocked, so the IP being identified rightly or wrongly as a proxy could be the root cause. Monty₈₄₅ 04:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If I am the source for the information provided (criticism of FreedomPop)

If I am the source for the information provided (criticism of FreedomPop) How can I get the editors to quit undoing my edits in the criticism section of the FreedomPop page. The only thing I have stated is first hand knowledge, which is more reliable than any other source, as it is from my experience.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchAngle01 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Put simply, you don't. Saying "I know it to be true" is not a reliable source, see WP:identifying reliable sources. Unless there are reliable sources to support your claims, they will not be accepted, since everything on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources not own knowledge/original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia only accepts professionally published sources, and rejects first-hand claims. We cannot get in your head, so we cannot verify your claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well at least I know that the FCC accepts my word, as does a court of law - by your logic, everything on this site has to be rejected, as all the information came first from someone's first hand experience, unless reported by FOX News -- And everything I've said can be verified at FreedomPop's own Forums, Twitter, & Facebook accounts, as well as reports made to the FCC & FTC. Providing citation without accepting first hand accounts, leaves Wikipedia without any reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchAngle01 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Our policy on requiring published sources isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No... We actually do cite published sources that anyone can verify for the most part. Check out the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Your writings are a primary source for whatever you think is true. A secondary source would be a professional scholar who evaluated your writings, probably to place them within some greater societal context. A tertiary source would be someone who evaluates a bunch of secondary sources about your writings and similar writings, and summarizes the secondary sources' claims and positions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and generally sticks to secondary and tertiary sources.

In short, you need someone else to professionally publish a book about your claims before we can include them.

Also, we regard Fox News as a potentially biased source, and usually require additional sources to confirm their claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'll accept your inflexible rules and request a complete list of reliable sources as I am sure at least one of them has published information about the bait and switch tactics of FreedomPop. And what completely mystifies me is why is there a criticism section on the FreedomPop page, as criticism is totally subjective. No need to answer the last question, as a complete list of acceptable sources will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchAngle01 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You can find our guidelines for identifying reliable sources in this link. Basically, it has to be a professionally published newspaper or magazine article, or a professionally published book (preferably with an academic background), not a blog, not a forum post, and not a self-published or pay-to-print-published book. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that even if you find a source Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. There are many other considerations particularly WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

ArchAngle01, It doesn't matters how reliable or trustworthy person you are, still your own opinions can't be included in Wikipedia article unless they are supported by reliable source. You are citing from forums and forums are not reliable sources. For example if in any forum I write that "London is very bad city, people of London are even worst" so should I also write it in article London by giving source of that forum? Obviously not. If any independent reliable organization or news agency like BBC do any kind of survey or study in London and gives its report as "London is one of most polluted city" or "London ranks very low among 'best cities to live' in the world" then it can be added in article. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 03:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:But it's true!. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Managing wiki account

How can I insert my picture in my wiki account ? Mentalist karan (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You can use commons:Special:UploadWizard to upload an image from your computer to Wikimedia Commons. Then, on your userpage, add [[File:imagename]] (replacing "imagename" with the title of the image, including the filename extension of ".jpg" or ".png" etc.) where you want the image to be placed. If you want more advanced options, such as how to give the image a caption, see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Diavolo

The link Diavolo currently takes you to a redirect to a redirect. It seems that a manga character and a dance group have both been laying claim to the title. Even if I understood the current mess, I believe that special powers are needed to "create an article over a redirect"; but a disambiguation page is clearly needed. I hope an admin can help. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As neither of those is plausibly the primary topic, I've gone ahead and created the dab page. I don't think hatnotes back to the dab are required in either article. BTW, no admin rights required. Rwessel (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Iodine infobox difficulties

When I tried to add the description "sometimes classed as a metalloid" into the 'series' section of the info box for the element Iodine (linking 'metalloid' to the congruent Wikipedia article), the entire description became enclosed with the [[ ]] symbols used for making such links. I have tried but failed to troubleshoot it or find an explaination at this time. I hope that this platform will give me some assistance.Aardwolf A380 (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Aardwolf A380:That field will only take a certain parameter. To make a comment you need to use the |series comment= field. I've added it for you. - X201 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding preferences

In my friend's wiki account there is no feature of wp:twinkle .why is that ?Mentalist karan (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition says Twinkle[...|rights=autoconfirmed]. This means the option is only given to autoconfirmed users, i.e. accounts which are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

guideline

hello i want to write article about website www.fashion2015-2016.com is there any faculty of this plz guide me.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabeljack (talk • contribs) 14:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Isabeljack: I recommend starting off by taking a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, which describes the steps you should take to prepare for and writing an article. Be sure that the website meets our notability guidelines for websites, which requires that the website be significantly covered in a variety of reliable sources. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with SuperHamster - looking at your current talkpage and username, you possibly own this website. You shouldn't write an article about your own website, or any other topic where you have a possible "conflict of interest". See also WP:PROMO. If reliable independent sources have reported about that website, other contributors will eventually create an article about it. GermanJoe (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GermanJoe: Wikipedia:Your first article does cover COI, but I didn't take a close look at anything deeper than providing a basic answer. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Add article on biocartels

Can I add the concept of a BIOCARTEL to Wikipedia?

A biocartel is a double edged theoretical concept based on host-symbiont species interrelationships. From one aspect it is a host species and all of its symbiont species. From another aspect it is a symbiont species and all of its host species.

I first coined the term “biocartel” in 1997 in this publication.

Windsor, Donald A. The basic unit of evolution is the host-parasite “biocartel”. Evolutionary Theory 1997 August; 28(12): 1939-1941.

This article explains the basic concept.

Windsor, Donald A. Biocartels – Units of ecology and evolution based on host-symbiont interrelationships. Archives of the SciAesthetics Institute 2000 August; 1(1): 4-12.

These two articles present examples.

Windsor, Donald A. Biocartel of the American Robin (Turdus migratoris). Archives of the SciAesthetics Institute 2000 August; 1(1): 13-18.

Windsor, Donald A. Biocartel of the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Archives of the SciAesthetics Institute 2000 August; 1(1): 19-28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.206.91 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Creating an article about a term which you coined, and referenced entirely to papers which you wrote, sounds to me like a contravention of Wikipedia's ban on original research. Maproom (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

... and it is very rare for Wikipedia to have an article on a word that hasn't even made it to Wiktionary's list of protologisms. It would be wiser to wait until your publications have been cited by others and the term is in common use. JO Corliss seems to be the only one so far. One problem is that the word had been used with a different meaning by Marc Goodman. Dbfirs 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Original research consists of adding things to Wikipedia that haven't been published elsewhere; citing your own research that got published in academic journals definitely isn't original research. The problem is what Dbfirs addresses, that the concept doesn't appear to have gotten enough coverage to this point. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

how to change misinformation

I am an intern at an organization. My organization is upset because we have like 5 different pages and none of them represent us correctly. We are an organization with three sites, which can be confusing. The organization as a whole has a brand name, then each of our three sites have separate names. These sites fall under the umbrella of our brand name. Ideally we'd like one main page than can be found by researching our name, then within that one page which would obviously include a description of our organization, there would be links in the description to three other pages for each of our three sites. How do we accomplish this series of changes and edits? Am I correct that there is no way for us to do it ourselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.16.50 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that the conflict of interest guidelines say you should not do it yourself. Instead you should post on the relevant article's talk page and request someone make the needed changes, documenting the changes you want to make by citing reliable sources.

In addition, when posting on the help desk, it might be useful for myself and others reading the help desk who would like to help you if you linked to the articles you are talking about. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that "this is confusing, or misleading, or (with suitable references) incorrect" are persuasive arguments for getting somebody to apply your suggestions, as they offer improvements to Wikipedia. "The article is about us and we would prefer it this way", on the other hand, is an argument which carries no weight whatever. --ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Also note that your organization (does that mean company, or not-for-profit, or...?) doesn't have any pages here in Wikipedia. There may be five articles about various aspect of your organization; but you don't have them, they are about their subjects. Nobody owns an article in Wikipedia, least of all the subject of that article. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There may be issues that need fixing. But no-one here can judge that, let alone fix them, without knowing what articles this is about. Maproom (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

How to reinstate a deleted page?

Hello,

My client's page was recently deleted. Can I reinstate the page and add further references, images, etc. to add validity and proof as to who she is?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.182.83 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your client? I suggest you read the conflict of interest guideline, paying particular attention to paid editing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Omnicare

Regarding the article about Omnicare, Omnicare, please note that the logo associated with this article is NOT correct. I have no idea how to remove the image or how to upload a new image. The article states that the logo came from Omnicare's website (www.omnicare.com), however, if you look at that website, you will see that this is not the correct logo.

Can it be updated by someone else? If not, can you tell me how to do it?

Thanks! Jldanon (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If I were convinced that that logo is not Omnicare's, I would remove it, and then maybe search for a better one. But I can't check: http://www.omnicare.com/ tells me "This webpage is not available ... ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED". Maproom (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks pretty similar to the current one; which is here. I had to look hard to notice that the new one uses black text for the word Omnicare where the old one used dark blue. Not sure why Maproom got an error message.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I still get the error message. Maybe I am on the wrong side of the Atlantic. Maproom (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not working for me either, and I'm also in England, guess it's an England/Europe problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Can the web page be viewed in Canada? If anyone is editing in the middle of the night in Australia or India, can the web page be viewed in Australia or India? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It works for me in Denmark. I have uploaded File:Omnicare logo.gif and added it to the article. The original post sounded like the logo was completely wrong but it was just a minor tweak made by the organization itself after the old version was copied from the official website in 2010. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Jldanon, what is your connection to this company? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)