Help desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 16

Disappointed with Wikipedia

I recently had interaction with Wikipedia, essentially extolling the virtues of Wikipedia. I have also donated to the organisation. But I am now horrified to hear how you have blocked or removed credible academic's posts or references to those people. I have considerable respect for these people. Given your remit, this action/behaviour by you represents hypocrisy on the grandest of scale. I indicates that your 'world view' is not as illuminated as I personally along with others have hitherto thought.

Given that I appear to have been blocked from editing as well... You have therefore lost my confidence and support.

This organisation prides itself on being a 'virtual' encyclopedia for, and by the people. Yet this behaviour just proves to us that you are as controlled as the main stream media.

Until such time as you lose the blinkers and shrug off the entities that control what you publish, I will remain in this frame of mind. A shame really given the range of information you handle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deebz270 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deebz270 is not, and never has been blocked, nor has the previous username which was renamed to that, so I don't understand why you say "I appear to have been blocked from editing as well". Do you have another account which is blocked? There are some pages (which have been subject to frequent vandalism) which are semi-protected which prevents them being edited by users which have not been autoconfirmed. As you have fewer than 10 edits you may have encountered this restriction. If you let us know which page you were trying to edit we can tell you whether that is the case. If you were in fact blocked, you wouldn't have been able to edit this help page. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not controlled by any outside entity. Wikipedia neutrally summarizes professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without any additional interpretation or elaboration. We do not use original research, regardless of whatever credentials a user claims. This is for the best. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deebz270. Here, you are talking to a small subset of the thousands of volunteers who maintain and edt Wikipedia. There is no "Wikipedia" for you to have been talking to - there are particular volunteer editors (some of whom may have been administrators or held other roles). If you would be more specific about what it is that disappoints you, then people could look at it and see if they can help; but it's hard to respond in any useful way to a generalised complaint. By the way - any donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit body that maintains the servers that Wikipedia runs on. Nobody on Wikipedia has any way of knowing who makes donations and who does not. --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deebz270: for all I know, your complaints may be justified. I am aware of one article which is effectively controlled by a powerful "entity", and there may be others. But while you don't say what you're referring to, no-one will be able to help or advise you, however much we agree with you. Maproom (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Boeing AH-64 Apache

About an hour ago, I made an edit to the 'Boeing AH-64 Apache' article. For some unknown reason, it was reverted by the user Fnlayson. He/she claims there was an uncited addition, but doesn't specify further. Is there any way to peacefully rectify this impasse? Myopia1 (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added to Boeing AH-64 Apache did have references, but they were given as bare URLs. Look at the other references in the article for the preferred way to supply references. Anyway, to answer your question: you should try to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, and I see you have already done so. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT the first edit made to the article did not leave an edit summary. This is important so other editors can quickly see what has been changed and why. 'Unexplained changes' can easily run the risk of being undone. Eagleash (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Distinguish Between the Sharon Bryant of Atlantic Starr and the death of the indian chief Sharon Bryant.

Your articles about Sharon Bryant of Atlantic Starr and the indian chief Sharon Bryant states that both ladies are dead and that they died on the same day, June 23, 2015. I believe Sharon Bryant of Atlantic Starr is still alive and can't find any info about her death outside Wikipedia. If both ladies are dead, I highly death they died on the same day. Please clear this up and give accurate info about which of the two ladies is dead.Dmacdmac54 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Bryant (singer) makes no mention of death. Where do you think you saw that? Only the indian chief reports a death. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Google knowledge graph mistake as seen here - The section from Wikipedia is just the top three lines, the rest is made up by Google, so please take it up with them - our standard template is

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. - Arjayay (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reported the mistake to Google via the Feedback button. Now we'll just have to see if they ever bother doing anything about it. JIP | Talk 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who deals with announcing events

Hi, you know that there's often events publicized at the top of pages in the wikipedia space. I was wondering if somebody could tell me who deals with that sort of thing? It's just I'd like to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon announced across wikipedia before it begins.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like something for a Wikipedia:Geonotice. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding categories to an article

All I could find is the {{Commons category|name}} tag but is this correct? In the edit section, where do I include this, and also, how many categories do I include? Just one, or any that is relevant to the page? Thank you. |Book-Portal| Talk 10:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BookPortal: See Help:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages. Articles are usually in several categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @BookPortal: – In addition to PrimeHunter answer above, there is a section of Category information at Tips article. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can my band get a Wikipedia page without me filing (as a COI)?

I have seen many bands have Wikipedia pages, and of course I'm interested in getting mine on the site as well as a quick reference for anyone looking to do research. Since I am in the band, I'm automatically disqualified for creating the article. So, how can I get one started without being a part of its creation? If anyone would be interested in writing an unbiased article about us, we have an online presence in social media as well as a website (www.mercyisle.com). I don't need an article saying "OMG this band is the bestest in the world!" only a straightforward informational article would be nice. Ideas, anyone? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by KassandraNovell (talk • contribs) 16:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question and thanks for taking your COI into consideration. First thing I'd recommend is to read over WP:BAND. Does your band meet those qualifications? If so, do you have independent reliable sources to show this? Next, you could create a Draft of the article, even if you have a COI for review. Editors can review the article and determine if it is written well enough for inclusion, or if there are areas to improve, clean up, or if the article wouldn't meet requirements for inclusion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to get an article onto the site when you've got a COI is going through articles for creation. I found this article about the band from doing a Google search. If there are more like that, it might qualify under our inclusion criteria. Basically, what we look for is coverage by professional journalists. The best kind of coverage would be an album review. This list of sources is a good place to start when looking for reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KassandraNovell. Well done for thinking about your COI, as RickinBaltimore says. I would like to point out that your band cannot "get" a Wikipedia page, because no band in the world (and no company, and no place, and no person) "has" a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia has articles about bands and companies and people. This might seem picky, but I think it's important, for several reasons. If we have an article on your band, your band will have no control whatever over its content, which should be based on what people unconnected with the band have published in reliable places: what you or the band say or wish to say is of no consequence, unless others have reported it. One corollary is that if unconnected people have not published very much about your band, then we will not have an article on it. Another corollary is that if somebody has published material about your band that you do not like, it will be up to other editors to decide whether or not that should go into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bands are something of a test case, because so many editors think that their band is notable, and it isn't. Perhaps most editors who belong to bands think that most bands should be notable, but they aren't. The test is that Wikipedia limits what the editor members of the band can do. They can't put an article about the band into article space, and they have to declare the COI, and they have to accept the judgment of the reviewers. Bands are a topic where editors think that their group ought to be notable, but it might not be. (There are other such categories, such as competitive athletes who are not first-tier, and boutiques and other small businesses. It isn't easy for people to say that their group or their friend isn't considered notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase, NinjaRobotPirate, once you have ongoing coverage – not just for one event or announcement – by professional journalists in serious publications you've got it made. Whether you want an article or not, you'll get one. Reliable sources are all you need. - Pointillist (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change image

I am trying to change a jpg on a page associated with Joe Mantello. How do I make this the image for his page?

File:JM 001.jpg

Joe Mantello

Caption1

Caption1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmarlow (talk • contribs)

-- Dismas|^(talk) 17:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmarlow: We can't say because the second image is on your hard drive. But if you got it from just somewhere on the Internet, it is probably owned by someone and you can't simply upload it. Dismas|^(talk) 17:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paulmarlow. Images have to be uploaded (to Wikimedia commons or Wikipedia) before they can be used in an article. If you took the picture yourself, or if the copyright owner has explicitly released it under a suitable free licence such as WP:CC-BY-SA (which will allow anybody to reuse the image for any purpose), then you can upload it to Commons. Otherwise, I'm afraid you can't use it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of Issue messgaes

Hello

I am working on the page of my CEO Gillian Caldwell and the page is showing multiple issues as follows:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (August 2010) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (November 2009) This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (November 2009)

The article is not an orphan and there are several citations on this page. With this in mind could you please tell me how to get rid of these issue messages?

Many thanks

Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjLath (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, before proceeding, it would be best if you were to review WP:COI. Dismas|^(talk) 17:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "orphan" tag, as it no longer applies. To deal with the other tags, someone (preferably not you, see Dismas's reply above) will have to deal with the issues they describe. All the citations on the page are to the subject's CV, or to Global Witness's website, and so not independent of the subject, and unacceptable as evidence that she is notable (in the peculiar sense in which Wikipedia uses that word). Maproom (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger issue with Gillian Caldwell is that despite being previously warned by @Diannaa:, they have reinserted lots of copyrighted material. I've removed it all and requested a revdel. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to understand, BenjLath, is that if Wikipedia is to have an article on Caldwell, it must be based almost completely on what people who have no connection with her or her company have published about her. Almost nothing on her website, or her CV, or on the company's website, or known to you, is of any relevance to an article about her, unless the information has also been published by a completely independent source. --ColinFine (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Dorp, Staten Island

In 1947 -1948 I was in the U.S. Army stationed at Staten Island Area Station Hospital "SIASH". Why is this Army Hospital which cared for wounded servicemen during World War II not a part of this areas history ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.246.27 (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I'm guessing that what you mean is that none of the thousands of volunteer editors who create Wikipedia has yet added that information to the article New Dorp, Staten Island. Like everybody else, you are welcome to improve any of our articles. But bear in mind that we require all information to be cited to a reliable published source: personal knowledge and unpublished papers are not enough. I would have thought that this would be an adequate source, though. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HELP: My User Name/Signature Hijacked?

PLEASE HELP: Seems My Username and/or Signature may have been hijacked and presented as an edit I had *not* performed - I've now updated to a newer PassWord - any other Advice/Followups Welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drbogdan: 99.99% of the time, this is the result of an accidental click of the "rollback" button, which shows up next to edits in your watchlist, contributions lists of other editors, and recent changes. From personal experience, I can guarantee you that it is possible to do this without knowing you've done it until someone complains. It's more likely to happen on a phone or tablet, but definitely still easy to do on a laptop/desktop too. This is several orders of magnitude more likely than an account hijack.

If it happens frequently, there are things you can add to your .js or .css pages to remove the rollback buttons. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you used a computer to which others have access? Is it possible that you walked away from such a computer while logged in? Maproom (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam and Maproom: Thank you *very much* for your replies - access to pc by others unlikely - no problem whatsoever - will wait and see at the moment as suggested - in any case - Thanks again for your replies - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You edited the article in December so I guess it's on your watchlist or you were viewing something else with a rollback link. I agree this is almost certainly a case of Wikipedia:Rollback#Accidental use of rollback. I have done it myself at least once and now have this in my common.css:

.mw-special-Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display: none;}
.mw-special-Contributions .mw-rollback-link {display: none;}

It keeps rollback links in page histories and diffs where I want them. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Thank you for the common.css codes - seems like an excellent idea - to be on the better side of things at the moment - Thanks again for the suggested codes - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's drafty in here

If you want to submit a draft to WP:Afc and a previous draft by another editor has already been rejected, what's the procedure? Do you just submit it on the same page? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the new draft is not basically the same as the old draft, just go ahead and submit it. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 March 16

Contents