Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 May 3

Help desk
< May 2	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3

SandBox questions

I was working in my own personal sandbox and for some reason either the work was deleted or the account was changed. The article that I was posting was "A Cognitive Risk Framework". CogRskFrmWrk user name? If I start a new wikipedia page about a topic for which I am familiar but no other articles or topics are available about the subject how is it approved?

Who decides and how should I respond to an article that is rejected. The entire process appears to be wrapped in a mystery?

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueBook4 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any deleted contributions on the account you're using, nor a User:CogRskFrmWrk.

I did see Draft:Cognitive Risk Framework for Cyber Security (although I have deleted it because it was undeniable plagiarism), which was written by a JaMesB2017. I see that JaMesB2017 was previously named CogRskFrmWrk, but would have had to request a change of username.

All new articles most contain specific citations multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are unaffiliated with the subject but still specifically about it. The article material must only summarize the citations not elaborate nor combine them into statements not immediately supported by the citation. On the other side, however, articles must not plagiarize the source material. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparent inconsistency in rollback links

The following lines appear in my recent contributions:

• (change visibility) 04:38, 3 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1,900)‎ . . User:Nyttend/Virginia NRHP/Bedford ‎ (Got six) (current)
• (change visibility) 04:37, 3 May 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-320)‎ . . User:Nyttend/Virginia NRHP/Augusta ‎ (Got one) (current) [rollback: more than 10 edits]

Nobody's ever edited these two pages, aside from me, and I've never used my alternate account to edit either one of them. I can understand it appearing on both (because it would always appear whenever I'd made the most recent edit to a page) or it appearing on neither (because no other account had ever edited, so rollback wouldn't work), but why would it appear on one but not the other? Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The second says "more than 10 edits" due to hitting mw:Manual:$wgShowRollbackEditCount. Maybe it stops examining the page history at 11 edits back when "more than 10" is known, so it doesn't detect you are the only editor and there is nothing to roll back to. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of a Wiki page I created

Hi Team Wikipedia,

I had created a page on behalf of my company on 5/2/17 titled 'CitiusTech Inc.', but it got deleted by the user DESiegel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DESiegel).

The reason for deleting the page said G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Please help me understand what part is promotional and I will remove it.

Looking forward to a swift reply from your end.

Thanks, Edgar

Attaching the content here for your perusal:

[Collapsed content for readability ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)]

CitiusTech is a healthcare technology solutions and services provider headquartered in Princeton, NJ. With over 2,700 healthcare technology professionals, CitiusTech serves about 80 healthcare technology companies/ISVs, large hospitals/IDNs, payers, providers and life sciences organizations and has presence in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. CitiusTech offers services and solutions for healthcare software development, healthcare interoperability, regulatory compliance, BI/analytics, consumer engagement, care coordination and population health management. In 2016, CitiusTech ranked in Healthcare Informatics HCI100 – for being in the top 100 US healthcare IT vendors by revenues.[1] CitiusTech is a member of the CHiME Foundation,[2] and has technology partnerships with AWS [3] , Microsoft [4] and IBM. [5] CitiusTech was founded in 2005 by Rizwan Koita, Jagdish Moorjani and Bimal Naik. In May 2014, General Atlantic, a global growth equity firm, invested about US$ 100 million to acquire a minority stake in CitiusTech. [6] Awards and Recognition  2016 – CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best Companies To Work For in IT & ITeS’ (7)  2015 – CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best IT-BPM Companies To Work For’ [8]  2015 – CitiusTech awarded with The Gold Stevie® Award for the ‘Most Innovative Tech Company of the Year’, by the American Business Awards [9]  2014 – CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best Companies To Work For’ [10]  2013 - CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best Companies To Work For’ [11]  2013 – Rizwan Koita honored with The Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award in the Startup category for CitiusTech [12]  2012 - CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute® for India’s ‘Best Companies to Work For’ [13]  2011 – CitiusTech wins the Red Herring’s Top 100 North America Award [14] References 1. CitiusTech listed in the annual listing of Healthcare Informatics HCI100. 2. CHIME Foundation’s executive healthcare partner CitiusTech 3. CitiusTech and Amazon Web Services (AWS) partnership 4. Microsoft and CitiusTech’s technology partnership 5. CitiusTech and IBM partnership 6. General Atlantic invests in healthcare tech firm CitiusTech - March 20, 2014 – via Business Standard 7. ‘CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute in 2016’ 8. ‘CitiusTech wins ‘2015 Best Companies to work for’ award for the 4th year in a row’ 9. Gold Stevie® Award for the ‘Most Innovative Tech Company of the Year’ – September 15, 2015 10. CitiusTech, India’s ‘Best Companies To Work’ for in 2014 11. CitiusTech wins Great Place to Work Award in 2013 12. Rizwan Koita – EY Entrepreneur of the Year India, Start-up 13. CitiusTech awarded by Great Place to Work Institute in 2012 14. Red Herring North America Winners

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarjstephens (talk • contribs) 07:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, most of it was promotional, which was a sufficient reason to justify its deletion. But there's also a more serious problem: the article included no references to establish that its subject is notable. To learn about the rather strange way that word is used here, click on it. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that lack of sources to demonstrate notability is not grounds for speedy deletion, althoguh it may be grounds at an deletion discussion. In this case, the entire article read like a company brochure. It might be that this firm would be notable were proper sources found and the article rewritten to be descriptive rather than promotional. DES ^(talk) 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, if you have questions about why a particular admin took a particular action, it can be helpful to ping that admin, or post on that admin's talk page. Admins should be willing and able to justify their administrative actions on-wiki. DES ^(talk) 13:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Edgarjstephens, Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information.. Also please be aware of the restrictions on editing with a conflict of interest, and particular in a paid capacity. --ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Issue with sortable table

Here is a table where data (casualities) is not sorted properly : Israeli_casualties_of_war#Regular_conflicts. There must be a simple trick I'm not aware of. Please someone show me so that I'll be able to fix it myself in the futureKimdime (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily simple, but the advice is at Help:Sorting. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed with data-sort-type="number".[1] See Help:Sorting#Forcing a column to have a particular data type. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ! --Kimdime (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

How much interpretation is acceptable?

I am currently editing the article on the Battle of St Quentin Canal. The (official) American source which I could quote says that the British put down their barrage for the Americans in the wrong place. The (official) British/Australian source says that the barrage was put down in the "wrong" place because the American commander did not want the barrage to fall on his men, whose whereabouts was uncertain (i.e. it was done in agreement with the Americans). I could mention these conflicting interpretations (both views can be accessed online in the original texts) but I haven't seen this conflict of interpretations referred to in any of my other reference works, so would inclusion in a Wikipedia article be acceptable, or would it be straying too far into the territory of original research. (The matter of whose decision the positioning of the barrage was is important, because the American author uses it as an example of why it was wiser for the American Expeditionary Force to operate under independent American command (which was a source of friction between America and her allies during the war) Daveleicuk (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Daveleicuk. If these sources are both reliable (as it seems that they are from your comment) and the point is important, i would mention the difference of opinion, unless perhaps several other sources contradict these two and have a unified position. But if it is simply that other sources do not mention the issue at all, i would include this difference between sources. Reporting what reliable sources say is not original research in the Wikipedia sense, it is the basic activity of writing sourced articles. DES ^(talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DES, this is helpful Daveleicuk (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

First Drug Submarine found in United States

My name is Ivan Kellerman, I found the first submersible drug submarine in the US in November, 1988 while surfing. I would like this added to the archives and be apart of history. http://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/11/11/Creative-drug-smugglers-turn-to-submarines/8252316907705/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58gram (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is on the talk page of the specific article you think it should be added to. This page is more for help on using Wikipedia. What article do you think this info would help? ~ GB fan 14:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Presumably: Narco-submarine? --107.15.152.93 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a paragraph to the article. --107.15.152.93 (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Facebook Page

I am not a big user of Wikipedia so pardon my errors in terms and such. Not even sure how to respond to someone who answered my "talk" so I will try again as the answers were not accurate.

I am contacting you from the City of Williamsburg Parks and Recreation Department. We own Kiwanis Park in Williamsburg Virginia. I contacted Facebook because the park was listed as a page out there in Facebook land stating "Kiwanis Municipal Stadium Park" and had all the wrong information. Facebook told me I could not claim the page for the City of Williamsburg or make changes to it as it was a wikihub. They told me I had to log into wikipedia and make changes to the page. As soon as I changed the name of the heading from "Kiwanis Municipal Stadium Park" to "Kiwanis Park" the change was reflective on Facebook. Only problem is we already have a Facebook page called Kiwanis Park which is making it very hard for our residents to selected the correct facebook page.

Here is the link to the page in question. All the text is wrong, the pictures are wrong. It is not even a soccer stadium.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kiwanis-Park-Williamsburg/1402477856649149

Isnt there any way this page can be deleted?

Thank you. Colleen Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwilson23185 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just for info, this is a continuation of the Delete a page from wikipedia discussion above - X201 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

... and that, in turn, was a continuation from WP:Help desk/Archives/2017 April 27#Change header name on a page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cwilson23185. To continue a discussion on this page, pick "[Edit source]" at the top of the section, and add your new comments on the end. You can indent, if you wish, by starting a paragraph with one or more colons (':' - don't start with spaces, or it will format it wrongly). I'm sorry you're having a frustrating time, but as was explained above, Wikipedia has no control whatever over what Facebook does with its data. If Facebook is misinterpreting data from Wikipedia (such as misidentifying a place), I'm afraid that is something that Facebook has to fix. Wikipedia will not compromise its own data just because somebody else is misusing it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Colin refers to "[Edit source]" at the top of the section, but for those of us using the traditional Wikipedia editor it says merely "[Edit]". --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear : That Facebook page is not administered by Wikipedia. You are asking the wrong people.

(Deleting the page from Wikipedia will not solve your Facebook problem.)ApLundell (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Someone has created a wikipedia page for my uncle, Doug Dunville. I have a photo of him when he played for the Toronto Marlies. I was hoping to upload it to his page but I'm not sure how... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahjolee (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarahjolee! Let me point you to a great resource that will not only explain how to get your image into the system, but then use it online. Take a look here: MOS:IMAGES. There can not be any copyright issues so hopefully you took the picture or it falls under fair use. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sarahjolee, but contrary to what Gtstricky says, there may indeed be copyright issues. If you own the copyright (eg because you took the picture), then you are able to release it under a suitable licence when you upload it; but otherwise, it can only be used if the copyright owner specifically releases it in that way: see WP:donating copyright materials. If Doug Dunville is still living (implied but not stated in the current article) then the picture will almost certainly not meet the fair use criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

How is that contrary? That seems to be exactly what I said. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Gtstricky, when you wrote "There can not be an copyright issues" I thinlk you meant "There must not be copyright issues" but ColinFine quite reasonably read you as saying "It is clear that there are no copyright issues., which is quite different. DES ^(talk) 00:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh... that silly "y" will do it every time. Fixed it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 00:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No, Gtstricky, it's not the 'y'. It's deontic vs. epistemic readings of "cannot". Thanks for elucidating, DES. --ColinFine (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

adding link to online book

In this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_St._Quentin_Canal#References

the first listed item, the American Battle Monuments Commission book, is available as a downloadable pdf or for viewing online. Chapter VI is the relevant one for my ref and I'd like to add it. I'd appreciate help with this Daveleicuk (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• I found a much later edition (1992) here:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/023/23-24/

Do you believe we should replace the existing referenced (1938) edition with this one, or do you have a link to the old edition? -Arch dude (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help. How to stop someone from maliciously editing and adding inaccurate information to an article?

Arion Golmakani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Someone is playing game with an article related to Arion Golmakani, an American author. The contributor is adding to the article that Arion Golmakani has won an award for an erotic book he has written. Neither which is true. Can this person's editing ability be revoked? Thank you Solacers (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems as if this IP will soon be blocked for 3RR. Unfortunately, attention seems now to be brought to the article / subject itself; which most likely should be submitted for AfD. Maineartists (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

... as a copyright violation Pppery 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

References

A bot has archived my talk page post

On 17 March 2017, I posted a note on Talk:Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain about a claim that a Polish airman had been killed by a mob of British civilians. The reference was to a book of anecdotes. I added a "dubious - discuss" template to the article. Now User:ClueBot III has archived the post after only six weeks and clicking "discuss" takes you to a blank page. WTF? Alansplodge (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The bot is set up to archive after 365 hours (about 15 days). You can unarchive the page by cutting the text from the archive and pasting it back on the main talk page. Add another comment (and sign it) so that it will not be immediately re-archived. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the configuration so that it archives after 365 days (8,760 hours), not 365 hours. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

That is rather bizarre: why would anyone intentionally set it for 365 hours? I agree that your change is good, but beyond that I also believe that someone misconfigured it previously. Nyttend (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. Alansplodge (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I think whoever set it up thought the number in the age parameter corresponded to the number of days, not hours. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Neilson-Terry

There is a big gap between "family" and "early years" sections. Is this normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbernadette (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

To me the gap is only as large as all other such gaps in the article, and there are no hidden characters in the 'Edit' view that might cause problems. Perhaps this is something specific to your browser settings and screen size. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the correct "Line Break" command or template?

Can someone please explain the difference between all of these various "codes" (below)? I can't make heads or tails of the documentation pages. (For example, at: Template:Break.) And I am not sure which ones are proper to use and which ones are not.

<br />

</br>

<br>

<br/>

{{break}}

{{brk}}

{{br}}

What's the difference between all of these? Which ones are proper/improper to use? And which is the one to use when I simply want to insert a blank line? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that </br> is improper to use, because putting the slash before the text is an indication that you're ending something, comparable to <strong>text</strong>, where </strong> ends the bold text. Not sure on the rest of the HTML-type ones. {{brk}} is a redirect to {{break}}, so there's no difference between them. {{br}} is a redirect to {{clear}}, which prevents text below itself from appearing until the whole screen is clear. Compare [2] with [3]; two tall images on the right side are far taller than the text, and in the first version, all the text therefore appears adjacent to the first image, but in the second one, where I used {{clear}} before some of the text, all the text below that template was forced down past the bottom of the lower image. It's a useful technique, but it's totally unrelated to making simple line breaks. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

<br/> (or <br />) is required in XML, and i believe standard in HTML 5 and higher, but in HTML generally it has exactly the same effect as <br>. In most wikipedia pages a simple blank line has the same effect withotu cluttering the page, although inside templates or tables some version of <br> or {{break}} may be required. {{brk}} and {{crlf}} redirect to {{break}} and have exactly the same effect, the difference is a matter of taste. DES ^(talk) 00:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In most cases where you want a blank line, simply make a blank line in the source without adding any code. Never write </br>. See Wikipedia:Line-break handling. It says: "Until Tidy is removed, the forms <br>, <br/> and <br /> are equivalent. After Tidy's removal, only <br /> can be guaranteed to display correctly. Editors should therefore use <br />." <br /> on a source line with text makes a line break without inserting a blank line.

There is rarely reason to use {{break}}. If you have problems with the documentation then I suggest you never use it. {{brk}} is just a redirect to {{break}} so avoid that too. {{br}} is a redirect to {{Clear}}. It doesn't make a blank line but can fix some layout issues. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But, a lot of that technical speak was lost on me. To be honest, I barely understood any of those replies. For ten years, I have always used this command: </br>. (Probably because I saw someone else use it.) And it has always created the blank line that I want. Sometimes, a "bot" will change that code to some other similar code. Sometimes, a human editor will do so. Sometimes, they are simply left alone. So, I am totally confused. Any help? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, simply adding a blank line of "text" (i.e., no text) never works for me. Never. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I see a blank line or at least greatly increased blank space between lines where you made a blank line in the source between your two latest posts. Do you not see extra blank space there? What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Browser = Mozilla Firefox, I believe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

But do you not see more blank space after your 00:16 post than between the lines of the post? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I do. But I thought that that was a function of the fact that I typed in four tildes (this sign: ~), so Wikipedia inserted my name and a date stamp. But I have no idea. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Signatures have no effect on whitespace. It sounds like blank lines do work for you. It's the standard way to create extra blank space between paragraphs. When certain features like indentation, section headings and some templates are involved, a single blank line may not give extra whitespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Maybe I am getting confused. And maybe I am mixing apples and oranges. This is the problem -- perhaps another, totally different problem? -- that was on my mind. When I type something like this:

This is Line Number 1.

This is Line Number 2.

I hit a "carriage return" (for lack of a better word) after I type "This is Line Number 1." On an old-fashioned typewriter or in a Microsoft Word document, I would get two separate and distinct lines of text. In Wikipedia, I get this:

This is Line Number 1. This is Line Number 2.

Namely, both lines are all "jumbled together" as one single line.

Note: But, in the above example, I had to hit TWO carriage returns, because it would not display what I was trying to show. Normally, I would only hit ONE carriage return. But, with our without "nowiki codes", it was not displaying correctly here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"blank line" means a line with no content like this:

This is Line Number 1.

This is Line Number 2.

It now sounds like you don't actually want a blank line but only want a line break, i.e. ending the current line and starting a new right below it like this:

This is Line Number 1.
This is Line Number 2.

<br /> is the recommended code for that. You are right that a single line break in the wikitext is ignored. It does not produce a line break in the rendered text. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Yes, thanks. Your reply hit the nail on the head! Thanks for the clarification! That's exactly what I meant. I was referring to a "line break" and not a "new blank line". Sorry for the confusion. What I was really trying to say was "I want to move down to the next line of text, much like a carriage return does on an old typewriter". I used the term "new blank line" instead, in error. Sorry. Yes, I meant "line break". Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; explain the difference between all of these various I took as you wanting more than a really basic explanation. </br> is bad coding, and it may soon stop working; please use <br /> instead. {{brk}} redirects to {{break}}, so use those two interchangeably. {{br}} redirects to {{clear}}, which has a completely different purpose. And finally, to make a separation in text without any of these pieces of code, you have to have two line breaks, i.e. text, then a line with nothing, and finally the next piece of text one line farther down. A single line difference, so every line has some text, is insufficient. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)