Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 October 1

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.

October 1

creating a new page

I'm wondering if I can create a new wiki page using/linking previous wiki pages and information? I would like to link up information relating to Iron Overload and Iron Deficiency As a page does not already exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Iron+Overload+vs+Iron+Deficiency&namespace= thank you for your time. Regards Kim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.71.144 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "using/linking previous wiki pages and information". All wikipedia articles should be supported by citations to reliable sources. No Wikipedia article is ever considered a reliable source to be cited in another, as per WP:CIRCULAR and other polices and guidelines. Usually a new page should not cover the same topic that is covered in an existing page, but narrow topics can coexist with broader ones. Also, be careful to avoid original research and particularly synthesis that goes beyond available sources. DES ^(talk) 00:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I am not quite sure why you would want to do that anyways. Overload and deficiency are opposites of each other. Overload is too much and deficiency is too little. I don't see why you would need a comparison page when the two are antonyms of each other. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 1) you could try to make the case to merge the two articles into one (i dont see it, but it is out of the areas where i even pretend to have competency) 2) while you cannot use a Wikipedia article as the footnoted source for another article, you are free to use the references that support any wikipedia article to support claims in another article. (Wikipedia has an article about X that is supported by sources A, B, and C. In writing an article about X-PRIME, I can use sources A, B and C that have already been collated at X sources A, B, and C also talk about X-PRIME.) (note that if you take text wording as well as the references, you must appropriately attribute the original creation as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Pageview database needs some administration

Recently, editors have noticed some dates have not compiled for the pageview database at http://stats.grok.se/. We have been trying to get someone's attention at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Missing_stats_dates. Now that User:Henrik has become inactive, there is no one to take ownership of such requests. We have been getting ad hoc requests handled at times, but right now we need someone who knows how to perform the machinations that update the database.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Rob Pilatus

I have two questions regarding Rob Pilatus. (1) The article shows two different dates of birth (in the lead and the infobox) and neither is sourced. The date of death has multiple sources and says he died at 32. How should the conflicting dates of birth be handled? (2) Source number 12 is a German language source (and is a dead link). Can sources written in a language other than English be used on the English Wikipedia, particularly when there's no way to know what the source says to verify the content? Czoal (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1) If the age of death is sourced you can use {{Birth date based on age at death}} to work backwards.
• 2) Yes, sources in another language are acceptable just like off-line sources are acceptable. If it is a dead link you can try https://archive.org to see if there is an archive for the page. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor must've seen this thread because they made some edits about the birth date. The edits appear to be different from what you're recommending, so I better not touch it. Czoal (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czoal: The results for the reader are essentially the same. I just did it manually rather than letting the template do the work. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Czoal (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved a page, but the new page has the old page's talk page

Hi, I created Women in music and to do so, I had to move another article (Women in Music, an article about a newsletter) to the new title Women in Music (periodical). The new article is working fine except that when you go to the talk page on Women in music, it takes you to the talk page of Women in Music (periodical). I would appreciate advice on how to fix this issue, Thanks!OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• @OnBeyondZebrax: Whenever you move an article it automatically creates a redirect for both the old article name and the old article talk page. I broke the redirect for Talk:Women in music so you should be good. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I appreciate your assistance with fixing this!OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@OnBeyondZebrax: The article relies on one major source and I doubt its neutrality as well as its need to exist. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not? There are articles about Women in computing and Women in science. Perhaps it would be better off in list form like List of women in mathematics. The article is brand new. Just because it relies on one source does not mean it is unacceptable for inclusion. There are plenty of articles here that rely on one source. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate text

Is it right to copy-paste a paragraph from one article to other article referring to tohe samew topic. The text in question is the following:

The proportion of Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin was at an almost constant 80% during the Middle Ages.[14][15][16][17][18] Non-Hungarians numbered hardly more than 20% to 25% of the total population.[14] The Hungarian population began to decrease only at the time of the Ottoman conquest,[14][15][18] reaching as low as around 39% by the end of the 18th century. The decline of the Hungarians was due to the constant wars, Ottoman raids, famines, and plagues during the 150 years of Ottoman rule.[14][15][18] The main zones of war were the territories inhabited by the Hungarians, so the death toll depleted them at a much higher rate than among other nationalities.[14][18] In the 18th century their proportion declined further because of the influx of new settlers from Europe, especially Slovaks, Serbs, Croats,[citation needed] and Germans.[14][15][18][19]

I don't think it is a good idea to put the same thing in two articles, but I'd like to have a confirmation that I am right. 86.123.40.170 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See Copying within Wikipedia. You can reuse the text under the CC-BY-SA terms which cover all Wikipedia content, but you need to attribute the original article, either in the edit summary or with the {{copied}} template. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hitting the random button and seeing if the articles that come up could be improved.

I have been hitting the random button and seeing if the articles that come up could be improved. Sometimes something like Devi Kanya Kumari comes up. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the article is talking about and I don't think the average reader will be able to get anything from it either. What do I do with such an article? I hate to give up and try another random page in the hope that it will be easier to fix.

To show what I am talking about, here are a couple of random quotes from the article:

"So for using similies, and satyres for a poem they personified many manifestations of the supreme almighty for better understanding."..

I suppose I could reword this so it looks like English and fix the spelling errors, but what does "personified many manifestations of the supreme almighty" mean?

Then there is this:

"The poor Devi waited for the Lord and finally she thought that she has been snubbed. With unbearable insult, pain, grief and anger she destroyed everything she saw. She threw away all the food and broke her bangles. When she finally gained her composure she chooses to be a Sanyasin forever and took penance. Ages later Bana, tried to lure and approach the goddess without realizing who she was. The infuriated Bhagavathy, who was the Bhadrakali herself, slaughtered Bana at once. Moments before his death Bana realized that the one before him is the Bhagavathy, the Almighty itself. He prayed her to absolve him of his sins. Bhagavathy maintained her divine presence in the place, in the Devi Kanyakumari Temple."

That sentence looks like a direct cut and paste from [1] so I went back and found the edit that added it.[2] That edit also contained

"For the purpose of rites and rituals in the temple the Bhagavathi is imagined as (Sankalpam) as Balambika, the kid goddess. The rites and rituals for the worship of Devi Katyayani, one of the Nava Durga is practiced here. She is considered as Bhadrakali Bhagavathy by devotees while worshipping her."

That sentence looks like a direct cut and paste from [3].

The problem is in determining whether those sources copied from Wikipedia. The dates on them suggest that Wikipedia was first, but the fact that both sources contain a lot more material in the same writing style that was never in Wikipedia suggests that we copied them. Or perhaps we both copied from some other sources I didn't find? --Dalek Supreme X (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Outdated content: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Dear Editors:

I am an employee of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and, thus, for ethical reasons, do not want to edit SIPRI's page. However, I have twice submitted corrections on the 'talk' pages of both our institute and it's new Director, with no response from Wikipedia's editors. Could you kindly help make the appropriate changes (outlined below)? I would be very grateful.

The article on the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute lists Ian Anthony as the Interim Director (see article text below). However, Dan Smith (formerly head of International Alert and PRIO, respectively) was appointed Director by the Swedish government and took up his new role on 1 September 2015. Like SIPRI's article, Dan Smith's article has not yet been updated to reflect his new position. Please reference the articles below (in Swedish and English) which document the change in SIPRI's directorship. I am also happy to supply SIPRI's own press release on the subject, if it would help.

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,

Kate Sullivan

Current text in article on the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute: "Director The Director, who is appointed by the Swedish Government, has the main responsibility for SIPRI's work programme. Dr Bates Gill served as SIPRI Director from 2007–2012.[3] In September 2012 the Swedish Government appointed the German economist Tilman Brück as his successor.[4] Brück held the position of SIPRI Director from January 2013 to June 2014.[5] In June 2014 the SIPRI Governing Board appointed Dr Ian Anthony as Director for an interim period.[6]" Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Current text in article on Dan Smith: "Dan Smith OBE (born 1951) is a British author, cartographer and peace researcher. He is the Secretary General of the independent peacebuilding organisation International Alert and Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Manchester." Dan Smith (British author)

Articles citing Dan's move from International Alert to SIPRI: (International Alert)

(Mundus International)

(Swedish Government)

(Svenska Dagbladet, Swedish newspaper) Kate.A.Sullivan (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

References

@Kate.A.Sullivan: I have updated the articles. Thank you for bringing the issue to our attention. Article talk pages are a good, but often slow, avenue for updating content since not all articles are watched by our diligent editors. As a major in international relations, SIPRI is a topic I am familiar with and knowledgeable about, so I will be watching this article in the future and keeping it up to date and up to standard. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, Kate.A.Sullivan, if you add the template {{request edit}} to your suggestion on the talk page, it will get brought to more people's attention. --ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Article is not factually correct

Snakehead (fish)

This cites that the Snakehead can be found in "two ponds in Philadelphia". I am an avid snakehead fisherman in Philadelphia. They can be found in the Delaware River, Schuylkill River, at FDR Park (I'm guessing those are the two ponds you're talking about) and in literally 40 other bodies of water in Southeastern PA. They are also all over South Jersey.

You can barely cast a line without catching one if you know what you're doing. Might want to update that.

This is no longer a rare fish in our area. I've caught 284 in the past 4 months.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:8302:9E9:492D:78FD:EAAC:29C1 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a published reliable source that can be referenced? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: The article that is used as a reference for that sentence is from 2007. I expect things have changed, as you say, but we'll need a new reference to update that info. Dismas|^(talk) 12:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing the title of a wikipedia entry

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to change the title of Croton Oil entry. There are several different types of croton oil that do not cause skin irritiation so this entry is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhw1121 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally this would be done using the page move process. However, if the information about different types of croton oil can be verified in reliable sources, it would make more sense to add this information to the existing article, rather than change the title. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to donate, BUT.....

I use Wikipedia all of the time. It is, without question, the greatest reference guide to be found on the Internet.

But, before I donate, I'd like to clear up two definitions, which are meaningful to me.

Southpaw: Since "Rocky", most people think that the term "Southpaw" originated in boxing. And, with the new boxing movie "Southpaw", even more people will be misinformed. Yes, the term Southpaw refers a Leftie, which I am. But it didn't originate in with boxing. It originated in baseball. Specifically, Major League Baseball.

MLB stadiums are built with Home Plate in the West and Center Field in the East. (The one exception is the new Comisky park, which had to be facing differently due to the space on which it was built).

The reason MLB stadiums are built this way is so batters don't have to look in to the sun, and the expensive seats are in the shade, for afternoon and early evening games.

When the pitcher is on the mound, his left hand is to the South.

We can thank Vin Scully for introducing that term, in reference to Sandy Koufax.

CC: CC does not stand for Carbon Copy. You did refer to it’s proper usage in your definition, but it shouldn’t even referenced by Carbon Copy.

The actual meaning of this acronym is CIRCULATED COPY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.134.80.17 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That latter assertion is sheer and utter nonsense, and reeks of folk etymology by people too young to remember the widespread use of carbon paper and carbon copies. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

See

• http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/carbon-copy.html
• http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/28105/where-did-cc-and-bcc-come-from
• http://techdaycamp.com/2011/10/the-story-behind-cc-and-bcc/
• http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/carbon-copy
• http://calexis.com/blog/2014/03/27/the-politics-of-the-carbon-copy/

and other sources for "Carbon Copy". DES ^(talk) 17:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As for southpaw, our Southpaw article is a redirect to southpaw stance. This is because the baseball definition for 'southpaw' is just that, a definition. Therefore, it is at Wiktionary. Specifically at wikt:southpaw. The 'southpaw stance' article is more than just a definition. It is an encyclopedia entry. I know that may seem like a pedantic difference.

Maybe our 'southpaw stance' article should point out that the root of the term's name comes from baseball. Dismas|^(talk) 14:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Footnote/References consistency

Calais1984 username Trying to get the footnotes consistent is what I am having difficulty with. Also why is when typing stuff in and it's saved, then it's not there. I've just noticed I'm missing a footnote/reference. Beats me. I'll re-do it. Over to you please.14:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Calais1984 (talk)

Draft:Medical Error Action Group I believe.--ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Calais1984: Have you tried the help page info at WP:REFB? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with my Wikipedia page and my user-name change

HI, Thanks for helping me out! I am Fiberartist42 who created the Central Arizona Museum Association page on Wikipedia. I noticed that on September 24th someone edited links and the Archived CAMA records one doesn't work. Also I was notified early in the process that the user name Camamember wasn't appropriate since it indicated membership in the organization I was writing about. I filled in the form and was duly registered as Fiberartist42, the user name under which I completed the page. There still seems to be some confusion as to the user-name change on the site. Help! Fiberartist42 (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Central Arizona Museum Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just added a convenience link. Dismas|^(talk) 16:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the link that you mention. I'm not sure why you weren't able to do it yourself. Dismas|^(talk) 16:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As for the username confusion, when your username was changed from Camamember to Fiberartist, your talk page was simply moved to the new name. Nothing in the content of the page was changed. That's why notices on your talk page still have the old name. The contributions on the CAMA page though were changed in the database to associate with your new name. That help? Dismas|^(talk) 17:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, your user name change went through in August, and your user talk page was automatically renamed as part of that process, see this edit. Your draft article was accepted on 18 September and moved to Central Arizona Museum Association, and I see that you have made some further edits to it since. The "Archived CAMA records" link in Central Arizona Museum Association##External links goes to http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/search ; isn't that where it should go? You could, I suppose link to this more specific URL? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have concerns about the copyright status of some of the images in that article, namely the pics of the brochures/promo materials and of the state proclamation.--ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Tooltip

Since when did the "View history" tooltip change from "Past versions of this page" to "Past revisions of this page"? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-history said "Past versions of this page" before it was deleted 26 August 2015. Now we instead see the MediaWiki default "Past revisions of this page". PrimeHunter (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the MediaWiki default was once "Past versions of this page." with a period. MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-history was apparently created in 2007 to override the default and omit the period. The default has since changed to both omit the period and replace versions by revisions. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Improve the MW page

MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-create is displayed when you attempt to create a description page here for an image that's on Commons. For example, go to [4] to see the message in action, since the image is actually at Commons:File:Armed Klansman in southeastern Ohio, 1987.jpg. The MW page provides a link to the image at Commons, "Maybe you want to edit the description on its file description page there", but the link goes to the file itself. I'd like to change the link so that it goes directly to the edit screen, i.e. click it and you're taken to [5]. What changes can I make to the MW page so that it doesn't go simply to the Commons main filepage? The current code (still the MW default, not modified here) is This file is from $1 and may be used by other projects. Maybe you want to edit the description on its [$2 file description page] there. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

$2 is simply the url like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armed_Klansman_in_southeastern_Ohio,_1987.jpg, so the simplest way to do make the edit link you want is $2?action=edit. But File:Armed Klansman in southeastern Ohio, 1987.jpg is missing several features on commons:File:Armed Klansman in southeastern Ohio, 1987.jpg such as Commons categories, section edit links, History tab, and links to the uploader and their contributions. I think it's better to direct people to the Commons file page where they can see the features and choose to do something before or instead of editing the page or a section. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armed_Klansman_in_southeastern_Ohio,_1987.jpg$2?action=edit doesn't work; the result is File:Armed Klansman in southeastern Ohio, 1987.jpg$2. Is there another way to do it? (2) I don't understand why it matters that we're missing things like Commons categories. Why do they matter here? I'm just suggesting that we be directed to the Commons edit page instead of the file description, since it seems reasonable that the typical person editing the page was intending to edit the Commons page, so it will save a step by sending them directly to the edit page instead of making them detour through the description page. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

$2?action=edit in the message would make working links like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armed_Klansman_in_southeastern_Ohio,_1987.jpg?action=edit. Users may for example click edit on the English file page to try to add categories which are already on the Commons file page. I don't like the idea of cross-wiki edit links. I think users should at least view a wiki before trying to edit it. I wouldn't want Commons or other wikis to have direct edit links to us. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now that's thoroughly bizarre. I've been editing en:wp and Commons for nine years and never realised that I could just append ?action=edit to a filename to get to the edit page: I thought I had to be in the w/index.php? type of URL. Now as far as your other comment, I understand. I'll have to disagree, so I guess I'll welcome your input at the proposals village pump. Thanks a lot for the technical help. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

?action=edit works on all /wiki/ pages. The url https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armed_Klansman_in_southeastern_Ohio,_1987.jpg?action=edit is in your own original post so I'm extra surprised to hear you didn't know about it. I think /w/ url's are preferred in most situations because they are disallowed for robots in https://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt. But here the English file page edit url would usually have /w/ so compliant bots wouldn't reach the page with the /wiki/...?action=edit url. robots.txt works on prefixes and couldn't disallow the latter. PrimeHunter (talk)

Okay, now I'm really confused, because I didn't notice that I'd done that. How did I get there? [6] is what I thought I was doing. By the way, feel free to comment on the Village Pump proposal about making the change; I copied your reason for disagreeing with my suggestion, so you don't need to say anything unless I misunderstood you or you want to say more. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

question about linking to galleries

Hello, I am a photographer and I have many galleries of animals and insects. I would like to link my galleries to the individual information pages for each animal and insect. What would be the best way to do this? I try, and I receive a warning that I am spamming, when in fact I just want the photographs to be viewable for everyone's viewing and information gathering.

Thanks, Rob

An example would be: http://www.robprophoto.com/archives/animals_and_insects/praying_mantis/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobProPhoto (talk • contribs) 21:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• @RobProPhoto: The way Wikipedia works is that images must be uploaded and tagged with the proper copyright. They then can be placed into the proper articles. Linking to an external website is considered promotion and is against WP:SPAM. If you wish to upload your work that is fine (and appreciated) but you must go through the correct channels. If you wish to maintain copyright over your images you can upload them under free use however to do that you must upload them to only this Wikipeida and you must be autoconfirmed to do that. Right now you would have to go through files for upload. If you wish to donate the images to Wikipedia please see WP:DONATEIMAGE and follow the instructions. If you have any other questions please let me know. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that all the images in your praying mantis gallery are heavily watermarked, which probably makes them unacceptable for use in Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

--Stabila711 Thank you for your response and information. I am not looking to release my copyright to my photos, however I am trying to share the information on my pages. I think I may have given you a bad page example. From this next example, you can see I have included quite a bit of added information at the bottom of the webpage on the particular topic at hand. Please view this page, and let me know your thoughts. http://www.robprophoto.com/archives/animals_and_insects/astoria_sea_lions/index.html Thank you for your time and patience — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobProPhoto (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711: - please read up on WP:NFCC - uploading to Wikipedia is an alternative to Commons only in certain narrowly and specifically defined circumstances, not a broad exception to the licensing requirements of Commons.--ukexpat (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ukexpat: Thank you, but I am aware of that. My point was Commons is only for free use images. Non-free use, or fair use, images cannot be uploaded to Commons. If the user wanted to upload an image under fair use they would have to upload it directly to the English Wikipedia not Commons. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Which would require meeting all the WP:NFCC criteria (stricter than free use), which the images being discussed here would not.--ukexpat (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not a collection of an external links, nor here to provide your website with traffic see the policy here about what type of links are acceptable and what kind are not. We would love it if you are willing to share your photos freely via the Wikimedia Commons, but otherwise, people will need to find your photos on their own. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• @RobProPhoto: Well text is different from photos. All text in Wikipedia must be attributed to reliable sources and be verifiable. To take your example, you could improve the article on sea lions by including their fighting habits if, and only if, your points are backed up by reliable sources. These can include marine biology journals, reputable newspapers, etc. Articles here cannot really include "personal experience" stories as that information is not really encyclopedic. We also cannot copy and paste information from other websites as that is also copyrighted. So any information that is properly sourced would have to be written in your own words. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

RobProPhoto has been blocked indefinitely. Czoal (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUSblog

Is SCOTUSblog a reliable source? Czoal (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For what claim in what article?

They are heavily quoted by reliable sources about things US Supreme Court and so it may be appropriate to use for analysis about a decision or something. Probably not appropriate for claims in the BLP area. Not appropriate in establishing notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's regarding contentious content at Laurence Tribe; in particular, this section. The article's edit history will give you a clear idea of what's going on. There are discussions about it on the article's talk page and on the BLP noticeboard. And, yes, whether the content is even notable is a primary issue. Czoal (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI... the discussion started with this thread on the Tribe talk page, then spilled over into the thread below it. Czoal (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Update Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello sir/madam, I am writing this mail for the updated request in Deepika Padukone page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepika_Padukone)

The request: I have gifted a website for her, named www.IamDeepikaPadukone.com, so i request you to updated the link on her page as fan made website.Even actress Deepika Padukone is aware this site & confirmed this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deepika_Padukone&oldid=683697615#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_1_October_2015

Please find the news featured in press/media below:

Link1: http://www.missmalini.com/2014/11/27/aww-deepika-padukone-receives-a-special-gift/

Link 2: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/celebs/Deepika-Padukone-gets-special-gift-from-fan/videoshow/49062131.cms

Link 3: http://businessofcinema.com/bollywood_news/deepika-padukones-special-gift-fan/183831

Link 4: https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/photos/10-crazy-things-bollywood-fans-slideshow/10-crazy-things-bollywood-fans-did-favourite-celebrity-photo-021232464.html

Link 5: http://www.bollywood.com/celebrities/deepika-padukone/news/deepika-gets-website-gift

Link 6: https://www.clapsnslaps.com/blogs/view/an-unusual-gift-from-fan-to-deepika-padukone/?/blog/an-unusual-gift-from-fan-to-deepika-padukone

Link 7: http://www.india.com/showbiz/deepika-padukones-fan-gifts-her-a-website-204307/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitjaindeigner (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:FANSITE, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:"..."Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Czoal (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have also responded to your semi-protect edit request on the actual page the same way as Czoal. External links to fansites are not usually accepted. In addition, the link you provided is dead and does not display any actual information. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.