Help desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4

Please help, our draft has been deleted, but the reason why i did not work on it recently is that i got cancer

After more than half a year of treatment, it seems i have managed to battle most of it, but it has been hard, and i had no energy or mind to follow up the declined draft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:COOLympics

Now when i wanted to start looking at it again i found it has been deleted....Please, can you please help me get that back? I spent so much time on it before i got ill :(

Thank you VERY much if you can help fix this, and make the draft editable again!!!

Best regards

Liv Storli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolliv (talk • contribs) 00:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolliv:: Please follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. Also, in future, please sign your messages with four tildes (~) to make it easier to reply! Thanks for editing Wikipedia. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolliv: If you look at Draft:COOLympic you will see that the ADMIN who deleted the page felt that this article was G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion, but since several of the articles I started have also been deleted as G11 I believe ADMINs are not infalliable. So the next question I would pose is what should one do when one's article is deleted with no discussion as wp-spam? Good luck, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Exclude all subpages from search

Is it possible to exclude all subpages from a Wikipedia search? Help:Searching gives only a way to restrict your search to subpages. I want to search the WP namespace without sifting through a thousand results for WP:Articles for deletion/Foo and the like. Is this possible? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a way to eliminate subpages of all pages but -intitle:"Articles for deletion" or -prefix:"Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" should come close to your specific goal. It still includes "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion" and others you may not want. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

X for deletion, featured picture candidates, sockpuppet investigations, WikiProject Spam, tips of the day… I don’t think they could all be excluded that way. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This came up at WP:VPT recently, and there was no easy answer: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 152#Complex searching. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link?

Is there a simple way of creating a kind of permanent link for a section that will be filed?--Hubon (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a section? No, those can be changed without notice. But you can get permalinks for any given revision from the edit history, and you can link to sections of those. But can you be more explicit in what you’re asking for? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What I mean is: on German Wikipedia, we have a tool called "permanent link" in the tool section which we can create such permanent links with of the whole page at least, but that would totally suffice for me here, too. By the way, I know that sections are changed all the time... Best--Hubon (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Permanent link" under "Tools" in the left pane is part of the MediaWiki software so it's present in all wikis. You can turn it into a section link by later clicking the section in the table of contents and copy the url. It will not show edits made after you clicked "Permanent link". The English Wikipedia has a bot which sometimes updates section wikilinks after the section is archived. I don't know which cases are handled by the bot. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course – I must have overlooked that! Thank you very and sorry for the inconvenience. Best--Hubon (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

How can I stop another user repeatedly altering an entry with the wrong information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feelgoodbingo (talk • contribs) 08:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to be about a content dispute over The Chase (UK game show), there should be a discussion at Talk:The Chase (UK game show), per WP:BRD. †dismas†|^(talk) 08:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other user has left you a polite message on your talk page. In addition to the links provided there and by Dismas above, you might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 08:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"New" editors with suspiciously advanced knowledge of Wikipedia

I have several times come across "new" editors who suspiciously hit the ground running displaying advanced knowldege of Wikipedia procedures etc. Yet the SPI process is based on the prerequisite that you have worked out which previous identity that editor is likely to have had. But what happens if you just dont know who the previous identity is likely to be. Surely any new editor who hits the ground running is intrinsically suspicious.--Penbat (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious != Harmful. Some people do in fact lurk, or have rebooted their online presence for legitimate reasons. We don't pry into it unless they're actually doing something that hurts the project or articles. --erachima talk 10:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly but it must be quite common for editors to circumvent a block with a new Id yet it is not obvious who the previous Id was. It may require a lot of detective work.--Penbat (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it is possible, Penbat. More often than not though these editors return to the same articles with the same edits/editing styles and get caught at SPI. Not a perfect process if they don't but usually not harmful. -- Dane ^talk 10:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually really obvious because they jump back into the same subject area and run into the same people they were fighting with before. --erachima talk 10:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are all sorts of legitimate reasons to start a new account (I did so temporarily this year due to a glitch preventing me from operating this one... but the socks keep gnawing the same bones Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add another example, I registered an account in 2008 but it eventually got mothballed because it wasn't really useful at the time. The content I was editing was mostly quiet corners, and where I was on high visibility areas, the type of editing I was doing was low profile: copyediting, formatting, ref digging, etc. In other words, where I was engaged I was engaged with the encyclopedia more than I was with the community. In places where I did try to reach out, like here or here, I found nothing but empty talk pages, and no one has even commented there yet after eight years.

So some times you will find that people who register an account do so precisely because they intend to engage the community, because if you don't intend to do anything but quiet editing, an account isn't really useful, and an account only becomes attractive once you start to get frustrated by being anonymous. TimothyJosephWood 11:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Timothyjosephwood. Applause. Couldn't have understood it better. Lourdes 14:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Timothyjosephwood said. Anecdotical evidence based on myself: this AfD nomination was my 20th or so edit after my account was created. While I was not totally familiar with the process (I later !voted for deletion in that AfD, and nominated by hand although Twinkle is waaay less error-prone), an AfD case with policy links displays "advanced knowldege of Wikipedia procedures" - acquired by lurking around, not by phoenixpuppetry. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this file properly published under OGL?

A certain Wikipedian translated Gladstone (cat) into other language Wikipedia, and she wants a cat's portrait we can use freely. That article is used File:GladstoneCat.png, but the image is uploaded only on enwiki and tagged {{Non-free use rationale 2}}. Even though it is tagged {{Non-free use rationale 2}}, it is also tagged {{OGL}} too. Is it properly published under OGL? If so, I can transfer it to Commons and use another wiki...--Kkairri (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kkairri. I've done a little research on this matter, and the answer is it's ok to put the photo on Commons. For the record, here's my research, from the Commons Help Desk:

Over at the Wikipedia Help Desk someone asked if it's ok to transfer a photo from English Wikipedia to Commons. The image in question is tagged with an OGL (Open Government License), which is issued by the United Kingdom. Is that an acceptable license for an image to be placed on Commons? The OGL license is included on the Wikipedia Free Licenses page, which makes me think OGL would be acceptable at Commons. There is a complicating factor that needs to be clarified. The image in question also has a conflicting license tag on its file page: a British Crown Copyright tag, which explicitly says it is a "non-free license for the purpose of Wikipedia." I don't know yet which license tag is correct for the image, OGL or Crown Copyright. Assuming Crown Copyright is not needed, and the OGL license is correct, can the image be uploaded to Commons? Thanks for any info. DonFB (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OGL is accepted, there's a template {{OGL}}. Crown Copyright just means that the copyright holder is the crown, it's not a license and it doesn't conflict. --ghouston (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DonFB (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice! I'll transfer it into Commons.--Kkairri (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN

Mlíkovský, Jirí (2002). Cenozoic Birds of the World (PDF). Vol. Part 1: Europe. Prague: Ninox. p. 150. ISBN 80-901105-3-8. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help) has an incorrect ISBN, even though it's the same on the linked text. I've looked at Help:CS1_errors#bad_isbn. I need this to be right since it will be in a WP:FAC eventually, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that error was pointed out previously at Proardea. Other articles such as Trachyphonus use {{Listed Invalid ISBN}}. You might try contacting the publishers? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

|ignore-isbn-error=true

Do not use {{Listed Invalid ISBN}} in cs1|2 templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a page

Good day.

Please I don't understand why some new pages are deleted without much interaction. It takes a while before pages are put up yet it takes no time before they are deleted even those which are necessary. This is because I have put up a page which has been deleted even when I made the requested references about the bibliography of an important person. And I have not been asked about the importance of the person to determine the so-called notability and the page was already taken down. All the time it took me to put up the page has been a waste and I feel very, very offended about this.

The deletion relates to the page Simon Nwakacha bibliography.

Simon Nwakacha is the chairman of Imperial Schools Limited, one of the best schools in Kaduna state, Nigeria which has operated for 20 years. The school comprises of nursery, primary and secondary sections with over 1000 students and 150 staff. Imperial Schools Limited, under the leadership of Engineer Simon Nwakacha begun the construction of a private university three years ago, a mega (multi-billion naira) project in Kaduna state. Simon Nwakacha believes that with the size of the project, those who would be interetsed in taking part in some way would like to read and know about him to know whether to be associated with him. All the information provided about him are true.

Simon Nwakacha and I therefore feel seriously offended that whoever decided to take down the page has done so without any good faith and necessary enquiry.

I would like to retrieve the file or that it be put back up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallydate (talk • contribs) 15:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vallydate. It looks like your article has been tagged as being obviously promotional, and I have to say, even in the lead: He is open minded, friendly, generous, hardworking and Godly is in fact exceptionally promotional and completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This kind of language appears throughout the article, which is considerably long, but contains almost no references.

I would suggest reviewing guidance on writing your first article, and consider going through our Articles for Creation process, where hopefully experienced editors can give more specific guidance over time. It may be a good idea to get a bit more experience on Wikipedia generally, in order to learn how to write articles which comply with our policy on neutrality, because there is honestly no way the article in it's current form is going to survive without a substantial rewrite. TimothyJosephWood 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my page show Wikipedia before title?

i have created a page Akademi South Asian Dance but its shows up as 'Wikipedia:Akademi South Asian Dance'. how can i correct it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akademi (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Akademi. It looks like you have successfully moved the article into the correct "namespace" (see WP:ARTICLESPACE for further guidance). However, when you did you left behind a "cross namespace redirect". I have requested this be deleted mainly as cleanup, since it shouldn't be necessary to redirect to your article from the Wikipedia namespace. An admin should come along shortly and mop it up for us. TimothyJosephWood 16:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You...also probably want to review our guidance on conflicts of interest since you appear to be editing as an official representative of a company. Failure to comply with this policy may result in sanctions up to and including the loss of editing privilege. TimothyJosephWood 16:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its does reads borderline advatorial made worse by a single purpose account but I don't think it should go for AfD as the org seem notable, although not strictly and unequivocally in a WP sense. Much like Mzoli's created by Jimmy Wales and deleted 22 minutes after (but reinstated and still here). Need a hell of a lot more work though. Will add official web site and removed cats in wrong place in article. The 'Akademi' bit before the title should go however. That is claiming ownership rather than overseeing. Suggest that Akademi stops editing now and let the article live by its own notability.--Aspro (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had a quick look at the article and it does not contain a single reference. Is it too early to hat it? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Advertising content taken extensively on the group's website with minor changes (e.g. "we" changed to "they"). And blocked - promotional username who has now twice created articles about this group - 2006 and 2017 (is this gap a record?) Bencherlite ^Talk 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bencherlite and those others above. If it has been twice deleted, then surly it needs salting as well, to prevent it being recreated (without references again) and by a sock-puppet editing under a new user name? --Aspro (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been created and deleted under two different titles (once each). I'm not going to start salting every possible combination of titles for two instances 11 years apart. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Thanks for the quick reply. Rest assured though. In the mean time someone will bound to have come up with one of those annoying bots that do look for every combination and we' ll back-again discussing it. Ho Ho! At least in the new paper industry an editors job finishes when the presses start rolling but ours seem never ending. --Aspro (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to detect spam pages?

Hello,

I recently found a citation which had become a spam page. I mentioned it in talk, and the citation was removed. This got me thinking, wouldn't it be fairly straightforward for a computer checks if a link in a citation has a bunch of redirects? It wouldn't find every spam page but it would find some and it could always be expanded to include other spam-like patterns.

I started looking at the bot policy, and I'm not entirely sure what direction I should go in. It states that there are bots, assisted editing tools, and scripts. I'm not sure if this type of program would actually be classified as a bot because it states that a bot should require no further decision making, but since we want to replace the citation with a different, valid citation of the same fact further decision-making will be required which makes it sound like an assisted editing tool. On the other hand, I saw that BracketBot exists, so I thought that perhaps this could do something similar where it notifies someone when it detects a dead citation. But then how would it determine who to send the message to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffronsnail (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:Spam blacklist --but what you are describing would require heuristics that WP's spambot doesn't do. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:88A3:6217:E1F4:239C (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links! I'm starting to look into it, but unfortunately my apartment flooded recently which is eating into the amount of free time I have. DX Saffronsnail (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Other Uses" Text

Please see this question on the Reference Desk. Is it possible to change the text in this instance of the "Other Uses" template (I assume not), or should we change to using plain wikitext? Rojomoke (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully answered to everyone's satisfaction there. TimothyJosephWood 19:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada+province of Manitoba+Queen's Printer

The last query re: the above subject was in 2011/2012 I believe... Why is there no listing for a "queens printer" for the Province of Manitoba...this venerable and essential service was established in 1870 and deserves to be listed. R.M. Ginter Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.201.4 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able yourself to whip up a succinct paragraph on the topic using these links:

http://www.gov.mb.ca/queensprinter/

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/q010e.php

https://books.google.com/books?id=kPIZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1614&lpg=PA1614&dq=Manitoba%2BQueen's+Printer&source=bl&ots=Db7Iw9YdNc&sig=HZewvq-kJppQVqXeVGu5yEGvqmM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT-efLranRAhVjh1QKHWNnBK84ChDoAQggMAQ

DonFB (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R.M. Ginter, Is this what you had in mind? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Wikipedia citation format (WCF) bibliographic database project

Hello all. This post explores the idea of a python project to develop a modest Wikipedia citation format (WCF) native bibliographic database application. The software would be user local and represents a stop-gap measure until the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) develops a proper wiki-wide solution to the problem of handling references on Wikipedia.

Background

Creating and tidying WCF templates, like {{cite journal}}, is hard work. Zotero offers WCF export but does a really lousy job of formatting, being limited to horizontal output and an illogical ordering of fields. Its output invariably requires considerable hand processing.

On some occasions, almost all fields are missing, but it should be noted that the Zotero team would like help to improve its web translator routines. There are number of other projects which develop tools for harvesting bibliographic information and producing WCF cite templates. Harvesting citations is an upstream issue and such tools are different from and complementary to the proposal being presented here.

Once a particular citation template is complete and clean, there is no reference management software (that I know of) that can handle WCF natively or even remotely well. The Wikicite application is limited to Windows (I use Linux) and development seems to have stalled a few years back. The pybliographer project shares some structural similarities with what I am considering. It is no longer based on BibTeX, but pybliographer does not support WCF. Moreover, the last update was two years ago and traffic on their mailing list tanked around 2008 (if my memory serves me correctly their lead developer stepped aside about then). Notwithstanding, the pybliographer documentation is also a good place to start.^[1]^[2]^[3] JabRef is clearly active, but does not offer WCF import or export. Even so, it might be an option to contribute code to the JabRef project. The downside is that JabRef is built around BibTeX and their underlying data model may not be very compatible with WCF.

In terms of data design, some of the WCF templates are rather poor, for instance: chapter handling in {{cite book}} and location and date handling in {{cite conference}}. Nevertheless, we have to live with what we have.

The Wikimedia WikiCite project is, of course, the best answer, but it will be a while (several years?) before it is running comfortably.

Proposal

UML class diagram of proposed database

So perhaps a new native WCF reference management system is in order:

written in current python (v3.5 at present on Ubuntu) and developed, in the first instance, on Linux
run locally (that has downsides as well)
command-line (at least while the core functionality is sorted)
good search features
checking and tidying (linting) of markup (the ultimate integrity check is running the template thru Wikipedia)
offers a range of export options including HTML, Markdown, wiki markup, and formatted text, as well as BibTeX and RIS

In terms of scope:

not international (because citation templates are highly language specific)

The command-line interfaces would be:

wcflint — reprocess and tidy a selected citation — interacting thru the system clipboard
wcffind — search the database using nominated fields and regular expressions — via the command-line
wcfadd — add (or remove) a citation from the database — interacting thru one of several supported text editors (nano, emacs, vim, gedit)

I have already drafted up some of the software design. Please see the UML diagram (above) showing the core structure.

I am very interested in feedback, supportive or otherwise. This may not be the best place to raise this issue, so if anyone has suggestions for better forums on Wikipedia, I'd like to learn of them too.

with best wishes, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gobry, Frédéric; Schulte-Stracke, Peter (29 May 2003). Pybliographer user's guide (PDF). Pybliographer Project. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
^ Gobry, Frédéric; Schulte-Stracke, Peter (26 July 2003). Pybliographer development guide (PDF). Pybliographer Project. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
^ Gobry, Frédéric; Schulte-Stracke, Peter (21 February 2003). Pybliographer design handbook (PDF). Pybliographer Project. Retrieved 2017-01-02.

Hi RobbieIanMorrison This very interesting topic is rather "out of scope" for the Help desk, but the Technical Village Pump is the right place to find Wikipedians interested in this type of thing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dodger67. I thought as much. The posting has now moved to Wikipedia village pump/technical forum. Thanks for your suggestion. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone at Wikipedia to help me restore a page that has been taken down

I am the Executive Director of the Jack Mitchell Archives. Last year, for some reason Jack's Wikipedia page was taken down for something supposedly copied without permission or copied incorrectly. All I want is for the sentence to simply be deleted and the page restored. Unfortunately I have not been able to figure out how to do this myself. If someone there can be so kind to help me, the page is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Mitchell_(photographer) Jack Mitchell himself provided the content to someone who composed the page under his instruction before he died in 2013. I do not know who he worked with, I believe it was an independent editor. Please help me. You can contact me through the Jack Mitchell webpage contact form http://www.jackmitchell.com/contact.php Craig B. Highberger — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBHighberger (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Justlettersandnumbers, who did the copyvio blanking last April. Maproom (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Maproom. CBHighberger, I'm sorry this hasn't got sorted out yet. However, I'm afraid I don't think there's much I can do there. I blanked the page because of foundational copyright violations by X4n6; because of the fairly hostile nature of that user's response to that, I don't feel that it would be at all appropriate for me to take any further action there. Someone will need to determine whether this was a one-off good-faith error, or part of a pattern, in which case a WP:CCI may be needed; but at this point that someone should not be me. Unfortunately the copyright problems board is severely back-logged, as is the whole contributor copyright investigation process.

So by far your best course would be to write a new, copyvio-free article at Talk:Jack Mitchell (photographer)/Temp. Unfortunately the page that you have already written there cannot be used, as it contains substantial copying from http://jackmitchell.com/bio.php (please see this comparison). I see that you are the author of that content. If you wish, you can release it to Wikipedia following the steps here, which would resolve the copyright matter; however, such material is not often found suitable for Wikipedia, so even if you donate it, it might well not be kept in the long run.

As for your suggestion that Mitchell worked with a Wikipedia editor to make the page, I find that most disturbing, as no conflict of interest was declared there. Would other editors care to comment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only issue either. The inclusion of highly selective gushing quotes makes this a hagiography. He is clearly notable, and you don't need a love fest in an encyclopaedic biography Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ CBHighberger. Yes, agree that it will be easier to start again. You can do it here: User:CBHighberger/sandbox. Then submit the new improved article here: Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission. It is not practical for us to communicate with you via your professional link to jackmitchell.com - you will have to do it here on WP. Alternatively, get one of your staff that is computer savvy to register as an editor (declaring a Conflict of Interest from the very start so that we don't have go through this again) ; ( if it does go wrong for the second time it might get salted and blocked from being recreated a third time). As a rule of thumb. If someone is notable in the encyclopedic sense they already have had a Wikipedia page created for them. However, if they try to declare their notability on Wikipedia, the article often ends up in this mess. Hope this provides a workable and practical way out of the fix you find yourself in due to Jack going about it in the wrong way. --Aspro (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside:

Not only has Jack got:
Talk:Jack Mitchell (photographer) but
User:Jack Mitchell Photographer with without the parenthesis (quite a resumé he has on there too). Should the latter user-space not be deleted as it serves no purpose anymore. He is not ever going to be in need of it again from that dark-room up in the sky.--Aspro (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pickspace

Draft:Pickspace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pickspace

How can I upload this article online?

79.177.179.30 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is already online. If you mean "How do I get it moved to the main article space", then it must be moved there. But there are a couple things in the way of that. When it gets reviewed, the reviewer will see that you have not shown the subject to be notable per WP:CORP. Right now the referencing needs work. There is only one suitable reference that I see, though that is a guess on my part since I can't read Hebrew.

I suggest you wait for the article to be reviewed and then take the reviewer's suggestions on how to improve the article. †dismas†|^(talk) 00:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

What do I have to do to get this draft submitted and approved with the right type of citing/inline references? I don't understand the help page very well as you can see there's currently an error....

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonneroos (talk • contribs) 22:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is about Draft:Regal Community Theatre Bathgate. It currently cites only one real reference, which is not enough to establish that the subject is notable. There is a second citation, but it doesn't actually cite anything, hence the error message. I have restored the line deleted by Zonneroos, which says "do not remove this line". Maproom (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonneroos (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references duplicate key

Resolved

– Lourdes 05:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the article's name is that of sharon kinne. The change I attempted to make related to an assertion that Sharon Kinne and her husband were married in the Mormon Tabernacle. I don't know what I did wrong when I made the change. Perhaps that is how their marriage was reported in the Kansas City newspaper or in books, but no one has ever been married inside the Mormon Tabernacle in its history. People are married in the Salt Lake Temple, about 100 yards to the east of the Mormon Tabernacle.

How do I make this change without fouling everybody up and leaving red marks all over the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I. Pitidafu (talk) 22:31, January 4, 2017 (UTC)

Hi I. Pitidafu, you seem to have done the change. I've cleaned up the red tags. Thanks. Lourdes 05:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hier